Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

The Institute of Museum and Library Services through an Indiana State Library. LSTA Grant

http://archive.org/details/worksofabrahamliOOIinc

O > IS M 0 V

LINCOLN IN JUNE, i860 From a Photogravure after a Portrait by C. A. Barry

THE WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

SPEECHES AND DEBATES

1856— 1858

j Introductions and Special Articles by

Theodore Roosevelt William H. Taft

Charles E. Hughes Joseph H. Choate

Henry Watterson Robert G. Ingersoll

And Others

Managing Editors

JOHN H. CLIFFORD

MARION M. MILLER

Volume III

THE UNIVERSITY SOCIETY INC. NEW YORK

Copyright, 1907 By Current Literature Publishing Compcnv

Copyright, 1908 By The University Society Inc.

CONTENTS

PAGE

Preface vii

Introduction

Lincoln the Statesman. By William Howard Taft ix

Speeches (August i, 1856, to Jul}' 17, 1858)

Fragment of Speech at Galena, 111., in the Fremont Campaign, in Reply to Objectors to Agitation Against the Extension of Slavery. About August 1, 1856 1

Fragment of Speech in Fremont Campaign. October 1, 1856 3

Fragment of Speech at a Republican Banquet

in Chicago. December 10, 1856 9

Speech in Reply to Senator Douglas at Spring- field, 111. June 26, 1857 12

Argument in the Rock Island Bridge Case. Extracts from a Report in the Daily Press of Chicago, September 24, 1857 . . . . 31

Notes of Argument in a Railroad Case. June 15, 1858 34

Speech in Acceptance of Nomination as United States Senator, Made at the Close of the Re- publican State Convention, Springfield, 111. June 16, 1858 35

Speech at Chicago, 111. July 10, 1858 . . 46

Speech at Springfield, 111. July 17, 1858 . . 72

The Joint Debate with Douglas. Together with Correspondence in Regard to the Debate, and Intervening Speeches (July 24 to October 15, 1858) Introduction. By Horace White . . . 101

CONTENTS

Correspondence in Regard to the Debate. July 24 to July 31, 1858 . n6

Fragment of Speech in Rejoinder to the Reply of Senator Douglas to Mr. Lincoln's Spring- field Speeches of June 16 and July 17, 1858. De- livered at Beardstown, 111. August 12, 1858 . 121

Speech at Lewiston, 111. August 17, 1858 . 125

First Joint Debate, at Ottawa, 111. August 21, 1858 128

Second Joint Debate, at Freeport, 111. August 27, 1858 174

Report of Speech at Clinton, 111. September 8, 1858 224

Fragment of Speech at Paris, 111. September 8, 1858 226

Fragments of Speech at Edwardsville, 111. Sep- tember 13, 1858 227

Third Joint Debate, at Jonesboro, 111. Septem- ber 15, 1858 231

Fourth Joint Debate, at Charleston, 111. Sep- tember 18, 1858 287

PREFACE

Beginning with the speeches that Lincoln de- livered in the Fremont campaign of 1856, this volume concludes with his opening address in the Fourth Joint Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, which was held at Charleston, 111. Between the debates with his great opponent, Lincoln deliv- ered several speeches, fragments of which were taken down by Horace White, now of the New York Evening Post, and then reporter of the Lincoln-Douglas debates for the Chicago Trib- une These are printed here in their chrono- logical sequence, as is also the correspondence of the principals preliminary to the Debate.

Excepting two legal arguments, all the speeches in the volume relate to the extension of slavery, the burning political issue of the time. This had been kindled by Senator Douglas's Nebraska Act, repealing the guaranty in the Mis- souri Compromise of free soil to the new Terri- tories north of the southern boundary of Mis- souri, and had been fanned by the Dred Scott Decision into a flame that endangered the free- dom even of States already established in which slavery was constitutionally prohibited.

INTRODUCTION

Lincoln the Statesman.

By William Howard Taft.

There are few lives which seem to have been shaped so providentially to meet a country's great need as that of Lincoln with reference to slavery and the Civil War. Coming from a childhood of the greatest penury and discomfort and squalor, mingling with the humblest and the poorest in a Western settlement, Lincoln acquired a sense of equality and democracy and a love of equal rights that never left him and gave deep color to his whole life. His soul revolted at human slav- ery. He had a tenderness of heart and a sym- pathy with his fellow-man that manifested itself in the smallest details of his life, and he had a power of putting himself in another's place which gave him a profound sense of justice. He under- stood the play of human nature as few men have. He knew the motives and the things which in- fluenced the plain people as no other American in our American race of politicians has understood them. He had a sense of humor and a power of quaint expression and a capacity for creating which enabled him to give force by homely illus- tration to the arguments which his great power of logic enabled him to drive home.

x INTRODUCTION

GREATEST POLITICIAN OF HIS AGE

He was the greatest politician of his age, and while he had deeply imbedded in his moral nature the principles in favor of human liberty, he did not purpose to sacrifice his influence to bring about the goal of his whole life's ambition by go- ing so fast in extreme declarations of abstract principles as to deprive him of future usefulness. I have read and reread with pleasure the story of Lincoln by Herndon, his partner, and noted with intense interest his unwillingness to attend a meet- ing of abolitionists lest he might lose his influence with the Whigs, who did not sympathize with the abolitionists. Nor did he wish to offend the abolitionists. So he made a court engagement for himself some twenty miles away, which made it impossible for him to attend the meeting. Now, it would be easy to say that this was cow- ardly, that this was the trick of a mere politician, but I think we may well ascribe the motive to a desire not to lose his usefulness at a time when the future seemed big with opportunity for him. His whole life showed that, while he had ideals, he never allowed the longing for the impossible to interfere with the securing of the possible.

A PARTY MAN

He was a party man, as every man must be who wishes to leave his individual impress upon the individual character of the nation. I do not mean for a moment to deprecate independence of party, or "mugwumpism," because I believe that the independent vote on the whole exercises more direct effect in the election than the party vote. It must be so. But while all independent

INTRODUCTION xi

voters as a mass exercise more control over the decisions in an election, as individuals they do not do so. The man who would retain his indi- vidual influence and effect good measures in our country, where parties are a necessity in the carrying on of the Government, must be a party man. And no one recognizes this more fully than did Lincoln.

ECONOMIC VIEWS

Lincoln's economic views were not distinctly marked. Early in his career he favored internal improvements in Illinois, as a member of the Legislature, to such a point as to involve the State in a heavy indebtedness, which never in- ured largely to the benefit of the people. His mind was not directed, even during the war, to economic subjects. He safely delegated the finances of the country to his Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Chase. As a follower of Clay, he was in favor of the protective or American sys- tem, as it was called. During his administration the Morrill tariff was passed, for the system of protection to American industries on the modern plan was then fully inaugurated.

THE DECLARATION AND SLAVERY

Lincoln relied greatly in his discussions on the slavery question upon the terms of the Declara- tion of Independence. He dwelt upon the postu- late set forth in that instrument that all men are created equal, and he insisted that, in so far as the Constitution recognized slavery, and in so far as slavery was an institution of our Government, it was a departure from the Declaration of Inde-

xii INTRODUCTION

pendence. He maintained that the words "all men are created equal" included the negro as well as the white man, but affirmed with great empha- sis that he did not mean that the men who were thus declared equal were necessarily fitted at once to be voters or take part in the Government. What he contended was that they were entitled to the bread they earned and should be given the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Lincoln was not a man stiffly dogmatic. He was a man who allowed the application of his principles to be controlled by the fitness of the thing. His whole nature was that of sweet rea- sonableness and common sense.

It is true that the Declaration recites that all just government must rely on the consent of the governed ; but that is to be interpreted as mean- ing a consent of the governed who have intel- ligence sufficient to enable them to discriminate as to what is government in their own interest. Lincoln in his debates with Douglas did not in- sist that the colored men, as they then were, should take part in the Government as voters, but he evidently treated the postulate in the Declaration of Independence as the ideal toward which all government should work.

One of the reasons why Mr. Lincoln was so bit- terly opposed to slavery, as he said in his con- troversy with Douglas, was that it was an incon- sistent blot upon our escutcheon as a free country, and that it robbed us of our proper world influence in favor of freedom and liberty. Noth- ing could more clearly show his desire that we, among the nations of the world, should wield an influence in favor of the spread of free institu- tions and in favor of international morality.

INTRODUCTION xiii

UPHOLDER OF THE LAWS

The one thing that distinguished Lincoln in all his life was his contention in favor of the equal administration and protection of the laws. From the soles of his feet, through all that long frame to the top of his head, he was a democrat in the true sense of the word and opposed to privilege and class immunity. He was not an enemy of wealth lawfully accumulated. He welcomed and encouraged internal improvements, and of course favored prosperity developed by business enter- prises and the combinations of capital, but he al- ways exalted in the consideration of every issue the rights of the individual, and especially of the humbler members of society, who were least able to protect themselves.

Therefore, we may know with certainty that cannot brook contradiction that in the struggle to make all business lawful, to take away from great corporate combinations .the illegal privi- leges and immunities that official investigations have shown in many instances to prevail, Lin- coln would have made the same good fight which has endeared Roosevelt to the same plain people of the country who upheld the hands of the mar- tyred President through all the great trials of his administration.

SPEECHES AND DEBATES

(1856-1858)

"Who Are the Disunionists — You or We?"

Fragment of Speech at Galena, III., in the Fremont Campaign, in Reply to Object- ors to Agitation Against the Extension of Slavery. About August i, 1856.

You further charge us with being disunionists. If you mean that it is our aim to dissolve the Union, I for myself answer that it is untrue ; for those who act with me I answer that it is untrue. Have you heard us assert that as our aim? Do you really believe that such is our aim ? Do you find it in our platform, our speeches, our con- ventions, or anywhere? If not, withdraw the charge.

But you may say that though it is not our aim, it will be the result if we succeed, and that we are therefore disunionists in fact. This is a grave charge you make against us, and we certainly have a right to demand that you specify in what way we are to dissolve the Union. How are we to effect this?

The only specification offered is volunteered by Mr. Fillmore in his Albany speech. His charge is that if we elect a President and Vice- President both from the free States, it will dis-

2 SPEECHES [Oct. i

solve the Union. This is open folly. The Con- stitution provides that .the President and Vice- President of the United States shall be of differ- ent States ; but says nothing as to the latitude and longitude of those States. In 1828 Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, and John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, were elected President and Vice- President, both from slave States; but no one thought of dissolving the Union then on that ac- count. In 1840 Harrison, of Ohio, and Tyler, of Virginia, were elected. In 1841 Harrison died and John Tyler succeeded to the Presidency, and William R. King, of Alabama, was elected acting Vice-President by the Senate; but no one sup- posed that the Union was in danger. In fact, at the very time Mr. Fillmore uttered his idle charge, the state of things in the United States disproved it. Mr. Pierce, of New Hampshire, and Mr. Bright, of Indiana, both from free States, are President and Vice-President, and the Union stands and will stand. You do not pre- tend that it ought to dissolve the Union, and the facts show that it won't; therefore the charge may be dismissed without further consideration. No other specification is made, and the only one that could be made is that the restoration of the restriction of 1820, making the United States territory free territory, would dissolve the Union. Gentlemen, it will require a decided majority to pass such an act. We, the majority, being able constitutionally to do all that we purpose, would have no desire to dissolve the Union. Do you say that such restriction of slavery would be un- constitutional, and that some of the States would not submit to its enforcement ? I grant you that an unconstitutional act is not a law ; but I do not

i856] IN FREMONT CAMPAIGN 3

ask and will not take your construction of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide such a question, and we will submit to its decisions ; and if you do also, there will be an end of the matter. Will you? If not, who are the disunionists — you or we? We, the majority, would not strive to dis- solve the Union; and if any attempt is made, it must be by you, who so loudly stigmatize us as disunionists. But the Union, in any event, will not be dissolved. We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it we won't let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury, in our hands and at our command, you could not do it. This government would be very weak indeed if a majority with a disciplined army and navy and a well-filled treasury could not pre- serve itself when attacked by an unarmed, undis- ciplined, unorganized minority. All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug, nothing but folly. We do not want to dissolve the Union; you shall not.

Sectionalism and Slavery.

Fragment of Speech in Fremont Campaign. October i, 1856.

It is constantly objected to Fremont and Day- ton, that they are supported by a sectional party, who by their sectionalism endanger the national union. This objection, more than all others, causes men really opposed to slavery extension to hesitate. Practically, it is the most difficult objection we have to meet. For this reason I now propose to examine it a little more carefully

4 SPEECHES [Oct. i

than I have heretofore done, or seen it done by- others. First, then, what is the question between the parties respectively represented by Buchanan and Fremont? Simply this, "Shall slavery be allowed to extend into United States territories now legally free?" Buchanan says it shall, and Fremont says it shall not.

That is the naked issue, and the whole of it. Lay the respective platforms side by side, and the difference between them will be found to amount to precisely that. True, each party charges upon the other designs much beyond what is involved in the issue as stated ; but as these charges cannot be fully proved either way, it is probably better to reject them on both sides, and stick to the naked issue as it is clearly made up on the record.

And now to restate the question, "Shall slavery- be allowed to extend into United States terri- tories now legally free ?" I beg to know how one side of that question is more sectional than the other? Of course I expect to effect nothing with the man who makes the charge of sectionalism without caring whether it is just or not. But of the candid, fair man who has been puzzled with this charge, I do ask how is one side of this ques- tion more sectional than the other ? I beg of him to consider well, and answer calmly.

If one side be as sectional as the other, nothing is gained, as to sectionalism, by changing sides; so that each must choose sides of the question on some other ground, as I should think, according as the one side or the other shall appear nearest right. If he shall really think slavery ought to be extended, let him go to Buchanan ; if he think it ought not, let him go to Fremont.

But Fremont and Dayton are both residents of

i8s6] IN FREMONT CAMPAIGN 5

the free States, and this fact has been vaunted in high places as excessive sectionalism. While in- terested individuals become indignant and excited against this manifestation of sectionalism, I am very happy to know that the Constitution remains calm — keeps cool — upon the subject. It does say that President and Vice-President shall be resi- dents of different States, but it does not say that one must live in a slave and the other in a free State. t

It has been a custom to take one from a slave and the other from a free State ; but the custom has not at all been uniform. In 1828 General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun, both from slave States, were placed on the same ticket; and Mr. Adams and Dr. Rush, both from free States, were pitted against them. General Jack- son and Mr. Calhoun were elected, and qualified and served under the election, yet the whole thing never suggested the idea of sectionalism. In 1841, the President, General Harrison, died, by which Mr. Tyler, the Vice-President and a slave- State man, became President. Mr. Mangum, an- other slave-State man, was placed in the vice- presidential chair, served out the term, and no fuss about it, no sectionalism thought of. In 1853 the present President came into office. He is a free-State man. Mr. King, the new Vice- President-elect, was a slave-State man; but he died without entering on the duties of his office. At first his vacancy was filled by Atchison, an- other slave-State man ; but he soon resigned, and the place was supplied by Bright, a free-State man. So that right now, and for the half year last past, our President and Vice-President are both actually free-State men. But it is said the

6 SPEECHES [Oct.

friends of Fremont avow the purpose of electing him exclusively by free-State votes, and that this is unendurable sectionalism.

This statement of fact is not exactly true. With the friends of Fremont it is an expected necessity, but it is not an "avowed purpose," to elect him, if at all, principally by free-State votes ; but it is with equal intensity true that Buchanan's friends expect to elect him, if at all, chiefly by slave-State votes. Here, again, the sectionalism is just as much on one side as the other.

The thing which gives most color to the charge of sectionalism, made against those who oppose the spread of slavery into free territory, is the fact that they can get no votes in the slave States, while their opponents get all, or nearly so, in the slave States, and also a large number in the free States. To state it in another way, the exten- sionists can get votes all over the nation, while the restrictionists can get them only in the free States.

This being the fact, why is it so ? It is not be- cause one side of the question dividing them is more sectional than the other, nor because of any difference in the mental or moral structure of the people North and South. It is because in that question the people of the South have an imme- diate palpable and immensely great pecuniary in- terest, while with the people of the North it is merely an abstract question of moral right, with only slight and remote pecuniary interest added.

The slaves of the South, at a moderate esti- mate, are worth a thousand millions of dollars. Let it be permanently settled that this property may extend to new territory without restraint, and it greatly enhances, perhaps quite doubles,

i8s6]' IN FREMONT CAMPAIGN 7

its value at once. This immense palpable pecuni- ary interest on the question of extending slavery- unites the Southern people as one man. But it cannot be demonstrated that the North will gain a dollar by restricting it. Moral principle is all, or nearly all, that unites us of the North. Pity 'tis, it is so, but this is a looser bond than pecuniary interest. Right here is the plain cause of their perfect union and our want of it. And see how it works. If a Southern man aspires to be Presi- dent, they choke him down constantly, in order that the glittering prize of the presidency may be held up on Southern terms to the greedy eyes of Northern ambition. With this they tempt us and break in upon us.

The Democratic party in 1844 elected a South- ern President. Since then they have neither had a Southern candidate for election nor nomina- tion. Their conventions of 1848, 1852 and 1856 have been struggles exclusively among Northern men, each vying to outbid the other for the Southern vote ; the South standing calmly by to finally cry "Going, going, gone" to the highest bidder, and at the same time to make its power more distinctly seen, and thereby to secure a still higher bid at the next succeeding struggle.

"Actions speak louder than words" is the max- m, and if true the South now distinctly says :o the North, "Give us the measures and you take he men." The total withdrawal of Southern as- pirants for the presidency multiplies the number )f Northern ones. These last, in competing with ;ach other, commit themselves to the utmost rerge that, through their own greediness, they lave the least hope their Northern supporters vill bear. Having got committed in a race of

8 SPEECHES [Dec. 10

competition, necessity drives them into union to sustain themselves. Each at first secures all he can on personal attachments to him and through hopes resting on him personally. Next they unite with one another and with the perfectly banded South, to make the offensive position they have got into "a party measure." This done, large additional numbers are secured.

When the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was first proposed, at the North, there was liter- ally "nobody" in favor of it. In February, 1854, our legislature met in called, or extra, session. From them Douglas sought an indorsement of his then pending measure of repeal. In our legis- lature were about seventy Democrats to thirty Whigs. The former held a caucus, in which it was resolved to give Douglas the desired indorse- ment. Seme of the members of the caucus bolted, — would not stand it, — and they now divulge the secrets. They say that the caucus fairly confessed that the repeal was wrong, and they pleaded the determination to indorse it solely on the ground that it was necessary to sustain Douglas. Here we have the direct evidence of how the Nebraska bill obtained its strength in Illinois. It was given, not in a sense of right, but in the teeth of a sense of wrong, to sustain Douglas. So Illinois was divided. So New Eng- land for Pierce, Michigan for Cass, Pennsylvania for Buchanan, and all for the Democratic party.

And when by such means they have got a large portion of the Northern people into a position contrary to their own honest impulses and sense ot right, they have the impudence to turn upon those who do stand firm, and call them sectional. Were it not too serious a matter, this cool impu-

i856] AT CHICAGO BANQUET 9

dence would be laughable, to say the least. Re- curring to the question, "Shall slavery be allowed to extend into United States territory now legally free?" This is a sectional question — that is to say, it is a question in its nature calculated to divide the American people geographically. Who is to blame for that? Who can help it? Either side can help it; but how? Simply by yielding to the other side ; there is no other way ; in the whole range of possibility there is no other way. Then, which side shall yield ? To this, again, there can be but one answer, — the side which is in the wrong. True, we differ as to which side is wrong, and we boldly say, let all who really think slavery ought to be spread into free territory, openly go over against us ; there is where they rightfully belong. But why should any go who really think slavery ought not to spread ? Do they really think the right ought to yield to the wrong? Are they afraid to stand by the right? Do they fear that the Constitution is too weak to sustain them in the right ? Do they really think that by right surrendering to wrong the hopes of our Constitution, our Union, and our liberties can possibly be bettered?

The Foundation of American Democracy: Equality Not of States but of Men.

Fragment of Speech at a Republican Ban- quet in Chicago. December 10, 1856.

We have another annual presidential message. Like a rejected lover making merry at the wed- ding of his rival, the President felicitates himself hugely over the late presidential election. He

io SPEECHES [Dec. 10

considers the result a signal triumph of good principles and good men, and a very pointed re- buke of bad ones. He says the people did it. He forgets that the "people," as he complacently calls only those who voted for Buchanan, are in a minority of the whole people by about four hun- dred thousand votes — one full tenth of all the votes. Remembering this, he might perceive that the "rebuke" may not be quite as durable as he seems to think — that the majority may not choose to remain permanently rebuked by that minority.

The President thinks the great body of us Fre- monters, being ardently attached to liberty, in the abstract, were duped by a few wicked and designing men. There is a slight difference of opinion on this. We think he, being ardently at- tached to the hope of a second term, in the con- crete, was duped by men who had liberty every way. He is the cat's-paw. By much dragging of chestnuts from the fire for others to eat, his claws are burnt off to the gristle, and he is thrown aside as unfit for further use. As the fool said of King Lear, when his daughters had turned him out of doors, "He's a shelled peascod" ["Thafs a sheal'd peascod"].

So far as the President charges us "with a de- sire to change the domestic institutions of exist- ing States," and of "doing everything in our power to deprive the Constitution and the laws of moral authority," for the whole party on be- lief, and for myself on knowledge, I pronounce the charge an unmixed and unmitigated false- hood.

Our government rests in public opinion. Who- ever can change public opinion can change the government practically just so much. Public

i856] AT CHICAGO BANQUET n

opinion, on any subject, always has a "central idea," from which all its minor thoughts radiate. That "central idea" in our political public opinion at the beginning was, and until recently has con- tinued to be, "the equality of men." And al- though it has always submitted patiently to what- ever of inequality there seemed to be as matter of actual necessity, its constant working has been a steady progress toward the practical equality of all men. The late presidential election was a struggle by one party to discard that central idea and to substitute for it the opposite idea that slavery is right in the abstract, the workings of which as a central idea may be the perpetuity of human slavery and its extension to all countries and colors. Less than a year ago the Richmond Enquirer, an avowed advocate of slavery, re- gardless of color, in order to favor his views, invented the phrase "State equality," and now the President, in his message, adopts the En- quirer's catch-phrase, telling us the people "have asserted the constitutional equality of each and all of the States of the Union as States." The President flatters himself that the new central idea is completely inaugurated; and so indeed it is, so far as the mere fact of a presidential elec- tion can inaugurate it. To us it is left to know that the majority of the people have not yet de- clared for it, and to hope that they never will. All of us who did not vote for Mr. Buchanan, taken together, are a majority of four hundred thousand. But in the late contest we were di- vided between Fremont and Fillmore. Can we not come together for the future ? Let every one who really believes, and is resolved, that free so- ciety is not and shall not be a failure, and who

12 SPEECHES [June 26

can conscientiously declare that in the past con- test he has done only what he thought best — let every such one have charity to believe that every other one can say as much. Thus let bygones be bygones ; let past differences as nothing be ; and with steady eye on the real issue, let us rein- augurate the good old "central ideas" of the re- public. We can do it. The human heart is with us ; God is with us. We shall again be able not to declare that "all States as States are equal," nor yet that "all citizens as citizens are equal," but to renew the broader, better declaration, including both these and much more, that "all men are cre- ated equal."

Self- Government in the Territories; the Dred Scott Decision ; and the Meaning of Equal- ity in the Declaration of Independence.

Speech in Reply to Senator Douglas, at Springfield, III. June 26, 1857.

Fellow-citizens: I am here to-night, partly by the invitation of some of you, and partly by my own inclination. Two weeks ago Judge Douglas spoke here on the several subjects of Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and Utah. I listened to the speech at the time, and have the report of it since. It was intended to controvert opinions which I think just, and to assail (politically, not person- ally) those men who, in common with me, enter- tain those opinions. For this reason I wished then, and still wish, to make some answer to it, which I now take the opportunity of doing.

I begin with Utah. If it prove to be true, as is probable, that the people of Utah are in open

tSs7l AT SPRINGFIELD 13

rebellion against the United States, then Judge Douglas is in favor of repealing their territorial organization, and attaching them to the adjoining States for judicial purposes. I say, too, if they are in rebellion, they ought to be somehow co- erced to obedience ; and I am not now prepared to admit or deny that the judge's mode of coercing them is not as good as any. The Republicans can fall in with it without taking back anything they have ever said. To be sure, it would be a considerable backing down by Judge Douglas from his much-vaunted doctrine of self-govern- ment for the Territories ; but this is only addi- tional proof of what was very plain from the be- ginning, that that doctrine was a mere deceitful pretense for the benefit of slavery. Those who could not see that much in the Nebraska act itself, which forced governors, and secretaries, and judges on the people of the Territories without their choice or consent, could not be made to see, though one should rise from the dead.

But in all this, it is very plain the judge evades the only question the Republicans have ever pressed upon the Democracy in regard to Utah. That question the judge well knew to be this : "If the people of Utah shall peacefully form a State constitution tolerating polygamy, will the Democracy admit them into the Union?" There is nothing in the United States Constitution or law against polygamy; and why is it not a part of the judge's "sacred right of self-government" for the people to have it, or rather to keep it, if they choose ? These questions, so far as I know, the judge never answers. It might involve the Democracy to answer them either way, and they go unanswered.

I4 SPEECHES [June 26

Kansas.

As to Kansas. The substance of the judge's speech on Kansas is ah effort to put the free- State men in the wrong for not voting at the election of delegates to the constitutional con- vention. He says : "There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly in- terpreted and impartially executed, so as to in- sure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise."

It appears extraordinary that Judge Douglas should make such a statement. He knows that, by the law, no one can vote who has not been registered ; and he knows that the free-State men place their refusal to vote on the ground that but few of them have been registered. It is possible that this is not true, but Judge Douglas knows it is asserted to be true in letters, newspapers, and public speeches, and borne by every mail and blown by every breeze to the eyes and ears of the world. He knows it is boldly declared that the people of many whole counties, and many whole neighborhoods in others, are left unregistered; yet he does not venture to contradict the declara- tion, or to point out how they can vote without being registered; but he just slips along, not seeming to know there is any such question of fact, and complacently declares : "There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet ex- ercise of the elective franchise."

I readily agree that if all had a chance to vote, they ought to have voted. If, on the contrary, as they allege, and Judge Douglas ventures not to particularly contradict, few only of the free-State

i857] AT SPRINGFIELD 15

men had a chance to vote, they were perfectly right in staying from the polls in a body.

By the way, since the judge spoke, the Kan- sas election has come off. The judge expressed his confidence that all the Democrats in Kansas would do their duty — including "free-State Dem- ocrats," of course. The returns received here as yet are very incomplete; but so far as they go, they indicate that only about one-sixth of the registered voters have really voted ; and this, too, when not more, perhaps, than one half of the rightful voters have been registered, thus show- ing the thing to have been altogether the most exquisite farce ever enacted. I am watching with considerable interest to ascertain what figure "the free-State Democrats" cut in the concern. Of course they voted, — all Democrats do their duty, — and of course they did not vote for slave-State candidates. We soon shall know how many dele- gates they elected, how many candidates they had pledged to a free State, and how many votes were cast for them.

Allow me to barely whisper my suspicion that there were no such things in Kansas as "free- State Democrats" — that they were altogether mythical, good only to figure in newspapers and speeches in the free States. If there should prove to be one real living free-State Democrat in Kan- sas, I suggest that it might be well to catch him, and stuff and preserve his skin as an interesting specimen of that soon-to-be-extinct variety of the genus Democrat.

The Dred Scott Decision.

And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions — first, that a

1 6 SPEECHES [June 26

negro cannot sue in the United States courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court — dividing differently on the differ- ent 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 decision, 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 abso- lutely determine the case decided; and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the later use, they are called "precedents" and "authorities."

We believe as much as Judge Douglas (per- haps more) in obedience to, and respect for, the judicial department of 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 coun- try, subject to be disturbed only by amendments to 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 the court that made it has often over- ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to overrule this. We offer no re- sistance to it.

Judicial decisions are of greater or less author- ity as precedents according to circumstances. That this should be so accords both with com-

1 857] AT SPRINGFIELD 17

mon sense and the customary understanding of the legal profession.

If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in ac- cordance with legal public expectation and with the steady practice of the departments through- out our history, and had been in no part based on assumed historical facts which are not really true ; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and reaffirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, fac- tious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it as a precedent.

But when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not re- sistance, it is not factious, it is not even disre- spectful, to treat it as not having yet quite es- tablished a settled doctrine for the country. But Judge Douglas considers this view awful. Hear him :

The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Con- stitution and created by the authority of the people to determine, expound, and enforce the law. Hence, who- ever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal aims a deadly blow at our whole republican sys- tem of government — a blow which, if successful, would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of pas- sion, anarchy, and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as de- fined by the Constitution, shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and enemies of the Constitution — the friends and the enemies of the su- premacy of the laws.

1 8 SPEECHES [June 26

Why, this same Supreme Court onse decided a national bank to be constitutional; but General Jackson, as President of the United States, dis- regarded the decision, and vetoed a bill for a re- charter, partly on constitutional ground declaring that each public functionary must support the Constitution, "as he understands it." But hear the general's own words. Here they are, taken from his veto message :

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be consid- ered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of consti- tutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on prece- dent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 181 1, decided against it. One Con- gress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

I drop the quotations merely to remark that all there ever was in the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the points therein de- cided, had been against that decision. But hear General Jackson further :

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this government. The Con- gress, the executive, and the court must, each for itself,

i8573 AT SPRINGFIELD 19

be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Consti- tution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.

Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision and applaud General Jackson for disregarding it. It would be inter- esting for him to look over his recent speech, and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting Supreme Court decisions fall upon his own head. It will call to mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was "a distinct issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution," and in which war he fought in the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution.

I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was in part based on assumed historical facts which were not really true, and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this ; I therefore give an instance or two, which I think fully sustain me. Chief Jus- tice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the ma- jority of the court, insists at great length that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Inde- pendence, or the Constitution of the United States.

On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissent- ing opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen States — to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina — free negroes were voters, and in proportion to their numbers had the same part in making the

2o SPEECHES CJune 26

Constitution that the white people had. He shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth ; and as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the following language :

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citi- zens of the State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of "the people of the United States" by whom the Constitution was ordained and established ; but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suf- frages, upon the question of its adoption.

Again, Chief Justice Taney says :

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion, in relation to that unfortunate race, which pre- vailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted.

And again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says :

The general words above quoted would seem to in- clude the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, would be so under- stood.

In these the Chief Justice does not directly as- sert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the pub- lic estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars the condition of that race has been ameliorated ; but as a whole, in this country, the

1857] AT SPRINGFIELD 21

change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the five States — New Jersey and North Carolina — that then gave the free ne- gro the right of voting, which right has since been taken away, and in a third — New York — it has been greatly abridged ; while it has not been ex- tended, so far as I know, to a single additional State, though the number of the States has more than doubled. In those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves ; but since then such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation as to amount almost to prohibition. In those days legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery in their respective States, but now it is becoming quite fashionable for State constitutions to with- hold that power from the legislatures. In those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man's bondage to the new countries was prohib- ited, but now Congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it would. In those days our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all ; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro uni- versal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at and construed, and hawked at and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him, ambition follows, philosophy fol- lows, and the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison-house; they have searched his person, and left no prying

22 SPEECHES [June 26

instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him ; and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be un- locked without the concurrence of every key — the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places ; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is.

It is grossly incorrect to say or assume that the public estimate of the negro is more favor- able now than it was at the origin of the govern- ment.

Three years and a half ago, Judge Douglas brought forward his famous Nebraska bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He scorned all opposition, and carried it through Congress. Since then he has seen himself superseded in a presidential nomination by one indorsing the general doctrine of his measure, but at the same time standing clear of the odium of its untimely agitation and its gross breach of national faith; and he has seen that successful rival constitu- tionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but by the division of adversaries, being in a pop- ular minority of nearly four hundred thousand votes. He has seen his chief aids in his own State, Shields and Richardson, politically speaking, suc- cessively tried, convicted, and executed for an offense not their own, but his. And now he sees his own case standing next on the docket for trial.

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people at the idea of an indis- criminate amalgamation of the white and black

1.857] AT SPRINGFIELD 23

races ; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope upon the chances of his being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. If he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversa- ries, he thinks he can struggle through the storm. He therefore clings to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank. He makes an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition to the Dred Scott decision. He finds the Republicans insist- ing that the Declaration of Independence includes all men, black as well as white, and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes ! He will have it that they cannot be consistent else. Now I protest against the counterfeit logic which con- cludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either. I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal ; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without ask- ing leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others.

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not in- tend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact that they did not at once, or ever afterward, actu-

24 SPEECHES [June 26

ally place all white people on an equality with one

another. And this is the staple argument of both the chief justice and the senator for doing this obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable lan- guage of the Declaration.

I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not in- tend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal ■ — equal with "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness." This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immedi- ately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to de- clare the right, so that enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.

They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all ; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly at- tained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The as- sertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain ; and it was placed in the Declara- tion not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be — as, thank God, it is now proving itself — a stumbling-block to all those who in after

.1857] AT SPRINGFIELD 25

times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should reappear in this fair land and commence their vocation, they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and object of that part of the Declara- tion of Independence which declares that "all men are created equal."

Xow let us hear Judge Douglas's view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is :

No man can vindicate the character, motives, and con- duct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they de- clared all men to have been created equal; that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent be- ing equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain ; that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their alle- giance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.

My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it ; see what a mere wreck — mangled ruin — it makes of our once glorious Declaration.

"They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain !" Why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America were not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish, and

26 SPEECHES [June 26

Scotch, along with white Americans, were in- cluded, to be sure, but the French, Germans, and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the judge's inferior races !

I had thought the Declaration promised some- thing better than the condition of British sub- jects ; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gave no promise that, having kicked off the king and lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own.

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere ; but no, it merely "was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colo- nists in the eyes of the civilized world in with- drawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country." Why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now — mere rubbish — old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won.

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth," to-morrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the pres- ent ; and quite half of you are not even descend- ants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate, and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose, after you read it once in the old-fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas's ver- sion. It will then run thus : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago,

i8573 AT SPRINGFIELD 27

were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in Great Britain."

And now I appeal to all — to Democrats as well as others — are you really willing- that the Decla- ration shall thus be frittered away? — thus left no more, at most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past? — thus shorn of its vitality and practical value, and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it?

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing of blood by the white and black races. Agreed for once — a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women ; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agree with the judge, and when he shall show that his policy is better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours, we shall drop ours and adopt his. Let us see. In 1850 there were in the United States 405,751 mulattos. Very few of these are the offspring of whites and free blacks ; nearly all have sprung from black slaves and white mas- ters. A separation of the races is the only per- fect preventive of amalgamation ; but as an im- mediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self- evident truth. A few free colored persons may get into the free States, in any event; but their number is too insignificant to amount to much in the way of mixing blood. In 1850 there were in the free States 56,649 mulattos; but for the

28 SPEECHES [June 26

most part they were not born there — they came from the slave States, .ready made up. In the same year the slave States had 348,874 mulattos, all of home production. The proportion of free mulattos to free blacks — the only colored classes in the free States — is much greater in the slave than in the free States. It is worthy of note, too, that among the free States those which make the colored man the nearest equal to the white have proportionably the fewest mulattos, the least of amalgamation. In New Hampshire, the State which goes farthest toward equality between the races, there are just 184 mulattos, while there are in Virginia — how many do you think? — 79,- 775, being 23,126 more than in all the free States together.

These statistics show that slavery is the great- est source of amalgamation, and next to it, not the elevation, but the degradation of the free blacks. Yet Judge Douglas dreads the slightest restraints on the spread of slavery, and the slightest human recognition of the negro, as tending horribly to amalgamation.

The very Dred Scott case affords a strong test as to which party most favors amalgamation, the Republicans or the dear Union-saving Democ- racy. Dred Scott, his wife, and two daughters were all involved in the suit. We desired the court to have held that they were citizens so far at least as to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or not; and then, also, that they were in fact and in law really free. Could we have had our way, the chances of these black girls ever mixing their blood with that of white people would have been diminished at least to the extent that it could not have been without

-i857] AT SPRINGFIELD 29

their consent. But Judge Douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves, and not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters, and liable to become the mothers of mulattos in spite of themselves : the very state of case that produces nine tenths of all the mu- lattos— all the mixing of blood in the nation.

Of course, I state this case as an illustration only, not meaning to say or intimate that the master of Dred Scott and his family, or any more than a percentage of masters generally, are in- clined to exercise this particular power which they hold over their female slaves.

I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the sub- ject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform — opposition to the spread of slavery — is most favorable to that separation.

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization ; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colo- nization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enter- prise is a difficult one ; but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time favorable to, or at least not against, our interest to transfer the African to his native

So

SPEECHES [Sept. 22

clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. - The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thou- sand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body.

How differently the respective courses of the Democratic and Republican parties incidentally bear on the question of forming a will — a public sentiment — for colonization, is easy to see. The Republicans inculcate, with whatever of ability they can, that the negro is a man, that his bondage is cruelly wrong, and that the field of his oppres- sion ought not to be enlarged. The Democrats deny his manhood; deny, or dwarf to insignifi- cance, the wrong of his bondage ; so far as pos- sible, crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him ; com- pliment themselves as Union-savers for doing so ; and call the indefinite outspreading of his bond- age "a sacred right of self-government."

The plainest print cannot be read through a gold eagle ; and it will be ever hard to find many men who will send a slave to Liberia, and pay his passage, while they can send him to a new coun- try— Kansas, for instance — and sell him for fif- teen hundred dollars, and the rise.

i8s7] BRIDGE CASE 31

Argument in the Rock Island Bridge Case,

Extracts from a Report in the Daily Press of Chicago, September 24, 1857.

THE ROCK ISLAND BRIDGE CASE. Hurd et al.

VS.

Railroad Bridge Co.

United States Circuit Court,

Hon. John McClean, Presiding Judge.

13th day, Tuesday, September 22nd, 1857.

Mr. A. Lincoln addressed the jury. He said he did not purpose to assail anybody, that he ex- pected to grow earnest as he proceeded but not ill-natured. "There is some conflict of testimony in the case," he said, "but one quarter of such a number of witnesses seldom agree and even if all were on one side, some discrepancy might be expected. We are to try and reconcile them, and to believe that they are not intentionally erro- neous as long as we can." He had no prejudice, he said, against steamboats or steamboatmen nor any against St. Louis, for he supposed they went about this matter as other people would do in their situation. "St. Louis," he continued, "as a commercial place may desire that this bridge should not stand as it is adverse to her com- merce, diverting a portion of it from the river; and it may be that she supposes that the addi- tional cost of railroad transportation upon the

32 SPEECHES [Sept 22

productions of Iowa will force them to go to St. Louis if this bridge is removed. The meetings in St. Louis are connected with this case only as some witnesses are in it and thus has some prejudice added color to their testimony."

The last thing that would be pleasing to him, Mr. Lincoln said, would be to have one of these great channels extending almost from where it never freezes to where it never thaws blocked up, but there is a travel from east to west whose demands are not less important than those of the river. It is growing larger and larger, building up new countries with a rapidity never before seen in the history of the world.

He alluded to the astonishing growth of Illi- nois, having grown within his memory to a popu- lation of a million and a half; to Iowa and the other young rising communities of the northwest.

"This current of travel," said he, "has its rights as well as that of north and south. If the river had not the advantage in priority and legis- lation we could enter into free competition with it and we could surpass it. This particular rail- road line has a great importance and the state- ment of its business during a little less than a year shows this importance. It is in evidence that from September 8th, 1856, to August 8th, 1857, 12,586 freight cars and 74,179 passengers passed over this bridge. Navigation was closed four days short of four months last year, and during this time while the river was of no use this road and bridge were valuable. There is, too, a considerable portion of time when floating or thin ice makes the river useless while the bridge is as useful as ever. This shows that this bridge must be treated with respect in this court

18573 BRIDGE CASE 33

and is not to be kicked about with contempt. The other day Judge Wead alluded to the strike of the contending interest and even a dissolution of the Union. The proper mode for all parties in this affair is to "live and let live" and then we will find a cessation of this trouble about the bridge. What mood were the steamboat men in when this bridge was burned ? Why, there was a shouting and ringing of bells and whistling on all the boats as it fell. It was a jubilee, a greater celebration than follows an excited election.

Mr. Lincoln then proceeded to discuss the evi- dence in the case. This consumed the rest of the day.

On the next morning, September 14, 1857, Mr. Lincoln resumed his discussion, in which he designed to show that the fault lay with the man- agement of the damaged boat, and was not due to faulty construction of the bridge. A bridge with piers, he declared, was a necessity in rail- road engineering for getting across the Mississ- ippi river. There was, he said, no practicability in the project of building a tunnel under the river, for there "is not a tunnel that is a success- ful project in this world. A suspension bridge cannot be built so high but that the chimneys of the boats will grow up till they cannot pass. The steamboat men will take pains to make them grow. The cars of a railroad cannot without im- mense expense rise high enough to get even with a suspension bridge or go low enough to get through a tunnel ; such expense is unreasonable.

"The plaintiffs have to establish that the bridge is a material obstruction and that they have man- aged their boat with reasonable care and skill. As to the last point, high winds have nothing to

34 SPEECHES [June 16

do with it, for it was not a windy day. They must show due skill and care. Difficulties going down stream will not "do, for they were going up stream. Difficulties with barges, in tow, have nothing to do with the accident, for they had no barge."

Mr. Lincoln said he had much more to say, many things he could suggest to the jury, but he wished to close to save time.

Adjudication Rather Than Legislation the Proper Method for Settlement of Certain Legal Controversies*

Notes of Argument in a Railroad Case. June 15, 1858.

Legislation and adjudication must follow and conform to the progress of society. The prog- ress of society now begins to produce cases of the transfer for debts of the entire property of railroad corporations ; and to enable transferees to use and enjoy the transferred property, legis- lation and adjudication begin to be necessary. Shall this class of legislation just now beginning with us be general or special ? Section ten of our Constitution requires that it should be general, if possible. [Read the section.'] Special legis- lation always trenches upon the judicial depart- ment, and in so far violates section two of the Constitution. [Read it.]

Just reasoning — policy — is in favor of general legislation, else the legislature will be loaded down with the investigation of smaller cases — a work which the courts ought to perform, and can perform much more perfectly. How can the

1858] AT SPRINGFIELD 35

legislature rightly decide the facts between P. and B. and S. C. and Co. ?

It is said that under a general law, whenever a railroad company got tired of its debts it may transfer fraudulently to get rid of them. So they may — so may individuals ; and which, the legisla- ture or the courts, is best suited to try the ques- tion of fraud in either case?

It is said, if a purchaser have acquired legal rights, let him not be robbed of them ; but if he needs legislation, let him submit to just terms to obtain it.

Let him, say we, have general law in advance (guarded in every possible way against fraud), so that when he acquires a legal right he will have no occasion to wait for additional legisla- tion ; and if he has practised fraud, let the courts so decide.

"A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand."

Speech in Acceptance of Nomination as United States Senator, Made at the Close of the Republican State Conven- tion, Springfield, III. June 16, 1858.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Conven- tion: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

36 SPEECHES [June 16

In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this gov- ernment cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. 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.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let any one who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination — piece of machinery, so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott de- cision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted ; but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State constitu- tions, and from most of the national territory b) congressional prohibition. Four days later com- menced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained.

But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an

i858] AT SPRINGFIELD 37

indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point-already gained and give chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self-govern- ment," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this : That if any one man choose to en- slave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows : "It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Terri- tory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty" and "sacred right of self-government." "But," said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the measure ; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free State and then into a Territory covered by the congres- sional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the District or

38 SPEECHES [June 16

Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negro's name was Dred Scott, which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next presi- dential election, the law case came to and was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States ; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Sen- ator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, re- quested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits ; and the latter answered : "That is a question for the Supreme Court."

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorse- ment, however, fell short of a clear popular ma- jority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again ; did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument. The presidential in- auguration came, and still no decision of the court ; but the incoming President in his inaugu- ral address fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehe- mently denouncing: all opposition to it. The new

i858] AT SPRINGFIELD

39

President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been enter- tained !

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Le- compton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas ; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted, up to be intended by him other than as an api defi- nition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind — the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding, — like the mold at the foundry, served through one blast and fell back into loose sand, — helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans against the Lecompton constitu- tion involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point — the right of a people to make their own constitu- tion— upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision,

4o SPEECHES [June 16

in connection with Senator Douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The v/orking points of that ma- chinery are :

(i) That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro in every possible event of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

(2) That, "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any United States Territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of per- manency to the institution through all the future.

(3) That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State makes him free as against the holder, the United States courts will not de- cide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made not to be pressed immediately, but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an elec- tion, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott in the free State of Illinois, every Other master may lawfully do with any other one

1858] AT SPRINGFIELD 4j

or one thousand slaves in Illinois or in any other free State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mold public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are, and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back and run the mind over the string of his- torical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it outsiders could not then 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 amend- ment 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 in- dorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhorta- tion 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

42 SPEECHES [June 16

dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others ?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different work- men,— Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance, — and we see these timbers joined to- gether, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises ex- actly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case we find it impossible not to be- lieve that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the be- ginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

It should not be overlooked that, by the Ne- braska bill, the people of a State as well as Ter- ritory were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." Why mention a State? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States ; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law ? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being pre- cisely the same ? While the opinion of the court,

i8s8] AT SPRINGFIELD 43

by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to ex- clude it. Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of un- limited power in the people of a State to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska bill — I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other ? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occa- sion his exact language is: "Except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is su- preme over the subject of slavery within its juris- diction." In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question as to the restraint on the power of the Territories was left open in the Nebraska act. Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its

44 SPEECHES [June 16

limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up" shall gain upon the pub- lic mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, ■or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and over- thrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and over- throw the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consum- mation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. They wish us to infer all this from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty ; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and tooth- less one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don't care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas

i858] AT SPRINGFIELD

45

Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave-trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest ? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property ; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade? How can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free," unless he does it as a pro- tection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the pro- tection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yes- terday— that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any par- ticular change of which he, himself, has given no intimation ? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be per- sonally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no ad- ventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now

46 SPEECHES [July 10

with us — he does not pretend to be — he does not promise ever to be.

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and con- ducted by, its own undoubted friends — those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thir- teen hundred thousand strong. We did this un- der the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile ele- ments, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then to falter now ? — now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail — if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but sooner or later, the vic- tory is sure to come.

The Law of Equal Freedom.

Speech at Chicago, III. July io, 1858.

My Fellow-citizens: On yesterday evening, upon the occasion of the reception given to Sen- ator Douglas, I was furnished with a seat very convenient for hearing him, and was otherwise very courteously treated by him and his friends, and for which I thank him and them. During the course of his remarks my name was men- tioned in such a way as, I suppose, renders it at least not improper that I should make some sort

i8s8] AT CHICAGO 47

of reply to him. I shall not attempt to follow the Senator in the precise order in which he addressed the assembled multitude upon that occasion, though I shall perhaps do so in the main.

There was one question to which he asked the attention of the crowd, which I deem of some- what less importance — at least of propriety for me to dwell upon — than the others, which he brought in near the close of his speech, and which I think it would not be entirely proper for me to omit attending to ; and yet if I were not to give some attention to it now, I should probably forget it altogether. While I am upon this subject, al- low me to say that I do not intend to indulge in that inconvenient mode sometimes adopted in public speaking, of reading from documents ; but I shall depart from that rule. so far as to read a little scrap from his speech, which notices this first topic of which I shall speak — that is, pro- vided I can find it in the paper.

I have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination that has been made against me. The Republican leaders have formed an alliance, an unholy and unnatural alliance, with a portion of un- scrupulous federal office-holders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. I know they deny the alliance, but yet these men who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Re- publican senator in my place, are just so much the agents and tools of the supporters of Mr. Lincoln. Hence I shall deal with this allied army just as the Russians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol — that is, the Russians did not stop to inquire, when they fired a broadside, whether it hit an Englishman, a French- man, or a Turk. Nor will I stop to inquire, nor shall I hesitate, whether my blows shall hit these Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal offices and yet acting in concert with them.

48 SPEECHES [July 10

Well, now, gentlemen, is not that very alarm- ing? Just to think of it! right at the outset of his canvass, I, a poor, kind, amiable, intelligent gen- tlemen— I am to be slain in this way. Why, my friend the judge is not only, as it turns out, not a dead lion, nor even a living one — he is the rugged Russian bear.

But if they will have it — for he says that we deny it — that there is any such alliance, as he says there is, — and I don't propose hanging very much upon this question of veracity, — but if he will have it that there is such an alliance, that the administration men and we are allied, and we stand in the attitude of English, French, and Turk, he occupying the position of the Russian, ■ — in that case I beg he will indulge us while we barely suggest to him that these allies took Se- bastopol.

Gentlemen, only a few more words as to this alliance. For my part, I have to say that whether there be such an alliance depends, so far as I know, upon what may be a right definition of the term alliance. If for the Republican party to see the other great party to which they are opposed divided among themselves and not try to stop the division, and rather be glad of it, — if that is an alliance, I confess I am in it ; but if it is meant to be said that the Republicans had formed an alli- ance going beyond that, by which there is contri- bution of money or sacrifice of principle on the one side or the other, so far as the Republican party is concerned, if there be any such thing, I pro- test that I neither know anything of it nor do I believe it. I will, however, say — as I think this branch of the argument is lugged in — I would before I leave it state, for the benefit of those

i858] AT CHICAGO 49

concerned, that one of those same Buchanan men did once tell me of an argument that he made for his opposition to Judge Douglas. He said that a friend of our Senator Douglas had been talking to him, and had among other things said to him : "Why, you don't want to beat Douglas ?" "Yes," said he, "I do want to beat him, and I will tell you why. I believe his original Nebraska bill was right in the abstract, but it was wrong in the time that it was brought forward. It was wrong in the application to a Territory in regard to which the question had been settled; it was brought forward at a time when nobody asked him ; it was tendered to the South when the South had not asked for it, but when they could not well refuse it ; and for this same reason he forced that question upon our party. It has sunk the best men all over the nation, everywhere; and now when our President, struggling with the diffi- culties of this man's getting up, has reached the very hardest point to turn in the case, he deserts him, and I am for putting him where he will trouble us no more."

Now, gentlemen, that is not my argument — that is not my argument at all. I have only been stating to you the argument of a Buchanan man. You will judge if there is any force in it.

Popular sovereignty! everlasting popular sov- ereignty ! Let us for a iVioment inquire into this vast matter of popular sovereignty. What is popular sovereignty? We recollect that at an early period in the history of this struggle, there was another name for the same thing — squatter sovereignty. It was not exactly popular sover- eignty, but squatter sovereignty. What did those terms mean? What do those terms

5o SPEECHES [July 10

mean when used now? And vast credit is taken by our friend the judge in regard to his support of it, when he declares the last years of his life have been, and all the future years of his life shall be, devoted to this matter of popular sovereignty. What is it? Why, it is the sovereignty of the people ! What was squat- ter sovereignty? I suppose if it had any significance at all, it was the right of the people to govern themselves, to be sovereign in their own affairs while they were squatted down in a country not their own, while they had squatted on a Territory that did not belong to them, in the sense that a State belongs to the people who in- habit it — when it belonged to the nation — such right to govern themselves was called "squatter sovereignty."

Now I wish you to mark what has become of that squatter sovereignty. What has become of it ? Can you get anybody to tell you now that the people of a Territory have any authority to gov- ern themselves, in regard to this mooted question of slavery, before they form a State constitution? No such thing at all, although there is a general running fire, and although there has been a hur- rah made in every speech on that side, assuming that policy had given the people of a Territory the right to govern themselves upon this ques- tion ; yet the point is dodged. To-day it has been decided — no more than a year ago it was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, and is insisted upon to-day — that the people of a Ter- ritory have no right to exclude slavery from a Territory ; that if any one man chooses to take slaves into a Territory, all the rest of the people have no right to keep them out. This being so,

i858] AT CHICAGO 51

and this decision being made one of the points that the judge approved, and one in the approval of which he says he means to keep me down — put me down I should not say, for I have never been up ; he says he is in favor of it, and sticks to it, and expects to win his battle on that decision, which says that there is no such thing as squatter sovereignty, but that any one man may take slaves into a Territory, and all the other men in the Territory may be opposed to it, and yet by reason of the Constitution they cannot prohibit it. When that is so, how much is left of this vast matter of squatter sovereignty, I should like to know?

When we get back, we get to the point of the right of the people to make a constitution. Kan- sas was settled, for example, in 1854. It was a Territory yet, without having formed a constitu- tion, in a very regular way, for three years. All this time negro slavery could be taken in by any few individuals, and by that decision of the Su- preme Court, which the judge approves, all the rest of the people cannot keep it out; but when they come to make a constitution they may say they will not have slavery. But it is there ; they are obliged to tolerate it some way, and all ex- perience shows it will be so — for they will not take the negro slaves and absolutely deprive the owners of them. All experience shows this to be so. All that space of time that runs from the beginning of the settlement of the Territory un- til there is sufficiency of people to make a State constitution — all that portion of time popular sovereignty is given up. The seal is absolutely put down upon it by the court decision, and Judge Douglas puts his own upon the top of that; yet

52 SPEECHES [July 10

he is appealing to the people to give him vast credit for his devotion to popular sovereignty.

Again, when we get to the question of the right of the people to form a State constitution as they please, to form it with slavery or without slavery — if that is anything new, I confess I don't know it. Has there ever been a time v/hen any- body said that any other than the people of a Territory itself should form a constitution? What is now in it that Judge Douglas should have fought several years of his life, and pledge himself to fight all the remaining years of his life, for? Can Judge Douglas find anybody on earth that said that anybody else should form a consti- tution for a people? [A voice: "Yes."] Well, I should like you to name him; I should like to know who he was. [Same voice: "John Cal- houn."] No, sir; I never heard of even John Calhoun saying such a thing. He insisted on the same principle as Judge Douglas ; but his mode of applying it, in fact, was wrong. It is enough for my purpose to ask this crowd whenever a Re- publican said anything against it? They never said anything against it, but they have constantly spoken for it; and whosoever will undertake to examine the platform and the speeches of re- sponsible men of the party, and of irresponsible men, too, if you please, will be unable to find one word from anybody in the Republican ranks op- posed to that popular sovereignty which Judge Douglas thinks he has invented. I suppose that Judge Douglas will claim in a little while that he is the inventor of the idea that the people should govern themselves ; that nobody ever thought of such a thing until he brought it forward. We do not remember that in that old Declaration of In-

i858] AT CHICAGO 53

dependence it is said that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with cer- tain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; that to se- cure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There is the origin of popular sovereignty. Who, then, shall come in at this day and claim that he invented it ?

The Lecompton constitution connects itself with this question, for it is in this matter of the Lecompton constitution that our friend Judge Douglas claims such vast credit. I agree that in opposing the Lecompton constitution, so far as I can perceive, he was right. I do not deny that at all; and, gentlemen, you will readily see why I could not deny it, even if I wanted to. But I do not wish to ; for all the Republicans in the nation opposed it, and they would have opposed it just as much without Judge Douglas's aid as with it. They had all taken ground against it, long before he did. Why, the reason that he urges against that constitution I urged against him a year before. I have the printed speech in my hand. The argu- ment that he makes why that constitution should not be adopted, that the people were not fairly represented nor allowed to vote, I pointed out in a speech a year ago, which I hold in my hand now, that no fair chance was to be given to the people. Y'Read it; read it."] I shall not waste your time by trying to read it. ["Read it; read it."] Gentlemen, reading from speeches is a very tedious business, particularly for an old man who has to put on spectacles, and more so if the man be so tall that he has to bend over to the light.

54

SPEECHES [July 10

A little more now as to this matter of popular sovereignty and the Lecpmpton constitution. The Lecompton constitution, as the judge tells us, was defeated. The defeat of it was a good thing, or it was not. He thinks the defeat of it was a good thing, and so do I, and we agree in that. Who defeated it? [A voice: "Judge Douglas."] Yes, he furnished himself, and if you suppose he con- trolled the other Democrats that went with him, he furnished three votes, while the Republicans furnished twenty.

That is what he did to defeat it. In the House of Representatives he and his friends furnished some twenty votes, and the Republicans fur- nished ninety odd. Now, who was it that did the work? [A voice: "Douglas."'] Why, yes, Douglas did it ! To be sure he did.

Let us, however, put that proposition another way. The Republicans could not have done it without Judge Douglas. Could he have done it without them ? Which could have come the near- est to doing it without the other? [A voice: 'Who killed the bill?" Another voice: "Doug- las."] Ground was taken against it by the Re- publicans long before Douglas did it. The pro- portion of opposition to that measure is about five to one. [A voice: "Why don't they come out on it?"] You don't know what you are talking about, my friend. I am quite willing to answer any gentleman in the crowd who asks an intelli- gent question.

Now, who, in all this country, has ever found any of our friends of Judge Douglas's way of thinking, and who have acted upon this main question, that have ever thought of uttering a word in behalf of Judge Trumbull? [A voice:

1858] AT CHICAGO 55

"We have."] I defy you to show a printed reso- lution passed in a Democratic meeting. I take it upon myself to defy any man to show a printed resolution of a Democratic meeting, large or small, in favor of Judge Trumbull, or any of the five to one Republicans who beat that bill. Every- thing must be for the Democrats ! They did everything, and the five to one that really did the thing they snub over, and they do not seem to remember that they have an existence upon the face of the earth.

Gentlemen, I fear that I shall become tedious. I leave this branch of the subject to take hold of another. I take up that part of Judge Douglas's speech in which he respectfully attended to me.

Judge Douglas made two points upon my re- cent speech at Springfield. He says they are to be the issues of this campaign. The first one of these points he bases upon the language in a speech which I delivered at Springfield, which I believe I can quote correctly from memory. I said there that "we are now far into the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed object and with the confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation ; under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. I believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved" — I am quoting from my speech — "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

56 SPEECHES [July 10

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 until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."

That is the paragraph! In this paragraph which I have quoted in your hearing, and to which I ask the attention of all, Judge Douglas thinks he discovers great political heresy. I want your attention particularly to what he has in- ferred from it. He says I am in favor of mak- ing all the States of this Union uniform in all their internal regulations ; that in all their domes- tic concerns I am in favor of making them en- tirely uniform. He draws this inference from the language I have quoted to you. He says that I am in favor of making war by the North upon the South for the extinction of slavery; that I am also in favor of inviting (as he expresses it) the South to a war upon the North, for the pur- pose of nationalizing slavery. Now, it is singu- lar enough, if you will carefully read that passage over, that I did not say that I was in favor of anything in it. I only said what I expected would take place. I made a prediction only — it may have been a foolish one, perhaps. I did not even say that I desired that slavery should be put in course of ultimate extinction. I do say so, now, however, so there need be no longer any difficulty about that. It may be written down in the great speech.

Gentlemen, Judge Douglas informed you that this speech of mine was probably carefully pre- pared. I admit that it was. I am not master of language ; I have not a fine education ; I am not

i858] AT CHICAGO 57

capable of entering into a disquisition upon dia- lectics, as I believe you call it; but I do not be- lieve the language I employed bears any such construction as Judge Douglas puts upon it. But I don't care about a quibble in regard to words. I know what I meant, and I will not leave this crowd in doubt, if I can explain it to them, what I really meant in the use of that paragraph.

I am not, in the first place, unaware that this government has endured eighty-two years half slave and half free. I know that. I am toler- ably well acquainted with the history of the coun- try, and I know that it has endured eighty-two years half slave and half free. I believe — and that is what I meant to allude to there — I believe it has endured because during all that time, until the introduction of the Nebraska bill, the public mind did rest all the time in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. That was what gave us the rest that we had through that period of eighty-two years ; at least, so I believe. I have always hated slavery, I think, as much as any Abolitionist — I have been an old-line Whig — I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduc- tion of the Nebraska bill began. I always be- lieved that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction. [Pointing to Mr. Browning, who stood near by.] Brown- ing thought so ; the great mass of the nation have rested in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. They had reason so to believe.

The adoption of the Constitution and its at- tendant history led the people to believe so, and that such was the belief of the framers of the

58 SPEECHES [July 10

Constitution itself. Why did those old men, about the time of the adoption of the Constitu- tion, decree that slavery should not go into the new Territory, where it had not already gone? Why declare that within twenty years the Afri- can slave-trade, by which slaves are supplied, might be cut off by Congress? Why were all these acts? I might enumerate more of these acts — but enough. What were they but a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution intended and expected the ultimate extinction of that institution? And now, when I say, — as I said in my speech that Judge Douglas has quoted from, — when I say that I think the opponents of slavery will resist the farther spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction, I only mean to say that they will place it where the founders of this government originally placed it.

I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always; Judge Douglas has heard me say it — if not quite a hundred times, at least as good as a hundred times ; and when it is said that I am in favor of interfering with slavery where it exists, I know it is unwarranted by anything I have ever intended, and, as I be- lieve, by anything I have ever said. If by any means I have ever used language which could fairly be so construed (as, however, I believe I never have), I now correct it.

So much, then, for the inference that Judge

i8583 AT CHICAGO 59

Douglas draws, that I am in favor of setting the sections at war with one another. I know that I never meant any such thing, and I believe that no fair mind can infer any such thing from any- thing I have ever said.

Now in relation to his inference that I am in favor of a general consolidation of all the local institutions of the various States. I will attend to that for a little while, and try to inquire, if I can, how on earth it could be that any man could draw such an inference from anything I said. I have said very many times in Judge Douglas's hear- ing that no man believed more than I in the principle of self-government; that it lies at the bottom of all my ideas of just government from beginning to end. I have denied that his use of that term applies properly. But for the thing it- self I deny that any man has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion to the principle, whatever he may have done in efficiency in advocating it. I think that I have said it in your hearing — that I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man's rights; that each community, as a State, has a right to do exactfy as it pleases with all the concerns within that State that interfere with the right of no other State; and that the General Government, upon principle, has no right to interfere with anything other than that general class of things that does concern the whole. I have said that at all times. I have said as illustrations that I do not believe in the right of Illinois to interfere with the cranberry laws of Indiana, the oyster laws of Virginia, or the liquor laws of Maine. I have said these things over and

60 SPEECHES tjuly 10

over again, and I repeat them here as my senti- ments.

How is it, then, that Judge Douglas infers, be- cause I hope to see slavery put where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, that I am in favor of Illi- nois going over and interfering with the cran- berry laws of Indiana? What can authorize him to draw any such inference? I suppose there might be one thing that at least enabled him to draw such an inference that would not be true with me or many others ; that is, because he looks upon all this matter of slavery as an exceedingly little thing — this matter of keeping one sixth of the population of the whole nation in a state of oppression and tyranny unequaled in the world. He looks upon it as being an exceedingly little thing, only equal to the question of the cranberry laws of Indiana — as something having no moral question in it — as something on a par with the question of whether a man shall pasture his land with cattle or plant it with tobacco — so little and so small a thing that he concludes, if I could de- sire that anything should be done to bring about the ultimate extinction of that little thing, I must be in favor of bringing about an amalgamation of all the other little things in the Union. Now, it so happens — and there, I presume, is the foun- dation of this mistake — that the judge thinks thus ; and it so happens that there is a vast por- tion of the American people that do not look upon that matter as being this very little thing. They look upon it as a vast moral evil ; they can prove it as such by the writings of those who gave us the blessings of liberty which we enjoy, and that they so looked upon it, and not as an evil merely

1858] AT CHICAGO 6 1

confining itself to the States where it is situated ; and while we agree that, by the Constitution we assented to, in the States where it exists we have no right to interfere with it, because it is in the Constitution, we are by both duty and inclination to stick by that Constitution in all its letter and spirit from beginning to end.

So much, then, as to my disposition — my wish — to have all the State legislatures blotted out, and to have one consolidated government, and a uniformity of domestic regulations in all the States ; by which I suppose it is meant, if we raise corn here, we must make sugar cane grow here too, and we must make those which grow North grow in the South. All this I suppose he under- stands I am in favor of doing. Now, so much for all this nonsense — for I must call it so. The judge can have no issue with me on a question of establishing uniformity in the domestic regula- tions of the States.

A little now on the other point — the Dred Scott decision. Another of the issues he says that is to be made with me, is upon his devotion to the Dred Scott decision, and my opposition to it.

I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposition to the Dred Scott decision; but I should be allowed to state the nature of that op- position, and I ask your indulgence while I do so. What is fairly implied by the term Judge Doug- las has used, "resistance to the decision"? I do not resist it. If I wanted to take Dred Scott from his master, I would be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty that Judge Douglas speaks of, of interfering with property, would arise. But I am doing no such thing as

62 SPEECHES [July 10

that ; all that I am doing is refusing to obey it as a political rule. If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should.

That is what I would do. Judge Douglas said last night that before the decision he might ad- vance his opinion, and it might be contrary to the decision when it was made ; but after it was made he would abide by it until it was reversed. Just so ! We let this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse that decision. We will try to put it where Judge Douglas would not ob- ject, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. Somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made ; and we mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably.

What are the uses of decisions of courts? They have two uses. As rules of property they have two uses. First — they decide upon the question before the court. They decide in this case that Dred Scott is a slave. Nobody resists that. Not only that, but they say to everybody else that persons standing just as Dred Scott stands are as he is. That is, they say that when a question comes up upon another person, it will be so decided again, unless the court decides in an- other way, unless the court overrules its decision. Well, we mean to do what we can to have the court decide the other way. That is one thing we mean to try to do.

The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws around this decision is a degree of sacredness that has never been before thrown around any other decision. I have never heard of such a

i8.58] AT CHICAGO 6$

thing. Why, decisions apparently contrary to that decision, or that good lawyers thought were contrary to that decision, have been made by that very court before. It is the first of its kind; it is an astonisher in legal history. It is a new wonder of the world. It is based upon falsehood in the main as to the facts, — allegations of facts upon which it stands are not facts at all in many instances, — and no decision made on any question — the first instance of a decision made under so many un- favorable circumstances — thus placed, has ever been held by the profession as law, and it has al- ways needed confirmation before the lawyers re- garded it as settled law. But Judge Douglas will have it that all hands must take this extraor- dinary decision, made under these extraordi- nary circumstances, and give their vote in Con- gress in accordance with it, yield to it and obey it in every possible sense. Circumstances alter cases. Do not gentlemen here remember the case of that same Supreme Court, some twenty-five or thirty years ago, deciding that a national bank was constitutional? I ask if somebody does not remember that a national bank was declared to be constitutional? Such is the truth, whether it be remembered or not. The bank charter ran out, and a recharter was granted by Congress. That recharter was laid before General Jackson. It was urged upon him, when he denied the con- stitutionality of the bank, that the Supreme Court had decided that it was constitutional ; and Gen- eral Jackson then said that the Supreme Court had no right to lay down a rule to govern a co- ordinate branch of the government, the members of which had sworn to support the Constitution —

64 SPEECHES [July 10

that each member had sworn to support that Constitution as he understood it. I will venture here to say that I have heard Judge Douglas say that he approved of General Jackson for that act. What has now become of all his tirade against "resistance to the Supreme Court"?

My fellow-citizens, getting back a little, for I pass from these points, when Judge Douglas makes his threat of annihilation upon the "alli- ance," he is cautious to say that that warfare of his is to fall upon the leaders of the Republican party. Almost every word he utters, and every distinction he makes, has its significance. He means for the Republicans who do not count themselves as leaders to be his friends ; he makes no fuss over them; it is the leaders that he is making war upon. He wants it understood that the mass of the Republican party are really his friends. It is only the leaders that are doing something, that are intolerant, and require ex- termination at his hands. As this is clearly and unquestionably the light in which he presents that matter, I want to ask your attention, ad- dressing myself to Republicans here, that I may ask you some questions as to where you, as the Republican party, would be placed if you sus- tained Judge Douglas in his present position by a reelection? I do not claim, gentlemen, to be un- selfish ; I do not pretend that I would not like to go to the United States Senate; I make no such hypocritical pretense, but I do say to you that in this mighty issue, it is nothing to you — nothing to the mass of the people of the nation — whether or not Judge Douglas or myself shall ever be heard of after this night; it may be a trifle to either of us, but in connection with this mighty

i858] AT CHICAGO 65

question, upon which hang the destinies of the nation, perhaps, it is absolutely nothing. But where will you be placed if you reindorse Judge Douglas? Don't you know how apt he is — how exceedingly anxious he is at all times to seize upon anything and everything to persuade you that something he has done you did yourselves? Why, he tried to persuade you last night that our Illinois legislature instructed him to introduce the Nebraska bill. There was nobody in that legisla- ture ever thought of such a thing; and when he first introduced the bill, he never thought of it; but still he fights furiously for the proposition, and that he did it because there was a standing instruction to our senators to be always introdu- cing Nebraska bills. He tells you he is for the Cincinnati platform ; he tells you he is for the Dred Scott decision. He tells you, not in his speech last night, but substantially in a former speech, that he cares not if slavery is voted up or down; he tells you the struggle on Lecompton is past — it may come up again or not, and if it does he stands where he stood when in spite of him and his opposition you built up the Republican party. If you indorse him, you tell him you do not care whether slavery be voted up or down, and he will close, or try to close, your mouths with his declaration, repeated by the day, the week, the month, and the year. I think, in the position in which Judge Douglas stood in oppos- ing the Lecompton constitution, he was right; he does not know that it will return, but if it does we may know where to find him, and if it does not we may know where to look for him, and that is on the Cincinnati platform. Now I could ask the Republican party, after all the hard names

66 SPEECHES [July 10

Judge Douglas has called them by, all his re- peated charges of their inclination to marry with and hug negroes, all his declarations of Black Republicanism, — by the way, we are improving, the black has got rubbed off, — but with all that, if he be indorsed by Republican votes, where do you stand? Plainly, you stand ready saddled, bridled, and harnessed, and waiting to be driven over to the slavery extension camp of the nation, — just ready to be driven over, tied together in a lot, — to be driven over, every man with a rope around his neck, that halter being held by Judge Douglas. That is the question. If Repub- lican men have been in earnest in what they have done, I think they had better not do it; but I think the Republican party is made up of those who, as far as they can peaceably, will oppose the extension of slavery, and who will hope for its ultimate extinction. If they believe it is wrong in grasping up the new lands of the continent, and keeping them from the settlement of free white laborers, who want the land to bring up their families upon ; if they are in earnest, although they may make a mistake, they will grow restless, and the time will come when they will come back again and reorganize, if not by the same name, at least upon the same principles as their party now has. It is better, then, to save the work while it is begun. You have done the labor; maintain it, keep it. If men choose to serve you, go with them; but as you have made up your organization upon principle, stand by it ; for, as surely as God reigns over you, and has inspired your mind, and given you a sense of propriety, and continues to give you hope, so surely will you still cling to these ideas, and you will at last come

1858] AT CHICAGO 67

back again after your wanderings, merely to do your work over again.

We were often — more than once at least — in the course of Judge Douglas's speech last night reminded that this government was made for white men — that he believed it was made for white men. Well, that is putting it into a shape in which no one wants to deny it; but the judge then goes into his passion for drawing inferences that are not warranted. I protest now and for- ever, against that counterfeit logic which pre- sumes that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I need not have her for either; but, as God made us separate, we can leave one another alone, and do one another much good thereby. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women, and in God's name let them be so married. The judge regales us with the terrible enormities that take place by the mixture of races ; that the inferior race bears the superior down. Why, judge, if we do not let them get together in the Territories, they won't mix there. [A voice: ''Three cheers for Lin- coln!" The cheers were given with a hearty good will.'] I should say at least that that is a self-evident truth.

Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, somewhere about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gather- ings I suppose have their uses. If you will in- dulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.

We are now a mighty nation : we are thirty, or about thirty, millions of people, and we own

68 SPEECHES [July 10

and inhabit about one fifteenth part of the dry- land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty- two years, and we discover that we were then a very small people, in point of numbers vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country, with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men. We look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers ; they were iron men ; they fought for the principle that they were contending for ; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the de- gree of prosperity which we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time, of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with our- selves— we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men, in the age, and race, and country in which we live, for these celebrations. But after we have done all this, we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have, besides these men — descended by blood from our ancestors — among us, perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men ; they are men who have come from Europe, — German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian, — men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ances-

1858] AT CHICAGO 69

tors have come hither and settled here, rinding themselves our equal in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connec- tion with those days by blood, they find they have none; they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us ; but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their rela- tion to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of "don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down," for sustaining the Dred Scott decision, for holding that the Declaration of In- dependence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his con- struction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you, in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and indorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of

70 SPEECHES [July 10

liberty in the country, and to transform this gov- ernment into a government of some other form? Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow — what are these arguments? They are the ar- guments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people — not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being rid- den. That is their argument, and this argument of the judge is the same old serpent that says, You work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will — whether it come from the mouth of a king, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know — taking this old Declaration of Independence, which de- clares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, — where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute-book in which we find it, and tear it out ! Who is so bold as to do it ? If it is not true, let us tear it out [Cries of "No, no"]. Let us stick to it, then ; let us stand firmly by it, then.

1858] AT CHICAGO 71

It may be argued that there are certain condi- tions that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man, he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established this government. We had slaves among us ; we could not get our Constitu- tion unless we permitted them to remain in slav- ery; we could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more ; but having by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let that charter stand as our standard.

My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand to quote Scripture. I will try it again, however. It is said in one of the admonitions of our Lord, "Be ye [therefore] perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." The Saviour, I suppose, did not expect that any hu- man creature could be perfect as the Father in heaven ; but he said, "As your father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." He set that up as a standard, and he who did most toward reach- ing that standard attained the highest degree of moral perfection. So I say in relation to the principle that ail men are created equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can. If we cannot give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature. Let us then turn this government back into the chan- nel in which the framers of the Constitution orig- inally placed it. Let us stand firmly by each other. If we do not do so, we are tending in the con- trary direction that our friend Judge Douglas proposes — not intentionally — working in the traces that tend to make this one universal slave

72 SPEECHES [July 17

nation. He is one that runs in that direction, and as such I resist him. -

My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up de- claring that all men are created equal.

My friends, I could not, without launching off upon some new topic, which would detain you too long, continue to-night. I thank you for this most extensive audience that you have furnished me to-night. I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal.

The Conspiracy to Nationalize Slavery.

Speech at Springfield, III. July 17, 1858.

Fellow-citizens: Another election, which is deemed an important one, is approaching; and, as I suppose, the Republican party will without much difficulty elect their State ticket. But in regard to the legislature, we, the Republicans, labor under some disadvantages. In the first place, we have a legislature to elect upon an ap- portionment of the representation made several years ago, when the proportion of the population was far greater in the South (as compared with the North) than it now is, and inasmuch as our opponents hold almost entire sway in the South,

I8s8] AT SPRINGFIELD

73

and we a correspondingly large majority in the North, the fact that we are now to be represented as we were years ago, when the population was different, is to us a very great disadvantage. We had in the year 1855, according to law, a census or enumeration of the inhabitants taken for the purpose of a new apportionment of representa- tion. We know what a fair apportionment of representation upon that census would give us. We know that it could not, if fairly made, fail to give the Republican party from six to ten more members of the legislature than they can prob- ably get as the law now stands. It so happened at the last session of the legislature, that our op- ponents, holding the control of both branches of the legislature, steadily refused to give us such an apportionment as we were rightly entitled to have upon the census already taken. The legis- lature steadily refused to give us such an appor- tionment as we were rightfully entitled to have upon the census taken of the population of the State. The legislature would pass no bill upon that subject, except such as was at least as unfair to us as the old one, and in which, in some instances, two men in the Democratic regions were allowed to go as far toward sending a mem- ber to the legislature as three were in the Repub- lican regions. Comparison was made at the time as to representative and senatorial districts, which completely demonstrated that such was the fact. Such a bill was passed and tendered to the Re- publican governor for his signature ; but prin- cipally for the reasons I have stated, he withheld his approval, and the bill fell without becoming a law.

Another disadvantage under which we labor

74 SPEECHES [July 17

is that there are one or two Democratic senators who will be members of the next legislature, and will vote for the election of senator, who are hold- ing over in districts in which we could, on all reasonable calculation, elect men of our own, if we only had the chance of an election. When we consider that there are but twenty-five senators in the Senate, taking two from the side where they rightfully belong, and adding them to the other, is to us a disadvantage not to be lightly re- garded. Still, so it is ; we have this to contend with. Perhaps there is no ground of complaint on our part. In attending to the many things in- volved in the last general election for President, governor, auditor, treasurer, superintendent of public instruction, members of Congress, of the legislature, county officers, and so on, we allowed these things to happen by want of sufficient at- tention, and we have no cause to complain of our adversaries, so far as this matter is concerned. But we have some cause to complain of the re- fusal to give us a fair apportionment.

There is still another disadvantage under which we labor, and to which I will ask your at- tention. It arises out of the relative positions of the two persons who stand before the State as candidates for the Senate. Senator Douglas is of world-wide renown. All the anxious politicians of his party, or who have been of his party for years past, have been looking upon him as cer- tainly, at no distant day, to be the President of the United States. They have seen in his round, jolly, fruitful face, post-offices, land-offices, mar- shalships, and cabinet appointments, chargeships and foreign missions, bursting and sprouting out in wonderful exuberance, ready to be laid hold of

1858] AT SPRINGFIELD 75

by their greedy hands. And as they have been gazing upon this attractive picture so long, they cannot, in the little distraction that has taken place in the party, bring themselves to give up the charming hope; but with greedier anxiety they rush about him, sustain him, and give him marches, triumphal entries, and receptions be- yond what even in the days of his highest pros- perity they could have brought about in his favor. On the contrary, nobody has ever expected me to be President. In my poor, lean, lank face nobody has ever seen that any cabbages were sprouting out. These are disadvantages all, taken together, that the Republicans labor under. We have to fight this battle upon principle, and upon principle alone. I am, in a certain sense, made the stand- ard-bearer in behalf of the Republicans. I was made so merely because there had to be some one so placed, I being in no wise preferable to any other one of the twenty-five, perhaps a hundred, we have in the Republican ranks. Then I say I wish it to be distinctly understood and borne in mind, that we have to fight this battle without many — perhaps without any — of the external aids which are brought to bear against us. So I hope those with whom I am surrounded have principle enough to nerve themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can be fairly done to bring about the right result.

After Senator Douglas left Washington, as his movements were made known by the public prints, he tarried a considerable time in the city of New York; and it was heralded that, like an- other Napoleon, he was lying by and framing the plan of his campaign. It was telegraphed to Washington City, and published in the

7 6 SPEECHES [July 17

Union, that he was framing his plan for the purpose of going to Illinois to pounce upon and annihilate the treasonable and disunion speech which Lincoln had made here on the 16th of June. Now, I do suppose that the judge really spent some time in New York maturing the plan of the campaign, as his friends heralded for him. I have been able, by noting his movements since his arrival in Illinois, to discover evidences con- firmatory of that allegation. I think I have been able to see what are the material points of that plan. I will, for a little while, ask your attention to some of them. What I shall point out, though not showing the whole plan, are nevertheless the main points, as I suppose.

They are not very numerous. The first is pop- ular sovereignty. The second and third are at- tacks upon my speech made on the 16th of June. Out of these three points — drawing within the range of popular sovereignty the question of the Lecompton constitution — he makes his principal assault. Upon these his successive speeches are substantially one and the same. On this matter of popular sovereignty I wish to be a little care- ful. Auxiliary to these main points, to be sure, are their thunderings of cannon, their marching and music, their fizzle-gigs and fireworks ; but I will not waste time with them. They are but the little trappings of the campaign.

Coming to the substance, the first point, "popu- lar sovereignty." It is to be labeled upon the cars in which he travels ; put upon the hacks he rides in ; to be flaunted upon the arches he passes under, and the banners which wave over him. It is to be dished up in as many varieties as a French look can produce soups from potatoes. Now,

1858] AT SPRINGFIELD 77

as this is so great a staple of the plan of the cam- paign, it is worth while to examine it carefully; and if we examine only a very little, and do not allow ourselves to be misled, we shall be able to see that the whole thing is the most arrant quix- otism that was ever enacted before a community. What is the matter of popular sovereignty ? The first thing, in order to understand it, is to get a good definition of what it is, and after that to see how it is applied.

I suppose almost every one knows that, in this controversy, whatever has been said has had ref- erence to the question of negro slavery. We have not been in a controversy about the right of the people to govern themselves in the ordinary mat- ters of domestic concern in the States and Terri- tories. Mr. Buchanan, in one of his late mes- sages (I think when he sent up the Lecompton constitution), urged that the main point of pub- lic attention was not in regard to the great va- riety of small domestic matters, but was directed to the question of negro slavery; and he asserts that if the people had had a fair chance to vote on that question, there was no reasonable ground of objection in regard to minor questions. Now, while I think that the people had not had given, or offered them, a fair chance upon that slavery question, still, if there had been a fair submission to a vote upon that main question, the President's proposition would have been true to the utter- most. Hence, when hereafter I speak of popu- lar sovereignty, I wish to be understood as apply- ing what I say to the question of slavery only, not to other minor domestic matters of a Terri- tory or State.

Does Judge Douglas, when he says that several

78 SPEECHES [July i7

of the past years of his life have been devoted to the question of "popular sovereignty/' and that all the remainder of his life shall be devoted to it, does he mean to say that he has been devoting his life to securing to the people of the Territories the right to exclude slavery from the Territories ? If he means so to say, he means to deceive ; be- cause he and every one knows that the decision of the Supreme Court, which he approves and makes especial ground of attack upon me for dis- approving, forbids the people of a Territory to exclude slavery. This covers the whole ground, from the settlement of a Territory till it reaches the degree of maturity entitling it to form a State constitution. So far as all that ground is con- cerned, the judge is not sustaining popular sov- ereignty, but absolutely opposing it. He sustains the decision which declares that the popular will of the Territories has no constitutional power to exclude slavery during their territorial existence. This being so, the period of time from the first settlement of a Territory till it reaches the point of forming a State constitution is not the thing that the judge has fought for, or is fighting for ; but on the contrary, he has fought for, and is fighting for the thing that annihilates and crushes out that same popular sovereignty.

Well, so much being disposed of, what is left? Why, he is contending for the right of the people, when they come to make a State constitution, to make it for themselves, and precisely as best suits themselves. I say again, that is quixotic. I defy contradiction when I declare that the judge can find no one to oppose him on that proposition. I repeat, there is nobody opposing that proposition on principle. Let me not be misunderstood. I

2858] AT SPRINGFIELD 79

know that, with reference to the Lecompton con- stitution, I may be misunderstood ; but when you understand me correctly, my proposition will be true and accurate. Nobody is opposing, or has op- posed, the right of the people, when they form a constitution, to form it for themselves. Mr. Buchanan and his friends have not done it ; they, too, as well as the Republicans and the Anti- Lecompton Democrats, have not done it ; but, on the contrary, they together have insisted on the right of the people to ' form a constitution for themselves. The difference between the Buchan- an men on the one hand, and the Douglas men and the Republicans on the other, has not been on a question of principle, but on a question of fact.

The dispute was upon the question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution had been fairly formed by the people or not. Mr. Buchan- an and his friends have not contended for the contrary principle any more than the Douglas men or the Republicans. They have insisted that whatever of small irregularities existed in getting up the Lecompton constitution were such as hap- pen in the settlement of all new Territories. The question was, was it a fair emanation of the people? It was a question of fact and not of principle. As to the principle, all were agreed. Judge Douglas voted with the Republicans upon that matter of fact.

He and they, by their voices and votes, denied that it was a fair emanation of the people. The administration affirmed that it was. With re- spect to the evidence bearing upon that question of fact, I readily agree that Judge Douglas and the Republicans had the right on their side, and that the administration was wrong. But I state again

80 SPEECHES [July 17

that, as a matter of principle, there is no dispute upon the right of a people in a Territory merging into a State to form a constitution for themselves without outside interference from any quarter. This being so, what is Judge Douglas going to spend his life for ? Does he expect to stand up in majestic dignity, and go through his apotheosis and become a god, in the maintaining of a prin- ciple which neither man nor mouse in all God's creation is opposing? Now something in regard to the Lecompton constitution more specially ; for I pass from this other question of popular sov- ereignty as the most arrant humbug that has ever been attempted on an intelligent community.

As to the Lecompton constitution, I have al- ready said that on the question of fact as to whether it was a fair emanation of the people or not, Judge Douglas with the Republicans and some ''Americans" had greatly the argument against the administration; and while I repeat this, I wish to know what there is in the opposi- tion of Judge Douglas to the Lecompton constitu- tion that entitles him to be considered the only opponent to it — as being par excellence the very quintessence of that opposition. I agree to the rightfulness of his opposition. He in the Senate, and his class of men there, formed the number three and no more. In the House of Representa- tives his class of men — the Anti-Lecompton Dem- ocrats— formed a number of about twenty. It took one hundred and twenty to defeat the meas- ure against one hundred and twelve. Of the votes of that one hundred and twenty, Judge Douglas's friends furnished twenty, to add to which there were six Americans and ninety-four Republicans. I do not say that I am precisely

i858] AT SPRINGFIELD 81

accurate in their numbers, but I am sufficiently so for any use I am making of it.

Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all' the credit of doing that work, and the hundred none of it? Why, if, as Judge Douglas says, the honor is to be divided and due credit is to be given to other parties, why is just so much given as is consonant with the wishes, the interests, and ad- vancement of the twenty ? My understanding is, when a common job is done, or a common enter- prise prosecuted, if I put in five dollars to your one, I have a right to take out five dollars to your one. But he does not so understand it. He de- clares the dividend of credit for defeating Le- compton upon a basis which seems unprecedented and incomprehensible.

Let us see. Lecompton in the raw was de- feated. It afterward took a sort of cooked-up shape, and was passed in the English bill. It is said by the judge that the defeat was a good and proper thing. If it was a good thing, why is he entitled to more credit than others for the per- formance of that good act, unless there was something in the antecedents of the Republicans that might induce every one to expect them to join in that good work, and at the same time something leading them to doubt that he would ? Does he place his superior claim to credit on the ground that he performed a good act which was never expected of him ? He says I have a prone- ness for quoting scripture. If I should do so now, it occurs that perhaps he places himself somewhat upon the ground of the parable of the lost sheep which went astray upon the mountains, and when the owner of the hundred sheep found the one that was lost, and threw it upon his

82 SPEECHES [July 17

shoulders, and came home rejoicing, it was said that there was more rejoicing- over the one sheep that was lost and had been found, than over the ninety and nine in the fold. The application is made by the Saviour in this parable, thus : "Veri- ly, I say unto you, there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons that need no repent- ance."

And now, if the judge claims the benefit of this parable, let him repent. Let him not come up here and say : "I am the only just person ; and you are the ninety-nine sinners !" Repentance before forgiveness is a provision of the Christian system, and on that condition alone will the Re- publicans grant him forgiveness.

How will he prove that we have ever occupied a different position in regard to the Lecompton constitution or any principle in it? He says he did not make his opposition on the ground as to whether it was a free or slave constitution, and he would have you understand that the Republi- cans made their opposition because it ultimately became a slave constitution. To make proof in favor of himself on this point, he reminds us that he opposed Lecompton before the vote was taken declaring whether the State was to be free or slave. But he forgets to say that our Republican senator, Trumbull, made a speech against Le- compton even before he did.

Why did he oppose it ? Partly, as he declares, because the members of the convention who framed it were not fairly elected by the people; that the people were not allowed to vote unless they had been registered; and that the people of whole counties, in some instances, were not regis-

1858] AT SPRINGFIELD S3

tered. For these reasons he declares the consti- tution was not an emanation, in any true sense, from the people. He also has an additional ob- jection as to the mode of submitting the constitu- tion back to the people. But bearing on the ques- tion of whether the delegates were fairly elected, a speech of his, made something more than twelve months ago from this stand, becomes im- portant. It was made a little while before the election of the delegates who made Lecompton. In that speech he declared there was every reason to hope and believe the election would be fair, and if any one failed to vote it would be his own cul- pable fault.

I, a few days after, made a sort of answer to that speech. In that answer I made substantially the very argument with which he combated his Lecompton adversaries in the Senate last winter. I pointed to the facts that the people could not vote without being registered, and that the time for registering had gone by. I commented on it as wonderful that Judge Douglas could be igno- rant of these facts, which every one else in the nation so well knew.

I now pass from popular sovereignty and Le- compton. I may have occasion to refer to one or both.

When he was preparing his plan of campaign, Napoleon-like, in New York, as appears by two speeches I have heard him deliver since his ar- rival in Illinois, he gave special attention to a speech of mine delivered here on the 16th of June last. He says that he carefully read that speech. He told us that at Chicago a week ago last night, and he repeated it at Bloomington last night. Doubtless he repeated it again to-day, though I

84 SPEECHES [July 17

did not hear him. In the two first places — Chica- go and Bloomington — I heard him; to-day I did not. He said he had carefully examined that speech ; when, he did not say ; but there is no reasonable doubt it was when he was in New York preparing his plan of campaign. I am glad he did read it carefully. He says it was evidently prepared with great care. I freely admit it was prepared with care. I claim not to be more free from errors than others — perhaps scarcely so much ; but I was very careful not to put anything in that speech as a matter of fact, or make any inferences which did not appear to me to be true and fully warrantable. If I had made any mis- take I was willing to be corrected ; if I had drawn any inference in regard to Judge Douglas, or any one else, which was not warranted, I was fully prepared to modify it as soon as discovered. I planted myself upon the truth and the truth only, so far as I knew it, or could be brought to know it.

Having made that speech with the most kindly feelings toward Judge Douglas, as manifested therein, I was gratified when I found that he had carefully examined it, and had detected no error of fact, nor any inference against him, nor any mis- representations, of which he thought fit to com- plain. In neither of the two speeches I have men- tioned, did he make any such complaint. I will thank any one who will inform me that he, in his speech to-day, pointed out anything I had stated, respecting him, as being erroneous. I presume there is no such thing. I have reason to be grati- fied that the care and caution used in that speech left it so that he, most of all others interested in discovering error, has not been able to point out

i8s8] AT SPRINGFIELD 85

one thing against him which he could say was wrong. He seizes upon the doctrines he supposes to be included in that speech, and declares that upon them will turn the issues of the campaign. He then quotes, or attempts to quote, from my speech. I will not say that he wilfully misquotes, but he does fail to quote accurately. His attempt at quoting is from a passage which I believe I can quote accurately from memory. I shall make the quotation now, with some comments upon it, as I have already said, in order that the judge shall be left entirely without excuse for misrep- resenting me. I do so now, as I hope, for the last time. I do this in great caution, in order that if he repeats his misrepresentation, it shall be plain to all that he does so wilfully. If, after all, he still persists, I shall be compelled to reconstruct the course I have marked out for myself, and draw upon such humble resources as I have for a new course, better suited to the real exigencies of the case. I set out, in this campaign, with the intention of conducting it strictly as a gentleman, in substance, at least, if not in the outside polish. The latter I shall never be, but that which consti- tutes the inside of a gentleman I hope I under- stand, and am not less inclined to practise than others. It was my purpose and expectation that this canvass would be conducted upon principle, and with fairness on both sides, and it shall not be my fault if this purpose and expectation shall be given up.

He charges, in substance, that I invite a war of sections ; that I propose all local institutions of the different States shall become consolidated and uniform. What is there in the language of that speech which expresses such purpose or bears

86 SPEECHES [July 17

such construction? I have again and again said that I would not enter into any of the States to disturb the institution of slavery. Judge Doug- las said, at Bloomington, that I used language most able and ingenious for concealing what I really meant; and that while I had protested against entering into the slave States, I never- theless did mean to go on the banks of the Ohio and throw missiles into Kentucky, to disturb them in their domestic institutions.

I said in that speech, and I meant no more, that the institution of slavery ought to be placed in the very attitude where the framers of this gov- ernment placed it and left it. I do not understand that the framers of our Constitution left the people in the free States in the attitude of firing bombs or shells into the slave States. I was not using that passage for the purpose for which he infers I did use it. I said :

We are now far advanced into the fifth year since a policy was created for the avowed object and with the confident promise of putting an end to slavery agita- tion. Under the operation of that policy that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease till a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe that this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the oppo- nents 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.

Now you all see, from that quotation, I did not express my wish on anything. In that passage I indicated no wish or purpose of my own ; I simply

i8s8] AT SPRINGFIELD 87

expressed my expectation. Cannot the judge perceive a distinction between a purpose and an expectation? I have often expressed an ex- pectation to die, but I have never expressed a wish to die. I said at Chicago, and now repeat, that I am quite aware this gov- ernment has endured half slave and half free for eighty-two years. I understand that little bit of history. I expressed the opinion I did, because I perceived — or thought I perceived —a new set of causes introduced. I did say at Chicago, in my speech there, that I do wish to see the spread of slavery arrested, and to see it placed where the public mind shall rest in the be- lief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. I said that because I supposed, when the public mind shall rest in that belief, we shall have peace on the slavery question. I have believed — and now believe — the public mind did rest in that be- lief up to the introduction of the Nebraska bill.

Although I have ever been opposed to slavery, so far I rested in the hope and belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. For that reason, it had been a minor question with me. I might have been mistaken ; but I had believed, and now believe, that the whole public mind, that is, the mind of the great majority, had rested in that belief up to the repeal of the Missouri Com- promise. But upon that event, I became con- vinced that either I had been resting in a delusion, or the institution was being placed on a new basis — a basis for making it perpetual, national, and universal. Subsequent events have greatly confirmed me in that belief. I believe that bill to be the beginning of a conspiracy for that pur- pose. So believing, I have since then considered

88 SPEECHES [July 17

that question a paramount one. So believing, I think the public mind will never rest till the power of Congress to restrict the spread of it shall again be acknowledged and exercised on the one hand, or, on the other, all resistance be entirely crushed out. I have expressed that opinion, and I enter- tain it to-night. It is denied that there is any tendency to the nationalization of slavery in these States.

Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, in one of his speeches, when they were presenting him canes, silver plate, gold pitchers, and the like, for as- saulting Senator Sumner, distinctly affirmed his opinion that when this Constitution was formed, it was the belief of no man that slavery would last to the present day.

He said, what I think, that the framers of our Constitution placed the institution of slavery where the public mind rested in the hope that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. But he went on to say that the men of the present age, by their experience, have become wiser than the framers of the Constitution ; and the invention of the cotton-gin had made the perpetuity of slavery a necessity in this country.

As another piece of evidence tending to this same point. Quite recently in Virginia, a man — the owner of slaves — made a will providing that after his death certain of his slaves should have their freedom if they should so choose, and go to Liberia, rather than remain in slavery. They chose to be liberated. But the persons to whom they would descend as property claimed them as slaves. A suit was instituted, which finally came to the Supreme Court of Virginia, and was there- in decided against the slaves, upon the ground

1858] AT SPRINGFIELD 89

that a negro cannot make a choice — that they had no legal power to choose — could not perform the condition upon which their freedom depended.

I do not mention this with any purpose of criti- cising it, but to connect it with the arguments as affording additional evidence of the change of sentiment upon this question of slavery in the direction of making it perpetual and national. I argue now as I did before, that there is such a tendency, and I am backed not merely by the facts, but by the open confession in the slave States.

And now, as to the judge's inference, that be- cause I wish to see slavery placed in the course of ultimate extinction — placed where our fathers originally placed it — I wish to annihilate the State legislatures — to force cotton to grow upon the tops of the Green Mountains — to freeze ice in Florida — to cut lumber on the broad Illinois prairies — that I am in favor of all these ridicu- lous and impossible things.

It seems to me it is a complete answer to all this to ask, if, when Congress did have the fashion of restricting slavery from free territory, when courts did have the fashion of deciding that tak- ing a slave into a free country made him free — I say it is a sufficient answer to ask, if any of this ridiculous nonsense about consolidation and uni- formity did actually follow? Who heard of any such thing, because of the ordinance of '87? be- cause of the Missouri Restriction ? because of the numerous court decisions of that character?

Now, as to the Dred Scott decision; for upon that he makes his last point at me. He boldly takes ground in favor of that decision. This is one half the onslaught, and one third of the entire

9o SPEECHES [July 17

plan of the campaign. I am opposed to that de- cision in a certain sense, but not in the sense which he puts on it. I say that in so far as it decided in favor of Dred Scott's master, and against Dred Scott and his family, I do not pro- pose to disturb or resist the decision.

I never have proposed to do any such thing. I think that in respect for judicial authority, my humble history would not suffer in comparison with that of Judge Douglas. He would have the citizen conform his vote to that decision ; the member of Congress, his ; the President, his use of the veto power. He would make it a rule of political action for the people and all the depart- ments of the government. I would not. By re- sisting it as a political rule, I disturb no right of property, create no disorder, excite no mobs.

When he spoke at Chicago, on Friday evening of last week, he made this same point upon me. On Saturday evening I replied, and reminded him of a Supreme Court decision which he op- posed for at least several years. Last night, at Bloomington, he took some notice of that reply, but entirely forgot to remember that part of it.

He renews his onslaught upon me, forgetting to remember that I have turned the tables against himself on that very point. I renew the effort to draw his attention to it. I wish to stand erect before the country, as well as Judge Douglas, on this question of judicial authority, and therefore I add something to the authority in favor of my own position. I wish to show that I am sustained by authority, in addition to that heretofore pre- sented. I do not expect to convince the judge. It is part of the plan of his campaign, and he will cling to it with a desperate grip. Even turn it

1.858] AT SPRINGFIELD 91

upon him — the sharp point against him, and gaff him through — he will still cling to it till he can invent some new dodge to take the place of it.

In public speaking it is tedious reading from documents, but I must beg to indulge the practice to a limited extent. I shall read from a letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1820, and now to be found in the seventh volume of his correspond- ence, at page 177. It seems he had been pre- sented by a gentleman of the name of Jarvis with a book, or essay, or periodical, called the "Repub- lican," and he was writing in acknowledgment of the present, and noting some of its contents. After expressing the hope that the work will pro- duce a favorable effect upon the minds of the young, he proceeds to say :

That it will have this tendency may be expected, and for that reason I feel an urgency to note what I deem an error in it, the more requiring notice as your opinion is strengthened by that of many others. You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions — a very dan- gerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is, "Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem" ; and their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Thus we see the power claimed for the Su- preme Court by Judge Douglas, Mr. Jefferson

92 SPEECHES [July 17

holds, would reduce us to the despotism of an oligarchy.

Now, I have said no more than this — in fact, never quite so much as this — at least I am sus- tained by Mr. Jefferson.

Let us go a little further. You remember we once had a national bank. Some one owed the bank a debt ; he was sued and sought to avoid payment, on the ground that the bank was un- constitutional. The case went to the Supreme Court, and therein it was decided that the bank was constitutional. The whole Democratic party revolted against that decision. General Jackson himself asserted that he, as President, would not be bound to hold a national bank to be constitu- tional, even though the court had decided it to be so. He fell in precisely with the view of Mr. Jefferson, and acted upon it under his official oath, in vetoing a charter for a national bank. The declaration that Congress does not possess this constitutional power to charter a bank, has gone into the Democratic platform, at their na- tional conventions, and was brought forward and reaffirmed in their last convention at Cincinnati. They have contended for that declaration, in the very teeth of the Supreme Court, for more than a quarter of a century. In fact, they have reduced the decision to an absolute nullity. That decision, I repeat, is repudiated in the Cincinnati platform ; and still, as if to show that effrontery can go no farther, Judge Douglas vaunts, in the very speeches in which he denounces me for opposing the Dred Scott decision, that he stands on the Cincinnati platform.

Nov/, I wish to know what the judge can charge upon me, with respect to decisions of the

i8583 AT SPRINGFIELD 93

Supreme Court, which does not lie in all its length, breadth, and proportions at his own door. The plain truth is simply this : Judge Douglas is for Supreme Court decisions when he likes, and against them when he does not like them. He is for the Dred Scott decision because it tends to nationalize slavery — because it is part of the orig- inal combination for that object. It so happens, singularly enough, that I never stood opposed to a decision of the Supreme Court till this. On the contrary, I have no recollection that he was ever particularly in favor of one till this. He never was in favor of any, nor opposed to any, till the present one, which helps to nationalize slavery.

Free men of Sangamon, free men of Illinois, free men everywhere, judge ye between him and me upon this issue.

He says this Dred Scott case is a very small matter at most; that it has no practical effect; that at best, or rather, I suppose, at worst, it is but an abstraction. I submit that the proposition, that the thing which determines whether a man is free or a slave, is rather concrete than abstract. I think you would conclude that it was if your liberty depended upon it, and so would Judge Douglas if his liberty depended upon it. But suppose it was on the question of spreading slav- ery over the new Territories that he considers it as being merely an abstract matter, and one of no practical importance. How has the planting of slavery in new countries always been effected ? It has now been decided that slavery cannot be kept out of our new Territories by any legal means. In what do our new Territories now dif- fer in this respect from the old colonies when slavery was first planted within them? It was

94 SPEECHES [July 17

planted as Mr. Clay once declared, and as history proves true, by individual men in spite of the wishes of the people ; the mother government refusing to prohibit it, and withholding from the people of the colonies the authority to pro- hibit it for themselves. Mr. Clay says this was one of the great and just causes of complaint against Great Britain by the colonies, and the best apology we can now make for having the institu- tion amongst us. In that precise condition our Nebraska politicians have at last succeeded in placing our own new Territories ; the govern- ment will not prohibit slavery within them, nor allow the people to prohibit it.

I defy any man to find any difference between the policy which originally planted slavery in these colonies and that policy which now prevails in our new Territories. If it does not go into them, it is only because no individual wishes it to go. The judge indulged himself doubtless, to- day, with the question as to what I am going to do with or about the Dred Scott decision. Well, judge, will you please tell me what you did about the bank decision ? Will you not graciously allow us to do with the Dred Scott decision precisely as you did with the bank decision? You suc- ceeded in breaking down the moral effect of that decision; did you find it necessary to amend the Constitution? or to set up a court of negroes in order to do it?

There is one other point. Judge Douglas has a very affectionate leaning toward the Americans and Old Whigs. Last evening, in a sort of weep- ing tone, he described to us a death-bed scene. He had been called to the side of Mr. Clay, in his last moments, in order that the genius of

i858] AT SPRINGFIELD 95

"popular sovereignty" might duly descend from the dying man and settle upon him, the living and most worthy successor. He could do no less than promise that he would devote the remainder of his life to "popular sovereignty"; and then the great statesman departs in peace. By this part of the "plan of the campaign," the judge has evi- dently promised himself that tears shall be drawn down the cheeks of all Old Whigs, as large as half-grown apples.

Mr. Webster, too, was mentioned; but it did not quite come to a death-bed scene, as to him. It would be amusing, if it were not disgusting, to see how quick these compromise-breakers ad- minister on the political effects of their dead ad- versaries, trumping up claims never before heard of, and dividing the assets among themselves. If I should be found dead to-morrow morning, nothing but my insignificance could prevent a speech being made on my authority, before the end of next week. It so happens that in that "popular sovereignty" with which Mr. Clay was identified, the Missouri Compromise was ex- pressly reserved; and it was a little singular if Mr. Clay cast his mantle upon Judge Douglas on purpose to have that compromise repealed.

Again, the judge did not keep faith with Mr. Clay when he first brought in his Nebraska bill. He left the Missouri Compromise unrepealed, and in his report accompanying the bill, he told the world he did it on purpose. The manes of Mr. Clay must have been in great agony, till thirty days later, when "popular sovereignty" stood forth in all its glory.

One more thing. Last night Judge Douglas tormented himself with horrors about my disposi-

96 SPEECHES [July 17

tion to make negroes perfectly equal with white men in social and political relations. He did not stop to show that I Have said any such thing, or that it legitimately follows from anything I have said, but he rushes on with his assertions. I ad- here to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal, except negroes. Let us have it decided whether the Declaration of Independence, in this blessed year of 1858, shall be thus amended. In his con- struction of the Declaration last year, he said it only meant that Americans in America were equal to Englishmen in England. Then, when I pointed out to him that by that rule he excludes the Germans, the Irish, the Portuguese, and all the other people who have come amongst us since the Revolution, he reconstructs his construction. In his last speech he tells us it meant Europeans.

I press him a little further, and ask if it meant to include the Russians in Asia? or does he mean to exclude that vast population from the prin- ciples of our Declaration of Independence? I expect ere long he will introduce another amend- ment to his definition. He is not at all particular. He is satisfied with anything which does not en- danger the nationalizing of negro slavery. It may draw white men down, but it must not lift negroes up. Who shall say, "I am the superior, and you are the inferior" ?

My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not under- stand the Declaration to mean that all men were created equal in all respects. They are not our

185S] AT SPRINGFIELD 97

equal in color; but I suppose that it does mean to declare that all men are equal in some re- spects ; they are equal in their right to "life, lib- erty, and the pursuit of happiness." Certainly the negro is not our equal in color — perhaps not in many other respects ; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black. In pointing out that more has been given you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given him. All I ask for the negro is that if you do not like him, let him alone. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.

When our government was established, we had the institution of slavery among us. We were in a certain sense compelled to tolerate its existence. It was a sort of necessity. We had gone through our struggle, and secured our own independence. The framers of the Constitution found the insti- tution of slavery amongst their other institutions at the time. They found that by an effort to eradicate it, they might lose much of what they had already gained. They were obliged to bow to the necessity. They gave power to Congress to abolish the slave-trade at the end of twenty years. They also prohibited slavery in the Terri- tories where it did not exist. They did what they could and yielded to necessity for the rest. I also yield to all which follows from that neces- sity. What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.

One more point on this Springfield speech which Judge Douglas says he has read so care- fully. I expressed my belief in the existence of a conspiracy to perpetuate and nationalize slav-

98 SPEECHES

ery. I did not profess to know it, nor do I now. I showed the part Judge Douglas had played in the string of facts, constituting to my mind the proof of that conspiracy. I showed the parts played by others.

I charged that the people had been deceived into carrying the last presidential election, by the impression that the people of the Territories might exclude slavery if they chose, when it was known in advance by the conspirators, that the court was to decide that neither Congress nor the people could so exclude slavery. These charges are more distinctly made than anything else in the speech.

Judge Douglas has carefully read and re-read that speech. He has not, so far as I know, con- tradicted those charges. In the two speeches which I heard he certainly did not. On his own tacit admission I renew that charge. I charge him with having been a party to that conspiracy, and to that deception, for the sole purpose of nationalizing slavery.

The Joint Debate with Douglas

Together with Correspondence in Re- gard to the Debate, and Interven- ing Speeches (July 24 to Oc- tober 15, 1858)

With an Introduction by Horace White

THE JOINT DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS

Introduction.

By Horace White.

The following account of Mr. Lincoln's debate with Senator Douglas is condensed from a chapter in Hern- don and Weik's "Life of Lincoln" written in February, 1890, by Horace White, now of the New York Evening Post, who accompanied Mr. Lincoln as the reporter of the debate for the Chicago Tribune. It is presented here by the kind permission of the publishers of the "Life," D. Appleton and Company, of New York.

All of the seven joint debates were reported by Mr. Hitt* for the Tribune, the manuscript passing through my hands before going to the printers. . . .

The volume containing the debates, published in i860 by Follett, Foster & Co., of Columbus, Ohio, presents Mr. Lincoln's speeches as they appeared in the Chicago Tribune, and Mr. Doug- las's as they appeared in the Chicago Times. . . .

The next stage brought us to Ottawa, the first joint debate, August 21. Here the crowd was enormous. The weather had been very dry and the town was shrouded in dust raised by the mov- ing populace. Crowds were pouring into town,

* Mr. Robert R. Hitt, subsequently Assistant Secretary of State, and, after this, Congressman from the 6th District of Illinois.

102 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS

from sunrise till noon in all sorts of conveyances, teams, railroad trains., canal boats, cavalcades, and processions on foot, with banners and inscrip- tions, stirring up such clouds of dust that it was hard to make out what was underneath them. The town was covered with bunting, and bands of music were tooting around every corner, drowned now and then by the roar of cannon. Mr. Lincoln came by railroad and Mr. Douglas by carriage from La Salle. A train of seventeen passenger cars from Chicago attested the interest felt in that city in the first meeting of the cham- pions. Two great processions escorted them to the platform in the public square. But the eager- ness to hear the speaking was so great that the crowd had taken possession of the square and the platform, and had climbed on the wooden awning overhead, to such an extent that the speakers and the committees and the reporters could not get to their places. Half an hour was consumed in a rough-and-tumble skirmish to make way for them, and, when finally this was accomplished, a section of the awning gave way with its load of men and boys, and came down on the heads of the Douglas committee of reception. But, fortu- nately, nobody was hurt.

Here I was joined by Mr. Hitt and also by Mr. Chester P. Dewey of the New York Evening Post, who remained with us until the end of the campaign. Hither, also, came quite an army of young newspaper men, among whom was Henry Villard, in behalf of Forney's Philadelphia Press. I have preserved Mr. Dewey's sketch of the two orators as they appeared on the Ottawa platform, and I introduce it here as a graphic description by a new hand:

INTRODUCTION 103

"Two men presenting wider contrasts could hardly be found, as the representatives of the two great parties. Everybody knows Douglas, a short, thick-set, burly man, with large, round head, heavy hair, dark complexion, and fierce bulldog look. Strong in his own real power, and skilled by a thousand conflicts in all the strategy of a hand-to-hand or a general fight ; of tower- ing ambition, restless in his determined desire for notoriety, proud, defiant, arrogant, audacious, un- scrupulous, 'Little Dug' ascended the platform and looked out impudently and carelessly on the immense throng which surged and struggled be- fore him. A native of Vermont, reared on a soil where no slave stood, he came to Illinois a teacher, and .from one post to another had risen to his present eminence. Forgetful of the ances- tral hatred of slavery to which he was the heir, he had come ... to owe much of his fame to continued subservience to Southern influence.

"The other — Lincoln — is a native of Kentucky, of poor white parentage, and, from his cradle, has felt the blighting influence of the dark and cruel shadow which rendered labor dishonorable and kept the poor in poverty, while it advanced the rich in their possessions. Reared in poverty, and to the humblest aspirations, he left his native State, crossed the line into Illinois, and began his career of honorable toil. At first a laborer, split- ting rails for a living — deficient in education, and applying himself even to the rudiments of knowl- edge— he, too, felt the expanding power of his American manhood, and began to achieve the greatness to which he has succeeded. With great difficulty, struggling through the tedious formu- laries of legal lore, he was admitted to the bar,

104 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS

and rapidly made his way to the front ranks of his profession. Honored by the people with office, he is still the same honest and reliable man. He volunteers in the Black Hawk war, and does the State good service in its sorest need. In every relation of life, socially and to the State, Mr. Lin- coln has been always the pure and honest man. In physique he is the opposite to Douglas. Built on the Kentucky type, he is very tall, slender, and angular, awkward even in gait and attitude. His face is sharp, large-featured, and unprepossessing. His eyes are deep-set under heavy brows, his fore- head is high and retreating, and his hair is dark and heavy. In repose, I must confess that 'Long Abe's' appearance is not comely. But stir him up and the fire of his genius plays on every feature. His eye glows and sparkles ; every lineament, now so ill-formed, grows brilliant and expressive, and you have before you a man of rare power and of strong magnetic influence. He takes the people every time, and there is no getting away from his sturdy good sense, his unaffected sincerity, and the unceasing play of his good humor, which accompanies his close logic and smoothes the way to conviction. Listening to him on Saturday, calmly and unprejudiced, I was convinced that he had no superior as a stump-speaker. He is clear, concise, and logical, his language is elo- quent and at perfect command. He is altogether a more fluent speaker than Douglas, and in all the arts of debate fully his equal. The Republicans of Illinois have chosen a champion worthy of their heartiest support, and fully equipped for the conflict with the great Squatter Sovereign.''

At the conclusion of the Ottawa debate, a cir- cumstance occurred which, Mr. Lincoln said to

INTRODUCTION 105

me afterwards, was extremely mortifying to him. Half a dozen Republicans, roused to a high pitch of enthusiasm for their leader, seized him as he came down from the platform, hoisted him upon their shoulders and marched off with him, singing the "Star-Spangled Banner," or "Hail, Colum- bia," until they reached the place where he was to spend the night. What use Douglas made of this incident, is known to the readers of the joint de- bates. He said a few days later, at Joliet, that Lincoln was so used up in the discussion that his knees trembled, and he had to be carried from the platform, and he caused this to be printed in the newspapers of his own party. Mr. Lincoln called him to account for this fable at Jonesboro.

The Ottawa debate gave great satisfaction to our side. Mr. Lincoln, we thought, had the bet- ter of the argument, and we all came away en- couraged. But the Douglas men were encour- aged also. In his concluding half hour, Douglas spoke with great rapidity and animation, and yet with perfect distinctness, and his supporters cheered him wildly.

The next joint debate was to take place at Free- port, six days later. In the interval, Mr. Lincoln addressed meetings at Henry, Marshall County; Augusta, Hancock County, and Macomb, Mc- Donough County. During this interval he pre- pared the answers to the seven questions put to him by Douglas at Ottawa, and wrote the four questions which he propounded to Douglas at Freeport. The second of these, viz. : "Can the people of a United States Territory, in any law- ful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?"

106 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS

was made the subject of a conference between Mr. Lincoln and a numberof his friends from Chi- cago, among whom were Norman B. Judd and Dr. C. H. Ray, the latter the chief editor of the Tribune. This conference took place at the town of Dixon. I was not present, but Dr. Ray told me that all who were there counseled Mr. Lincoln not to put that question to Douglas, be- cause he would answer it in the affirmative and thus probably secure his re-election. It was their opinion that Lincoln should argue strongly from the Dred Scott decision, which Douglas in- dorsed, that the people of the Territories could not lawfully exclude slavery prior to the forma- tion of a State Constitution, but that he should not force Douglas to say yes or no. They be- lieved that the latter would let that subject alone as much as possible in order not to offend the South, unless he should be driven into a corner. Mr. Lincoln replied that to draw an affirmative answer from Douglas on this question was ex- actly what he wanted, and that his object was to make it impossible for Douglas to get the vote of the Southern States in the next Presidential elec- tion. He considered that fight much more im- portant than the present one, and he would be willing to lose this in order to win that.

The result justified Mr. Lincoln's prevision. Douglas did answer in the affirmative. If he had answered in the negative he would have lost the Senatorial election, and that would have ended his political career. He took the chance of being able to make satisfactory explanations to the slaveholders, but they would have nothing to do with him afterwards.

The crowd that assembled at Freeport on the

INTRODUCTION 107

27th of August was even larger than that at Ot- tawa. Hundreds of people came from Chicago and many from the neighboring State of Wisconsin. Douglas came from Galena the night before the debate, and was greeted with a great torchlight procession. Lincoln came the following morning from Dixon, and was received at the railway sta- tion by a dense crowd, filling up all the adjacent streets, who shouted themselves hoarse when his tall form was seen emerging from the train. Here, again, the people had seized upon the plat- form, and all the approaches to it, an hour before the speaking began, and a hand-to-hand fight took place to secure possession.

After the debate was finished, we Republicans did not feel very happy. We held the same opinion that Mr. Judd and Dr. Ray had — that Douglas's answer had probably saved him from defeat. We did not look forward, and we did not look South, and even if we had done so, we were too much enlisted in this campaign to swap it for another one which was two years distant. Mr. Lincoln's wisdom was soon vindicated by his antagonist, one of whose earliest acts, after he returned to Washington City, was to make a speech (February 23, 1859) defending himself against attacks upon the "Freeport heresy," as the Southerners called it. In that debate Jeffer- son Davis was particularly aggravating, and Douglas did not reply to him with his usual spirit.

It would draw this chapter out to unreasonable length, if I were to give details of all the small meetings of this campaign. After the Freeport joint debate, we went to Carlinville, Macoupin County, where John M. Palmer divided the time with Mr. Lincoln. From this place we went to

io8 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS

Clinton, De Witt County, via Springfield and Decatur. ...

Our course took us next to Bloomington, Mc- Lean County; Monticello, Piatt County, and Paris, Edgar County. At the last-mentioned place (September 8) we were joined by Owen Love joy, who had never been in that part of the State before. The fame of Love joy as an Aboli- tionist had preceded him, however, and the people gathered around him in a curious and hesitating way, as though he were a witch who might sud- denly give them lockjaw or bring murrain on their cattle, if he were much provoked. Love- joy saw this and was greatly amused by it, and when he made a speech in the evening, Mr. Lin- coln having made his in the daytime, he invited the timid ones to come up and feel of his horns and examine his cloven foot and his forked tail. Love joy was one of the most effective orators of his time. After putting his audience in good humor in this way, he made one of his impas- sioned speeches which never failed to gain votes where human hearts were responsive to the wrongs of slavery. Edgar County was in the Democratic list, but this year it gave a Repub- lican majority on the legislative and congressional tickets, and I think Lovejoy's speech was largely accountable for the result. . . .

The next meetings in their order were Hills- boro, Montgomery County; Greenville. Bond County, and Edwardsville, Madison County. . . .

From Edwardsville we went to the Jonesboro joint debate. The audience here was small, not more than 1,000 or 1,500, and nearly all Demo- crats. This was in the heart of Egypt. The country people came into the little town with ox

INTRODUCTION

109

teams mostly, and a very stunted breed of oxen, too. Their wagons were old-fashioned, and looked as though they were ready to fall in pieces. A train with three or four carloads of Douglas men came up, with Douglas himself, from Cairo. All who were present listened to the debate with very close attention, and there was scarcely any cheering on either side. Of course, we did not expect any in that place. The reason why Doug- \as did not get much, was that Union County was a stronghold of the "Danites," or Buchanan Democrats.* . . .

From Jonesboro we went to Centralia, where a great State Fair was sprawling over the prairie, but there was no speaking there. It was not good form to have political bouts at State Fairs, and I believe that the managers had prohibited them. After one day at this place, where great crowds clustered around both Lincoln and Douglas when- ever they appeared on the grounds, we went to Charleston, Coles County, September 18, where the fourth joint debate took place.

This was a very remarkable gathering, the like of which we had not seen elsewhere. It con- sisted of a great outpouring (or rather inpour- ing) of the rural population, in their own con- veyances. There was only one line of railroad here, and only one special train on it. Yet, to my eye, the crowd seemed larger than at either Ot- tawa or Freeport, in fact the largest of the series, except the one at Galesburg, which came later. The campaign was now at its height, the previous debates having stirred the people into a fever.

* As the reader of the Debate will observe, President Buchanan and his Administration were hostile to Douglas for his opposition to their Lecompton policy. — M. M. M.

no DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS

Both Lincoln and Douglas left the train at Mattoon, distant some ten miles from Charles- ton, to accept the escort of their respective par- tisans. Mattoon was then a comparatively new place, a station on the Illinois Central Railway peopled by Northern men. Nearly the whole population of this town turned out to escort Mr. Lincoln along the dusty highway to Charleston. In his procession was a chariot containing thirty- two young ladies, representing the thirty-two States of the Union, and carrying banners to designate the same. Following this was one young lady on horseback, holding aloft a banner inscribed, "Kansas — I will be free." As she was very good-looking, we thought that she would not remain free always. The muses had been wide awake also, for, on the side of the chariot, was the stirring legend :

"Westward the star of empire takes its way; The girls link-on to Lincoln, as their mothers did to Clay."

The Douglas procession was likewise a formi- dable one. He, too, had his chariot of young ladies, and, in addition, a mounted escort. The two processions stretched an almost interminable distance along the road, and were marked by a moving cloud of dust.

Before the Charleston debate, Mr. Lincoln had received (from Senator Trumbull, I suppose) certain official documents to prove that Douglas had attempted, in 1856, to bring Kansas into the Union without allowing the people to vote upon her constitution, and with these he put the Little Giant on the defensive, and pressed him so hard that we all considered that our side had won a substantial victory. . . .

INTRODUCTION in

After the debate was ended and the country people had mostly dispersed, the demand for speeches was still far from being satisfied. Two meetings were started in the evening, with blazing bonfires in the street to mark the places. Richard J. Oglesby, the Republican nominee for Congress (afterward General, Governor, and Senator), ad- dressed one of them. At the Douglas meeting, Richard T. Merrick and U. F. Linder were the speakers. Merrick was a young lawyer from Maryland, who had lately settled in Chicago, and a fluent and rather captivating orator. Linder was an Old Line Whig, of much natural ability, who had sided with the Democrats on the break- up of his own party. Later in the campaign Douglas wrote him a letter saying: "For God's sake, Linder, come up here and help me." This letter got into the newspapers, and as a conse- quence, the receiver of it was immediately dubbed "For-God's-Sake Linder," by which name he was popularly known all the rest of his days.

There was nothing of special interest between the Charleston debate and that which took place at Galesburg, October 7. Here we had the largest audience of the whole series and the worst day, the weather being very cold and raw, not- withstanding which the people flocked from far and near. One feature of the Republican pro- cession was a division of one hundred ladies and an equal number of gentlemen on horseback as a special escort to the carriage containing Mr. Lin- coln. The whole country seemed to be swarming and the crowd stood three hours in the college grounds, in a cutting wind, listening to the debate. Mr. Lincoln's speech at Galesburg was, in my judgment, the best of the series.

H2 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS

At Quincy, October 13, we had a fine day and a very large crowd, although not so large as at Galesburg. The usual -processions and parapher- nalia were on hand. Old Whiggery was largely represented here, and in front of the Lincoln procession was a live raccoon on a pole, em- blematic of a by-gone day and a by-gone party. When this touching reminder of the past drew near the hotel where we were staying, an old weather-beaten follower of Henry Clay, who was standing near me, was moved to tears. After mopping his face he made his way up to Mr. Lincoln, wrung his hand, and burst into tears again. The wicked Democrats carried at the head of their procession a dead 'coon suspended by its tail. This was more in accord with existing facts than the other specimen, but our prejudices ran in favor of live 'coons in that part of Illinois. Farther north we did not set much store by them. Here I saw Carl Schurz for the first time. He was hotly in the fray, and was an eager listener to the Quincy debate. Another rising star, Frank P. Blair, Jr., was battling for Lincoln in the southern part of the State.

The next day both Lincoln and Douglas, and their retainers, went on board the steamer City of Louisiana, bound for Alton. Here the last of the joint debates took place, October 15. The day was pleasant but the audience was the small- est of the series, except the one at Jonesboro. The debate passed off quietly and without any incident worthy of note.

The campaign was now drawing to a close. Everybody who had borne an active part in it was pretty well fagged out, except Mr. Lincoln. He showed no signs of fatigue. Douglas's voice

INTRODUCTION 113

was worn down to extreme huskiness. He took great pains to save what was left of his throat, but to listen to him moved one's pity. Neverthe- less, he went on doggedly, bravely, and with a jaunty air of confidence. Mr. Lincoln's voice was as clear and far-reaching as it was the day he spoke at Beardstown, two months before — a high- pitched tenor, almost a falsetto, that could be heard at a greater distance than Douglas's heavy basso. The battle continued till the election (November 2), which took place in a cold, pelt- ing rainstorm, one of the most uncomfortable in the whole year. But nobody minded the weather. The excitement was intense all day in all parts of the State. The Republican State ticket was elected by a small plurality, the vote being as follows :

FOR STATE TREASURER.

Miller (Republican), 125,430

Fondey (Douglas Democrat), .... 121,609 Dougherty (Buchanan Democrat), . . . 5,079

The Legislature consisted of twenty-five Sena- tors and seventy-five Representatives. Thirteen Senators held over from the preceding election. Of these, eight were Democrats and five Re- publicans. Of the twelve Senators elected this year, the Democrats elected six and the Repub- licans six. So the new Senate was composed of fourteen Democrats and eleven Republicans.

Of the seventy-five members of the House of Representatives, the Democrats elected forty and the Republicans thirty-five.

On joint ballot, therefore, the Democrats had fifty-four and the Republicans forty-six. And

H4 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS

by this vote was Mr. Douglas re-elected Sena- tor. ...

What is more to the purpose, is that the Repub- licans gained 29,241 votes, as against a Demo- cratic gain of 21,332 (counting the Douglas and Buchanan vote together), over the presidential election of 1856. . . .

Mr. Lincoln, as he said at the Dixon Confer- ence, had gone after "larger game," and he had bagged it to a greater extent than he, or anybody, then, imagined. But the immediate prize was taken by his great rival.

I say great rival, with a full sense of the mean- ing of the words. I heard Mr. Douglas deliver his speech to the members of the Illinois Legis- lature, April 25, 1861, in the gathering tumult of arms. It was like a blast of thunder. I do not think that it is possible for a human being to pro- duce a more prodigious effect with spoken words, than he produced on those who were within the sound of his voice. He was standing in the same place where I had first heard Mr. Lincoln. The veins of his neck and forehead were swollen with passion, and the perspiration ran down his face in streams. His voice had recovered its clearness from the strain of the previous year, and was fre- quently broken with emotion. The amazing force that he threw into the words : "When hostile armies are marching under new and odious ban- ners against the government of our country, the shortest way to peace is the most stupendous and unanimous preparation for war," seemed to shake the whole building. That speech hushed the breath of treason in every corner of the State. Two months later he was in his grave. He was only forty-eight years old. , . .

INTRODUCTION 115

Mention should be made of the services of Senator Trumbull in the campaign. Mr. Trum- bull was a political debater, scarcely, if at all, inferior to either Lincoln or Douglas. He had given Douglas more trouble in the Senate, during the three years he had been there, than anybody else in that body. He had known Douglas from his youth, and he knew all the joints in his armor. He possessed a courage equal to any occasion, and he wielded a blade of tempered steel. He was not present at any of the joint debates, or at any of Mr. Lincoln's separate meetings, but ad- dressed meetings wherever the State Central Committee sent him. Mr. Lincoln often spoke of him to me, and always in terms of admira- tion. . . .

I think that this was the most important intel- lectual wrestle that has ever taken place in this country, and that it will bear comparison with any which history mentions. Its consequences we all know. It gave Mr. Lincoln such prominence in the public eye that his nomination to the Presi- dency became possible and almost inevitable. It put an apple of discord in the Democratic party which hopelessly divided it at Charleston, thus making Republican success in i860 morally cer- tain. This was one of Mr. Lincoln's designs, as has been already shown. Perhaps the Charles- ton schism would have taken place, even if Doug- las had not been driren into a corner at Freeport, and compelled to proclaim the doctrine of "un- friendly legislation," but it is more likely that the break would have been postponed a few years longer. . . .

n6 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS

Correspondence in Regard to the Debate.

July 24 to- July 31, 1858. Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas.

Chicago, 111., July 24, 1858. Hon. S. A. Douglas.

My dear Sir : Will it be agreeable to you to make an arrangement for you and myself to divide time, and address the same audiences the present canvass? Mr. Judd, who will hand you this, is authorized to receive your answer; and, if agreeable to you, to enter into the terms of such arrangement. Your obedient servant,

A. Lincoln.

Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln.

Hon A. Lincoln. Chica^°' Ju^ 2*> l858'

Dear Sir : Your note of this date, in which you in- quire if it would be agreeable to me to make an ar- rangement to divide the time and address the same audiences during the present canvass, was handed me by Mr. Judd. Recent events have interposed difficulties in the way of such an arrangement.

I went to Springfield last week for the purpose of con- ferring with the Democratic State Central Committee upon the mode of conducting the canvass, and with them, and under their advice, made a list of appoint- ments covering the entire period until late in October. The people of the several localities have been notified of the times and places of the meetings. Those appoint- ments have all been made for Democratic meetings, and arrangements have been made by which the Democratic candidates for Congress, for the legislature, and other offices will be present and address the people. It is evident, therefore, that these various candidates, in con- nection with myself, will occupy the whole time of the day and evening, and leave no opportunity for other speeches.

Besides, there is another consideration which should be kept in mind. It has been suggested recently that an

CORRESPONDENCE 117

arrangement had been made to bring out a third candi- date for the United States Senate, who, with yourself, should canvass the State in opposition to me, with no other purpose than to insure my defeat, by dividing the Democratic party for your benefit. If I should make this arrangement with you, it is more than probable that this other candidate, who has a common object with you, would desire to become a party to it, and claim the right to speak from the same stand ; so that he and you in concert might be able to take the opening and closing speech in every case.

I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise, if it was your original intention to invite such an arrange- ment, that you should have waited until after I had made my appointments, inasmuch as we were both here in Chicago together for several days after my arrival, and again at Bloomington, Atlanta, Lincoln, and Spring- field, where it was well known I went for the purpose of consulting with the State Central Committee, and agreeing upon the plan of the campaign.

While under these circumstances I do not feel at lib- erty to make any arrangements which would deprive the Democratic candidates for Congress, State offices, and the legislature, from participating in the discussion at the various meetings designated by the Democratic State Central Committee, I will, in order to accommo- date you as far as it is in my power to do so, take the responsibility of making an arrangement with you for a discussion between us at one prominent point in each congressional district in the State, except the second and sixth districts, where we have both spoken, and in each of which cases you had the concluding speech. If agreeable to you, I will indicate the following places as those most suitable in the several congressional dis- tricts at which we should speak, to wit : Freeport, Otta- wa, Galesburg, Quincy, Alton, Jonesboro and Charles- ton. I will confer with you at the earliest convenient opportunity in regard to the mode of conducting the debate, the times of meeting at the several places, sub- ject to the condition that where appointments have al- ready been made by the Democratic State Central Com- mittee at any of those places, I must insist upon you meeting me at the time specified. Very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

S. A. Douglas.

ii8 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS

Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas.

Springfield, July 29, 1858. Hon. S. A. Douglas.

Dear Sir : Yours of the 24th in relation to an arrangement to divide time and address the same audiences is received; and in apology for not sooner replying, allow me to say that when I sat by you at dinner yesterday I was not aware that you had answered my note, nor certainly that my own note had been presented to you. An hour after I saw a copy of your answer in the Chicago Times, and reaching home I found the original awaiting me. Protesting that your insinuations of attempted unfairness on my part are unjust and with the hope that you did not very consid- erately make them, I proceed to reply. To your statement that "It has been suggested recently that an arrangement had been made to bring out a third candidate for the United States Sen- ate, who, with yourself, should canvass the State in opposition to me," etc., I can only say that such suggestion must have been made by yourself, for certainly none such has been made by or to me, or otherwise, to my knowledge. Surely you did not deliberately conclude, as you insinuate, that I was expecting to draw you into an ar- rangement of terms, to be agreed on by yourself, by which a third candidate and myself "in con- cert might be able to take the opening and closing speech in every case."

As to your surprise that I did not sooner make the proposal to divide time with you, I can only say I made it as soon as I resolved to make it. I did not know but that such proposal would come from you; I waited respectfully to see. It may

CORRESPONDENCE 1 1 9

have been well known to you that you went to Springfield for the purpose of agreeing on the plan of campaign ; but it was not so known to me. When your appointments were announced in the papers, extending only to the 21st of August, I for the first time considered it certain that you would make no proposal to me, and then resolved that, if my friends concurred, I would make one to you. As soon thereafter as I could see and consult with friends satisfactorily, I did make the proposal. It did not occur to me that the proposed arrangements could derange your plans after the latest of your appointments already made. After that, there was before the election largely over two months of clear time.

For you to say that we have already spoken at "hicago and Springfield, and that on both occa- sions I had the concluding speech, is hardly a fair statement. The truth rather is this : At Chicago, July 9, you made a carefully prepared conclusion on my speech of June 16. Twenty- four hours after, I made a hasty conclusion on yours of the 9th. You had six days to prepare, and concluded on me again at Bloomington on the 1 6th. Twenty-four hours after, I concluded again on you at Springfield. In the meantime, you had made another conclusion on me at Springfield which I did not hear, and of the contents of which I knew nothing when I spoke; so that your speech made in day- light, and mine at night, of the 17th, at Spring- field, were both made in perfect independence of each other. The dates of making all these speeches will show, I think, that in the matter of time for preparation the advantage has all been

120 SPEECHES [Aug. 12

on your side, and that none of the external cir- cumstances have stood to my advantage.

I agree to an arrangement for us to speak at the seven places you have named, and at your own times, provided you name the times at once, so that I, as well as you, can have to myself the time not covered by the arrangement. As to the other details, I wish perfect reciprocity, and no more. 1 wish as much time as you, and that conclusions shall alternate. That is all. Your obedient servant, A. Lincoln.

P. S. As matters now stand, I shall be at no more of your exclusive meetings ; and for about a week from to-day a letter from you will reach me at Springfield. A. L.

Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln.

Bement, Piatt Co., 111., July 30, 1858.

Dear Sir : Your letter dated yesterday, accepting my proposition for a joint discussion at one prominent point in each congressional district, as stated in my previous letter, was received this morning.

The times and places designated are as follows :

Ottawa, La Salle County August 21, 1858

Freeport, Stephenson County. . " 27, '

Jonesboro, Union County .... September 15, "

Charleston, Coles County " 18, '

Galesburg, Knox County October 7, '

Quincy, Adams County " 13, "

Alton, Madison County " 15,

I agree to your suggestion that we shall alternately open and close the discussion. I will speak at Ottawa one hour ; you can reply, occupying an hour and a half, and I will then follow for half an hour. At Freeport, you shall open the discussion and speak one hour ; I will follow for an hour and a half, and you can then reply for half an hour. We will alternate in like man- ner in each successive place. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. A. Douglas.

Hon. A. Lincoln, Springfield, 111.

1858] AT BEARDSTOWN 121

Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas.

Springfield, July 31, 1858. Hon. S. A. Douglas.

Dear Sir : Yours of yesterday, naming places, times, and terms for joint discussions between us, was received this morning. Although by the terms, as you propose, you take four openings and closes to my three, I accede, and thus close the arrangement. I direct this to you at Hills- boro, and shall try to have both your letter and this appear in the Journal and Register of Mon- day morning. Your obedient servant,

A. Lincoln.

"The Conspiracy Charge."

Fragment of Speech in Rejoinder to the Reply of Senator Douglas to Mr. Lin- coln's Springfield Speeches of June 16 and July 17, 1858. Delivered at Beards- town, III. August 12, 1858.

I made a speech in June last in which I pointed out, briefly and consecutively, a series of public measures leading directly to the national- ization of slavery — the spreading of that institu- tion over all the Territories and all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. I enumerated the repeal of the Missouri Com- promise, which, every candid man must acknowl- edge, conferred upon emigrants to Kansas and Nebraska the right to carry slaves there and hold them in bondage, whereas formerly they had no such right ; I alluded to the events which followed that repeal, events in which Judge Douglas's

122 SPEECHES [Aug. 12

name figures quite prominently ; I referred to the Dred Scott decision and the extraordinary means taken to prepare the public mind for that decision ; the efforts put forth by President Pierce to make the people believe that, in the election of James Buchanan, they had indorsed the doctrine that slavery may exist in the free Territories of the Union — the earnest exhortation put forth by President Buchanan to the people to stick to that decision whatever it might be — the close-fitting niche in the Nebraska bill, wherein the right of the people to govern themselves is made "subject to the Constitution of the United States" — the extraordinary haste made by Judge Douglas to give this decision an indorsement at the capital of Illinois. I alluded to other concurring circum- stances, which I need not repeat now, and I said that, though I could not open the bosoms of men and find out their secret motives, yet, when I found the framework of a barn, or a bridge, or any other structure, built by a number of carpen- ters— Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James —and so built that each tenon had its proper mortise, and the whole forming a symmetrical piece of workmanship, I should say that those carpenters all worked on an intelligible plan, and understood each other from the beginning. This embraced the main argument in my speech before the Republican State Convention in June. Judge Douglas received a copy of my speech some two weeks before his return to Illinois. He had ample time to examine it and reply to it, but he wholly overlooked the body of my argument, and said nothing about the "conspiracy charge," as he terms it. He made his speech up of complaints against our tendencies to negro equality and amal-

i8s8] AT BEARDSTOWN 123

gamation. Well, seeing that Douglas had had the process served on him, that he had taken notice of the process, that he had come into court and pleaded to a part of the complaint, but had ignored the main issue, I took a default on him. I held that he had no plea to make to the general charge. So when I was called on to reply to him, twenty-four hours afterwards, I renewed the charge as explicitly as I could. My speech was reported and published on the following morning, and, of course, Judge Douglas saw it. He went from Chicago to Bloomington and there made another and longer speech, and yet took no notice of the "conspiracy charge." He then went to Springfield and made another elaborate argu- ment, but was not prevailed upon to know any- thing about the outstanding indictment. I made another speech at Springfield, this time taking it for granted that Judge Douglas was satisfied to take his chances in the campaign with the im- putation of the conspiracy hanging over him. It was not until he went into a small town, Clinton, in De Witt County, where he delivered his fourth or fifth regular speech, that he found it convenient to notice this matter at all. At that place (I was standing in the crowd when he made his speech), he bethought himself that he was charged with something, and his reply was that his "self-respect alone prevented him from calling it a falsehood." Well, my friends, perhaps he so far lost his self- respect in Beardstown as to actually call it a falsehood.

But now I have this reply to make : that while the Nebraska bill was pending, Judge Douglas helped to vote down a clause giving the people of the Territories the right to exclude slavery if they

124

SPEECHES I Aug. 17

chose; that neither while the bill was pending, nor at any other time,_ would he give his opinion whether the people had the right to exclude slav- ery, though respectfully asked; that he made a report, which I hold in my hand, from the Com- mittee on Territories, in which he said the rights of the people of the Territories, in this regard, are "held in abeyance," and cannot be immediately exercised ; that the Dred Scott decision expressly denies any such right, but declares that neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature can keep slavery out of Kansas and that Judge Douglas indorses that decision. All these charges are new ; that is, I did not make them in my original speech. They are additional and cumulative testimony. I bring them forward now and dare Judge Douglas to deny one of them. Let him do so and I will prove them by such testimony as shall confound him forever. I say to you, that it would be more to the purpose for Judge Douglas to say that he did not repeal the Missouri Com- promise; that he did not make slavery possible where it was impossible before; that he did not leave a niche in the Nebraska bill for the Dred Scott decision to rest in; that he did not vote down a clause giving the people the right to ex- clude slavery if they wanted to; that he did not refuse to give his individual opinion whether a Territorial Legislature could exclude slavery; that he did not make a report to the Senate, in which he said that the rights of the people, in this regard, were held in abeyance and could not be immediately exercised ; that he did not make a hasty indorsement of the Dred Scott decision over at Springfield ;* that he does not now indorse that * This refers to Douglas's speech on June 12, 1857.

1858] AT LEWISTON 125

decision; that that decision does not take away from the Territorial Legislature the right to ex- clude slavery ; and that he did not, in the original Nebraska bill, so couple the words State and Territory together that what the Supreme Court has done in forcing open all the Territories to slavery it may yet do in forcing open all the States. I say it would be vastly more to the point for Judge Douglas to say that he did not do some of these things ; that he did not forge some of these links of testimony, than to go vociferating about the country that possibly he may hint that somebody is a liar.

"Back to the Declaration."

Speech at Lewiston, III. August 17, 1858.*

The Declaration of Independence was formed by the representatives of American liberty from thirteen States of the Confederacy, twelve of which were slave-holding communities. We need not discuss the way or the reason of their becom- ing slave-holding communities. It is sufficient for our purpose that all of them greatly deplored the evil and that they placed a provision in the Constitution which they supposed would gradu- ally remove the disease by cutting off its source. This was the abolition of the slave trade. So general was the conviction, the public determina- tion, to abolish the African slave trade, that the provision which I have referred to as being placed in the Constitution declared that it should not be abolished prior to the year 1808. A constitu-

* Reported by the Chicago Press and Tribune.

126 SPEECHES [Aug. 17

tional provision was necessary to prevent the peo- ple, through Congress, from putting a stop to the traffic immediately at the close of the war. Now if slavery had been a good thing, would the fa- thers of the republic have taken a step calculated to diminish its beneficent influences among them- selves, and snatch the boon wholly from their posterity? These communities, by their repre- sentatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men : "We hold these truths to be self-evident : that all men are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, lib- erty, and the pursuit of happiness." This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to his creatures. Yes, gentlemen, to all his crea- tures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Di- vine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on and degraded and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they estab- lished these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, or none but Anglo-Saxon white men, were entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, their pos-

i858] AT LEWISTON 127

terity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the bat- tle which their fathers began, so that truth and justice and mercy and all the humane and Chris- tian virtues might not be extinguished from the land ; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built.

Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence ; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur and mutilate the fair sym- metry of its proportions ; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Re- turn to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the revolution. Think nothing of me — take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever — but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man's success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that im- mortal emblem of Humanity — the Declaration of American Independence.

128 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

First Joint Debate, at Ottawa.

August "21, 1858. Mr. Douglas's Opening Speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen: I appear before you to-day for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind. By an ar- rangement between Mr. Lincoln and myself, we are present here to-day for the purpose of having a joint discussion, as the representatives of the two great political parties of the State and Union, upon the principles in issue between those parties ; and this vast concourse of people shows the deep feeling which per- vades the public mind in. regard to the questions dividing us.

Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political parties, known as the Whig and Democratic parties. Both were national and patriotic, advocating principles that were universal in their application. An old-line Whig could proclaim his principles in Louisiana and Massachusetts alike. Whig principles had no boundary sectional line — they were not limited by the Ohio River, nor by the Potomac, nor by the line of the free and slave States, but applied and were proclaimed wherever the Constitution ruled or the American flag waved over the American soil. So it was, and so it is with the great Democratic party, which, from the days of Jefferson until this period, has proven itself to be the historic party of this nation. While the Whig and Democratic parties differed in regard to a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub- treasury, they agreed on the great slavery question which now agitates the Union. I say that the Whig party and the Democratic party agreed on the slavery question, while they differed on those matters of ex- pediency to which I have referred. The Whig partjr and the Democratic party jointly adopted the com- promise measures of 1850 as the basis of a proper and just solution of the slavery question in all its forms. Clay was the great leader, with Webster on his right and Cass on his left, and sustained by the patriots in the Whig and Democratic ranks who had devised and enacted the compromise measures of 1850.

1858] AT OTTAWA 129

In 1 85 1 the Whig party and the Democratic party united in Illinois in adopting resolutions indorsing and approving the principles of the compromise measures of 1850, as the proper adjustment of that question. In 1852, when the Whig party assembled in convention at Baltimore for the purpose of nominating a candidate for the presidency, the first thing it did was to declare the compromise measures of 1850, in substance and in principle, a suitable adjustment of that question. [Here the speaker was interrupted by loud and long-continued applause.] My friends, silence will be more acceptable to me in the discussion of these questions than applause. I desire to address myself to your judgment, your under- standing, and your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasm. When the Democratic convention assembled in Baltimore in the same year, for the pur- pose of nominating a Democratic candidate for the presidency, it also adopted the compromise measures of 1850 as the basis of Democratic action. Thus you see that up to 1853-54, the Whig party and the Demo- cratic party both stood on the same platform with re- gard to the slavery question. That platform was the right of the people of each State and each Territory to decide their local and domestic institutions for them- selves, subject only to the Federal Constitution.

During the session of Congress of 1853-54, I intro- duced into the Senate of the United States a bill to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska on that principle which had been adopted in the compro- mise measures of 1850, approved by the Whig party and the Democratic party in Illinois in 1851, and indorsed by the Whig party and the Democratic party in national convention in 1852. In order that there might be no misunderstanding in relation to the principle involved in the Kansas and Nebraska bill, I put forth the true intent and meaning of the act in these words : "It is the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Federal Constitution." Thus you see that up to 1854, when the Kansas and Nebraska bill was brought into Congress for the purpose of carrying out the principles which both parties had up to that time indorsed and approved, there had been no

l3o DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

division in this country in regard to that principle ex- cept the opposition of the. Abolitionists. In the House of Representatves of the Illinois legislature, upon a reso- lution asserting that principle, every Whig and every Democrat in the House voted in the affirmative, and only four men voted against it, and those four were old-line Abolitionists.

In 1854 Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Lyman Trum- bull entered into an arrangement, one with the other, and each with his respective friends, to dissolve the Old Whig party on the one hand, and to dissolve the old Democratic party on the other, and to connect the members of both into an Abolition party, under the name and disguise of a Republican party. The terms of that arrangement between Lincoln and Trumbull have been published by Lincoln's special friend, James H. Matheny, Esq., and they were that Lincoln should have General Shields's place in the United States Sen- ate, which was then about to become vacant, and that Trumbull should have my seat when my term expired. Lincoln went to work to Abolitionize the Old Whig party all over the State, pretending that he was then as good a Whig as ever ; and Trumbull went to work in his part of the State preaching Abolitionism in its milder and lighter form, and trying to Abolitionize the Demo- cratic party, and bring old Democrats handcuffed and bound hand and foot into the Abolition camp. In pur- suance of the arrangement, the parties met at Spring- field in October, 1854, and proclaimed their new plat- form. Lincoln was to bring into the Abolition camp the old-line Whigs, and transfer them over to Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Parson Lovejoy, who were ready to receive them and christen them in their new faith. They laid down on that occasion a platform for their new Republican party, which was thus to be con- structed. I have the resolutions of the State convention then held, which was the first mass State convention ever held in Illinois by the Black Republican party, and I now hold them in my hands and will read a part of them, and cause the others to be printed. Here are the most important and material resolutions of this Aboli- tion platform :

1. Resolved, That we believe this truth to be self-evident, that when parties become subversive of the ends for which they are established, or incapable of restoring the govern-

i8s8] AT OTTAWA 131

merit to the true principles of the Constitution, it is the right and duty of the people to dissolve the political bands by which they may have been connected therewith, and to organize new parties upon such principles and with such views as the circumstances and the exigencies of the nation may demand.

2. Resolved, That the times imperatively demand the reorganization of parties, and, repudiating all previous party attachments, names, and predilections, we unite our- selves together in defense of the liberty and Constitution of the country, and will hereafter cooperate as the Repub- lican party, pledged to the accomplishment of the follow- ing purposes : To bring the administration of the govern- ment back to the control of first principles ; to restore Nebraska and Kansas to the position of free Territories ; that, as the Con; 'itution of the United States vests in the States, and not in Congress, the power to legislate for the extradition of fugitives from labor, to repeal and entirely abrogate the fugitive-slave law ; to restrict slavery to those States in which it exists ; to prohibit the admis- sion of any more slave States into the Union ; to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia ; to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the general govern- ment has exclusive jurisdiction ; and to resist the acquire- ment of any more Territories unless the practice of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited.

3. Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles we will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office, under the general or State government, who is not positively and fully committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal charac- ter and conduct is not a guaranty that he is reliable, and who shall not have abjured old party allegiance and ties.

Now, gentlemen, your Black Republicans have cheered every one of those propositions, and yet I venture to say that you cannot get Mr. Lincoln to come out and say that he is now in favor of each one of them. That these propositions, one and all, constitute the platform of the Black Republican party of this day, I have no doubt ; and when you were not aware for what purpose I was reading them, your Black Republicans cheered them as good Black Republican doctrines. My object in reading these resolutions was to put the question to Abraham Lincoln this day, whether he now stands and will stand by each article in that creed, and carry it out. I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln to-day stands as he did in

i32 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugi- tive-slave law. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the ad- mission of any more slave States into the Union, even if the people want them. I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make. I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different States. I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, North as well as South of the Missouri Compromise line. I de- sire him to answer whether he is opposed to the ac- quisition of any more territory unless slavery is pro- hibited therein. I want his answer to these questions. Your affirmative cheers in favor of this Abolition plat- form are not satisfactory. I ask Abraham Lincoln to answer these questions, in order that when I trot him down to lower Egypt, I may put the same questions to him. My principles are the same everywhere. I can proclaim them alike in the North, the South, the East, and the West. My principles will apply wherever the Constitution prevails and the American flag waves. I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln's principles will bear transplanting from Ottawa to Jonesboro? I put these questions to him to-day distinctly, and ask an answer. I have a right to an answer, for I quote from the platform of the Republican party, made by himself and others at the time that party was formed, and the bargain made by Lincoln to dissolve and kill the Old Whig party, and transfer its members, bound hand and foot, to the Abolition party, under the direction of Gid- dings and Fred Douglass. In the remarks I have made on this platform, and the position of Mr. Lincoln upon it, I mean nothing personally disrespectful or unkind to that gentleman. I have known him for nearly twenty- five years. There were many points of sympathy be- tween us when we first got acquainted. We were both comparatively boys, and both struggling with poverty in a strange land. I was a school-teacher in the town of Winchester, and he a flourishing grocery-keeper in the town of Salem. He was more successful in his occu-

i8s8] AT OTTAWA 133

pation than I was in mine, and hence more fortunate in this world's goods. Lincoln is one of those peculiar men who perform with admirable skill everything which they undertake. I made as good a school-teacher as I could, and when a cabinet-maker I made a good bed- stead and tables, although my old boss said I succeeded better with bureaus and secretaries than with anything else ; but I believe that Lincoln was always more suc- cessful in business than I, for his business enabled him to get into the legislature. I met him there, however, and had sympathy with him, because of the up-hill struggle we both had in life. He was then just as good at telling an anecdote as now. He could beat any of the boys wrestling, or running a foot-race, in pitching quoits or tossing a copper; could ruin more liquor than all the boys of the town together, and the dignity and impartiality with which he presided at a horse-race or fist-fight excited the admiration and won the praise of everybody that was present and participated. I sym- pathized with him because he was struggling with difficulties, and so was I. Mr. Lincoln served with me in the legislature in 1836, when we both retired, and he subsided, or became submerged, and he was lost sight of as a public man for some years. In 1846, when Wilmot introduced his celebrated proviso, and the Abolition tornado swept over the country, Lincoln again turned up as a member of Congress from the Sangamon dis- trict. I was then in the Senate of the United States, and was glad to welcome my old friend and com- panion. Whilst in Congress, he distinguished himself by his opposition to the Mexican war, taking the side of the common enemy against his own country ; and when he returned home he found that the indignation of the people followed him everywhere, and he was again sub- merged or obliged to retire into private life, forgotten by his former friends. He came up again in 1854, just in time to make this Abolition or Black Republican platform, in company with Giddings, Lovejoy, Chase, and Fred Douglass, for the Republican party to stand upon. Trumbull, too, was one of our own contempo- raries. He was born and raised in old Connecticut, was bred a Federalist, but removing to Georgia, turned' Nullifier when nullification was popular, and as soon as he disposed of his clocks and wound up his business, migrated to Illinois, turned politician and lawyer here,

134 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

and made his appearance in 1841 as a member of the legislature. He became noted as the author of the scheme to repudiate a large portion of the State debt of Illinois, which, if successful, would have brought infamy and disgrace upon the fair escutcheon of our glorious State. The odium attached to that measure consigned him to oblivion for a time. I helped to do it. I walked into a public meeting in the hall of the House of Representatives, and replied to his repudiating speeches, and resolutions were carried over his head denouncing repudiation, and asserting the moral and legal obligation of Illinois to pay every dollar of the debt she owed and every bond that bore her seal. Trumbull's malignity has followed me since I thus de- feated his infamous scheme.

These two men having formed this combination to Abolitionize the Old Whig party and the old Demo- cratic party, and put themselves into the Senate of the United States, in pursuance of their bargain, are now carrying out that arrangement. Matheny states that Trumbull broke faith ; that the bargain was that Lincoln should be the senator in Shields's place, and Trumbull was to wait for mine ; and the story goes that Trumbull cheated Lincoln, having control of four or five Abolitionized Democrats who were holding over in the Senate ; he would not let them vote for Lincoln, which obliged the rest of the Abolitionists to support him in order to secure an Abolition senator. There are a number of authorities for the truth of this besides Matheny, and I suppose that even Mr. Lincoln will not deny it.

Mr. Lincoln demands that he shall have the place in- tended for Trumbull, as Trumbull cheated him and got his, and Trumbull is stumping the State traducing me for the purpose of securing the position for Lincoln, in order to quiet him. It was in consequence of this ar- rangement that the Republican convention was impan- eled to instruct for Lincoln and nobody else, and it was on this account that they passed resolutions that he was their first, their last, and their only choice. Archy Wil- liams was nowhere, Browning was nobody, Wentworth was not to be considered ; they had no man in the Re- publican party for the place except Lincoln, for the reason that he demanded that they should carry out the arrangement.

1858] AT OTTAWA 135

Having formed this new party for the benefit of de- serters from Whiggery and deserters from Democracy, and having laid down the Abolition platform which I have read, Lincoln now takes his stand and proclaims his Abolition doctrines. Let me read a part of them. In his speech at Springfield to the convention which nominated him for the Senate, he said :

In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. 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.

["Good," "good," and cheers.]

I am delighted to hear you Black Republicans say "good." I have no doubt that doctrine expresses your sentiments, and I will prove to you now, if you listen to me, that it is revolutionary and destructive of the ex- istence of this government. Mr. Lincoln, in the extract from which I have read, says that this government cannot endure permanently in the same condition in which it was made by its framers — divided into free and slave States. He says that it has existed for about seventy years thus divided, and yet he tells you that it cannot endure permanently on the same principles and in the same relative condition in which our fathers made it. Why can it not exist divided into free and slave States? Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and the great men of that day made this govern- ment divided into free States and slave States, and left each State perfectly free to do as it pleased on the sub- ject of slavery. Why can it not exist on the same principles on which our fathers made it? They knew when they framed the Constitution that in a country as wide and broad as this, with such a variety of climate, production, and interest, the people necessarily required different laws and institutions in different localities. They knew that the laws and regulations which would suit

i36 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

the granite hills of New Hampshire would be unsuited to the rice-plantations of South Carolina, and they therefore provided that each State should retain its own legislature and its own sovereignty, with the full and complete power to do as it pleased within its own limits, in all that was local and not national. One of the reserved rights of the States was the right to regulate the relations between master and servant, on the slavery question. At the time the Constitution was framed, there were thirteen States in the Union, twelve of which were slaveholding States and one a free State. Suppose this doctrine of uniformity preached by Mr. Lincoln, that the States should all be free or all be slave, had prevailed, and what would have been the result? Of course, the twelve slaveholding States would have overruled the one free State, and slavery would have been fastened by a constitutional provision on every inch of the American republic, instead of being left, as our fathers wisely left it, to each State to decide for itself. Here I assert that uniformity in the local laws and in- stitutions of the different States is neither possible nor desirable. If uniformity had been adopted when the government was established, it must inevitably have been the uniformity of slavery everywhere, or else the uniformity of negro citizenship and negro equality everywhere.

We are told by Lincoln that he is utterly opposed to the Dred Scott decision, and will not submit to it, for the reason that he says it deprives the negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship. That is the first and main reason which he assigns for his warfare on the Supreme Court of the United States and its decision. I ask you, are you in favor of conferring upon the negro the rights and privileges of citizenship? Do you desire to strike out of our State constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the State, and allow the free negroes to flow in, and cover your prairies with black settlements? Do you desire to turn this beautiful State into a free negro colony, in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens and voters, on an equality with your- selves? If you desire negro citizenship, if you desire to allow them to come into the State and settle with the white man, if you desire them to vote on an equality

1858] AT OTTAWA 137

with yourselves, and to make them eligible to office, to serve on juries, and to adjudge your rights, then sup- port Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the negro. For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races.

Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the little Abolition orators who go around and lecture in the basements of schools and churches, reads from the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal, and then asks how can you deprive a negro of that equality which God and the Declaration of Inde- pendence award to him? He and they maintain that ne- gro equality is guaranteed by the laws of God, and that it is asserted in the Declaration of Independence. If they think so, of course they have a right to say so, and so vote. I do not question Mr. Lincoln's conscientious belief that the negro was made his equal, and hence is his brother; but for my own part, I do not regard the negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother or any kin to me whatever. Lincoln has evi- dently learned by heart Parson Lovejoy's catechism. He can repeat it as well as Farnsworth, and he is worthy of a medal from Father Giddings and Fred Douglass for his Abolitionism. He holds that the negro was born his equal and yours, and that he was endowed with equality by the Almighty, and that no human law can deprive him of these rights which were guaranteed to him by the Supreme Ruler of the universe. Now, I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man. If he did, he has been a long time demonstrating the fact. For thousands of years the negro has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the race which he has there met. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always oc- cupy an inferior position. I do not hold that because the negro is our inferior therefore he ought to be a slave. By no means can such a conclusion be drawn

138 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

from what I have said. On the contrary, I hold that humanity and Christianity, both require that the negro shall have and enjoy every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety of the society in which he lives. On that point, I presume, there can be no diversity of opinion. You and I are bound to ex- tend to our inferior and dependent beings every right, every privilege, every facility and immunity consistent with the public good. The question then arises, what rights and privileges are consistent with the public good? This is a question which each State and each Territory must decide for itself — Illinois has decided it for herself. We have provided that the negro shall not be a slave, and we have also provided that he shall not be a citizen, but protect him in his civil rights, in his life, his person and his property, only depriving him of all political rights whatsoever, and refusing to put him on an equality with the white man. That policy of Illinois is satisfactory to the Democratic party and to me, and if it were to the Republicans, there would then be no question upon the subject; but the Republicans say that he ought to be made a citizen, and when he becomes a citizen he becomes your equal, with all your rights and privileges. They assert the Dred Scott de- cision to be monstrous because it denies that the negro is or can be a citizen under the Constitution.

Now, I hold that Illinois had a right to abolish and prohibit slavery as she did, and I hold that Kentucky has the same right to continue and protect slavery that Illinois had to abolish it. I hold that New York had as much right to abolish slavery as Virginia has to con- tinue it, and that each and every State of this Union is a sovereign power, with the right to do as it pleases upon this question of slavery, and upon all its domestic institutions. Slavery is not the only question which comes up in this controversy. There is a far more important one to you, and that is, what shall be done with the free negro? We have settled the slavery question as far as we are concerned; we have pro- hibited it in Illinois forever, and in doing so, I think we have done wisely, and there is no man in the State who would be more strenuous in his opposition to the introduction of slavery than I would ; but when we settled it for ourselves, we exhausted all our power over that subject. We have done our whole duty, and can

1858] AT OTTAWA 139

do no more. We must leave each and every other State to decide for itself the same question. In relation to the policy to be pursued toward the free negroes, we have said that they shall not vote ; whilst Maine, on the other hand, has said that they shall vote. Maine is a sovereign State, and has the power to regulate the qualifications of voters within her limits. I would never consent to confer the right of voting and of citizenship upon a negro, but still I am not going to quarrel with Maine for differing from me in opinion. Let Maine take care of her own negroes, and fix the qualifications of her own voters to suit herself, without interfering with Illinois, and Illinois will not interfere with Maine. So with the State of New York. She allows the negro to vote provided he owns two hundred and fifty dollars' worth of property, but not otherwise. While I would not make any distinction whatever between a negro who held property and one who did not, yet if the sovereign State of New York chooses to make that distinction it is her business and not mine, and I will not quarrel with her for it. She can do as she pleases on this question if she minds her own business, and we will do the same thing. Now, my friends, if we will only act conscientiously and rigidly upon this great principle of popular sovereignty, which guarantees to each State and Territory the right to do as it pleases on all things, local and domestic, instead of Congress interfering, we will continue at peace one with another. Why should Illinois be at war with Missouri, or Kentucky with Ohio, or Virginia with New York, merely because their institutions differ? Our fathers intended that our insti- tutions should differ. They knew that the North and the South, having different climates, productions, and interests, required different institutions. This doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, of uniformity among the institutions of the different States, is a new doctrine, never dreamed of by Washington, Madison, or the framers of this govern- ment. Mr. Lincoln and the Republican party set them- selves up as wiser than these men who made this gov- ernment, which has flourished for seventy years under the principle of popular sovereignty, recognizing the right _ of each State to do as it pleased. Under that principle we have grown from a nation of three or four millions to a nation of about thirty millions of people; we have crossed the Allegheny mountains and filled up

i4o DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

the whole Northwest, turning the prairie into a garden, and building up churches and schools, thus spreading civilization and Christianity where before there was nothing but savage barbarism. Under that principle we have become, from a feeble nation, the most powerful on the face of the earth, and if we only adhere to that principle, we can go forward increasing in territory, in power, in strength, and in glory until the Republic of America shall be the north star that shall guide the friends of freedom throughout the civilized world. And why can we not adhere to the great principle of self-govern- ment upon which our institutions were originally based? I believe that this new doctrine preached by Mr. Lin- coln and his party will dissolve the Union if it succeeds. They are trying to array all the Northern States in one body against the South, to excite a sectional war be- tween the free States and the slave States, in order that the one or the other may be driven to the wall.

I am told that my time is out. Mr. Lincoln will now address you for an hour and a half, and I will then occupy a half hour in replying to him.

Mr. Lincoln's Reply.

My Fellow-citizens: When a man hears him- self somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him — at least, I find it so with myself ; but when mis- representation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him. The first thing I see fit to notice is the fact that Judge Douglas al- leges, after running through the history of the old Democratic and the Old Whig parties, that Judge Trumbull and myself made an arrangement in 1854, by which I was to have the place of General Shields in the United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull was to have the place of Judge Doug- las. Now all I have to say upon that subject is that I think no man — not even Judge Douglas — can prove it, because it is not true. I have no doubt he is "conscientious" in saying it. As to

1858] AT OTTAWA 141

those resolutions that he took such a length of time to read, as being the platform of the Repub- lican party in 1854, I say I never had anything to do with them, and I think Trumbull never had. Judge Douglas cannot show that either of us ever did have anything to do with them. I believe this is true about those resolutions. There was a call for a convention to form a Republican party at Springfield, and I think that my friend Mr. Love joy, who is here upon this stand, had a hand in it. I think this is true, and I think if he will remember accurately he will be able to recol- lect that he tried to get me into it, and I would not go in. I believe it is also true that I went away from Springfield, when the convention was in session, to attend court in Tazewell County. It is true they did place my name, though without authority, upon the committee, and afterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the committee, but I refused to do so, and I never had anything to do with that organization. This is the plain truth about all that matter of the resolutions.

Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells of Trumbull bargaining to sell out the old Demo- cratic party, and Lincoln agreeing to sell out the Old Whig party, I have the means of knowing about that ; Judge Douglas cannot have ; and I know there is no substance to it whatever. Yet I have no doubt he is "conscientious" about it. I know that after Mr. Lovejoy got into the legis- lature that winter, he complained of me that I had told all the Old Whigs of his district that the Old Whig party was good enough for them, and some of them voted against him because I told them so. Now, I have no means of totally dis- proving such charges as this which the judge

i42 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS EAug. 21

makes. A man cannot prove a negative, but he has a right to claim that when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to show the truth of what he says. I certainly cannot introduce testimony to show the negative about things, but I have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then he must show how he knows it. I always have a right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be "conscientious" on the subject.

Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on such things, but in regard to that general Abo- lition tilt that Judge Douglas makes, when he says that I was engaged at that time in selling out and Abolitionizing the Old Whig party, I hope you will permit me to read a part of a printed speech that I made then at Peoria, which will show altogether a different view of the position I took in that contest of 1854. [Voice: "Put on your specs."} Yes, sir, I am obliged to do so. I am no longer a young man.

This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The foregoing history may not be precisely accurate in every particular; but I am sure it is sufficiently so for all the uses 1 shall attempt to make of it, and in it we have before us the chief materials enabling us to cor- rectly judge whether the repeal of the Missouri Com- promise is right or wrong.

I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska — and wrong in its prospective principles, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where men can be found inclined to take it.

This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world;

i8s8] AT OTTAWA 143

enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibil- ity, to taunt us as hypocrites; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially be- cause it forces so many really good men amongst our- selves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty — criticising the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not in- stantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circum- stances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave- masters.

When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I ac- knowledge the fact. When it is said that the institu- tion exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia — to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politi-

144 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

cally and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill- founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but_ fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory than it would for reviving the African slave- trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long for- bidden the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.

I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I think he has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechize me unless he pays back for it in kind. I will not answer ques- tions one after another, unless he reciprocates; but as he has made this inquiry, and I have an- swered it before, he has got it without my getting anything in return. He has got my answer on the fugitive-slave law.

Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution

.1858] AT OTTAWA 145

of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrange- ment of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no pur- pose, either directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equal- ity between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality ; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence — the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects — certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of any- body else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

Now I pass on to consider one or two more of these little follies. The judge is woefully at fault

146 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

about his early friend Lincoln being a "grocery- keeper."* I don't know -that it would be a great sin if I had been ; but he is mistaken. Lincoln never kept a grocery anywhere in the world. It is true that Lincoln did work the latter part of one winter in a little still-house up at the head of a hollow. And so I think my friend, the judge, is equally at fault when he charges me at the time when I was in Congress with having opposed our soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican War. The judge did not make his charge very distinctly, but I tell you what he can prove, by referring to the record. You remember I was an Old Whig, and whenever the Democratic party tried to get me to vote that the war had been righteously begun by the President, I would not do it. But whenever they asked for any money, or land-warrants, or anything to pay the soldiers there, during all that time, I gave the same vote that Judge Douglas did. You can think as you please as to whether that was consistent. Such is the truth; and the judge has the right to make all he can out of it. But when he, by a general charge, conveys the idea that I withheld supplies from the soldiers who were fighting in the Mexi- can War, or did anything else to hinder the soldiers, he is, to say the least, grossly and alto- gether mistaken, as a consultation of the records will prove to him.

As I have not used up so much of my time as I had supposed, I will dwell a little longer upon one or two of these minor topics upon which the judge has spoken. He has read from my speech in Springfield in which I say that "a house di- vided against itself cannot stand." Does the

* A term that then was equivalent to liquor-seller.

i8s8] AT OTTAWA 147

judge say it can stand? I don't know whether he does or not. The judge does not seem to be at- tending to me just now, but I would like to know if it is his opinion that a house divided against itself can stand. If he does, then there is a ques- tion of veracity, not between him and me, but between the judge and an authority of a some- what higher character.

Now, my friends, I ask your attention to this matter for the purpose of saying something seri- ously. I know that the judge may readily enough agree with me that the maxim which was put forth by the Saviour is true, but he may allege that I misapply it; and the judge has a right to urge that in my application I do misapply it, and then I have a right to show that I do not mis- apply it. When he undertakes to say that be- cause I think this nation, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, will all become one thing or all the other, I am in favor of bringing about a dead uniformity in the various States in all their institutions, he argues erroneously. The great variety of the local institutions in the States, springing from differences in the soil, dif- ferences in the face of the country, and in the climate, are bonds of union. They do not make "a house divided against itself," but they make a house united. If they produce in one section of the country what is called for by the wants of another section, and this other section can supply the wants of the first, they are not matters of discord but bonds of union, true bonds of union. But can this question of slavery be considered as among these varieties in the institutions of the country? I leave it to you to say whether, in the history of

14S DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

our government, this institution of slavery has not always failed to be "a bond of union, and, on the contrary, been an apple of discord and an element of division in the house. I ask you to consider whether, so long as the moral constitu- tion of men's minds shall continue to be the same, after this generation and assemblage shall sink into the grave, and another race shall arise with the same moral and intellectual development we have — whether, if that institution is standing in the same irritating position in which it now is, it will not continue an element of division?

If so, then I have a right to say that, in regard to this question, the Union is a house divided against itself; and when the judge reminds me that I have often said to him that the institution of slavery has existed for eighty years in some States, and yet it does not exist in some others, I agree to the fact, and I account for it by look- ing at the position in which our fathers originally placed it — restricting it from the new Territories where it had not gone, and legislating to cut off its source by the abrogation of the slave-trade, thus putting the seal of legislation against its spread. The public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. But lately, I think — and in this I charge nothing on the judge's motives — lately, I think, that he, and those acting with him, have placed that in- stitution on a new basis, which looks to the per- petuity and nationalization of slavery. And while it is placed upon this new basis, I say, and I have said, that I believe we shall not have peace upon the question until the opponents of slavery arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is

.1858] AT OTTAWA 149

in the course of ultimate extinction; or, on the other hand, that its advocates will push it for- ward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. Now I believe if we could arrest the spread, and place it where Washington and Jefferson and Madison placed it, it would be in the course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind would, as for eighty years past, believe that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. The crisis would be past, and the institution might be let alone for a hundred years — if it should live so long — in the States where it exists, yet it would be going out of existence in the way best for both the black and the white races. [A voice: "Then do yon repudiate popidar sovereignty?"] Well, then, let us talk about popular sovereignty! What is popular sovereignty? Is it the right of the people to have slavery or not have it, as they see fit, in the Territories? I will state — and I have an able man to watch me — my understand- ing is that popular sovereignty, as now applied to the question of slavery, does allow the people of a Territory to have slavery if they want to, but does not allow them not to have it if they do not want it. I do not mean that if this vast con- course of people were in a Territory of the United States, any one of them would be obliged to have a slave if he did not want one ; but I do say that, as I understand the Dred Scott decision, if any one man wants slaves, all the rest have no way of keeping that one man from holding them.

When I made my speech at Springfield, of which the judge complains, and from which he quotes, I really was not thinking of the things which he ascribes to me at all. I had no thought

150 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

in the world that I was doing anything to bring about a war between the free and slave States. I had no thought in the world that I was doing anything to bring about a political and social equality of the black and white races. It never occurred to me that I was doing anything or favoring anything to reduce to a dead uniformity all the local institutions of the various States. But I must say, in all fairness to him, if he thinks I am doing something which leads to these bad results, it is none the better that I did not mean it. It is just as fatal to the country, if I have any influence in producing it, whether I intend it or not. But can it be true, that placing this institution upon the original basis — the basis upon which our fathers placed it — can have any tendency to set the Northern and the Southern States at war with one another, or that it can have any tendency to make the people of Vermont raise sugar-cane because they raise it in Louisiana, or that it can compel the people of Illinois to cut pine logs on the Grand Prairie, where they will not grow, because they cut pine logs in Maine, where they do grow? The judge says this is a new principle started in regard to this question. Does the judge claim that he is working on the plan of the founders of the gov- ernment ? I think he says in some of his speeches — indeed, I have one here now — that he saw evi- dence of a policy to allow slavery to be south of a certain line, while north of it it should be ex- cluded, and he saw an indisposition on the part of the country to stand upon that policy, and therefore he set about studying the subject upon original principles, and upon original principles he got up the Nebraska bill ! I am fighting it

i8s8] AT OTTAWA 151

upon these "original principles" — righting it in the Jeffersonian, Washingtonian, and Madisoni- an fashion.

Now, my friends, I wish you to attend for a little while to one or two other things in that Springfield speech. My main object was to show, so far as my humble ability was capable of show- ing to the people of this country, what I believed was the truth — that there was a tendency, if not a conspiracy, among those who have engineered this slavery question for the last four or five years, to make slavery perpetual and universal in this nation. Having made that speech principally for that object, after arranging the evidences that I thought tended to prove my proposition, I con- cluded with this bit of comment :

We cannot absolutely know that these exact adapta- tions are the result of pre-concert, but when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance; and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, — not omitting even the scaffolding, — or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in — in such a case we feel it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin, and Roger and James, all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn before the first blow was struck.

When my friend, Judge Douglas, came to Chi- cago on the 9th of July, this speech having been delivered on the 16th of June, he made an

152 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

harangue there in which he took hold of this speech of mine, showing that he had carefully read it; and while he paid no attention to this matter at all, but complimented me as being a "kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman," not- withstanding I had said this, he goes on and de- duces, or draws out, from my speech this tend- ency of mine to set the States at war with one another, to make all the institutions uniform, and set the niggers and white people to marry to- gether. Then, as the judge had complimented me with these pleasant titles (I must confess to my weakness), I was a little "taken," for it came from a great man. I was not very much accus- tomed to flattery, and it came the sweeter to me. I was rather like the Hoosier with the ginger- bread, when he said he reckoned he loved it bet- ter than any other man, and got less of it. As the judge had so flattered me, I could not make up my mind that he meant to deal unfairly with me ; so I went to work to show him that he misunderstood the whole scope of my speech, and that I never really in- tended to set the people at war with one another. As an illustration, the next time I met him, which was at Springfield, I used this expression, that I claimed no right under the Constitution, nor had I any inclination, to enter into the slave States and interfere with the institutions of slavery. He says upon that : Lincoln will not enter into the slave States, but will go to the banks of the Ohio, on this side, and shoot over ! He runs on, step by step, in the horse-chestnut style of argument, un- til in the Springfield speech he says, "Unless he shall be successful in firing his batteries, until he shall have extinguished slavery in all the States,

i858] AT OTTAWA 153

the Union shall be dissolved." Now I don't think that was exactly the way to treat "a kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman." I know if I had asked the judge to show when or where it was I had said that if I didn't succeed in firing into the slave States until slavery should be extin- guished, the Union should be dissolved, he could not have shown it. I understand what he would do. He would say, "I don't mean to quote from you, but this was the result of what you say." But I have the right to ask, and I do ask now, did you not put it in such a form that an ordinary reader or listener would take it as an expression from me?

In a speech at Springfield on the night of the 17th, I thought I might as well attend to my busi- ness a little, and I recalled his attention as well as I could to this charge of conspiracy to nationalize slavery. I called his attention to the fact that he had acknowledged in my hearing twice that he had carefully read the speech ; and, in the lan- guage of the lawyers, as he had twice read the speech, and still had put in no plea or answer, I took a default on him. I insisted that I had a right then to renew that charge of conspiracy. Ten days afterward I met the judge at Clinton — that is to say, I was on the ground, but not in the discussion — and heard him make a speech. Then he comes in with his plea to this charge, for the first time, and his plea when put in, as well as I can recollect it, amounted to this : that he never had any talk with Judge Taney or the President of the United States with regard to the Dred Scott decision before it was made. I ought to know that the man who makes a charge without knowing it to be true falsifies as much as he who

i54 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

knowingly tells a falsehood; and lastly, that he would pronounce the whole thing a falsehood; but he would make no personal application of the charge of falsehood, not because of any re- gard for the "kind, amiable, intelligent gentle- man," but because of his own personal self- respect! I have understood since then (but [turning to Judge Douglas] will not hold the judge to it if he is not willing) that he has broken through the "self-respect," and has got to saying the thing out. The judge nods to me that it is so. It is fortunate for me that I can keep as good- humored as I do when the judge acknowledges that he has been trying to make a question of veracity with me. I know the judge is a great man, while I am only a small man, but I feel that I have got him. I demur to that plea. I waive all objections that it was not filed till after default was taken, and demur to it upon the merits. What if Judge Douglas never did talk with Chief Justice Taney and the President before the Dred Scott decision was made; does it follow that he could not have had as perfect an understanding without talking as with it ? I am not disposed to stand upon my legal advantage. I am disposed to take his denial as being like an answer in chancery, and he neither had any knowledge, in- formation, nor belief in the existence of such a conspiracy. I am disposed to take his answer as being as broad as though he had put it in these words. And now, I ask, even if he had done so, have not I a right to prove it on him, and to offer the evidence of more than two witnesses, by whom to prove it ; and if the evidence proves the existence of the conspiracy, does his broad an- swer, denying all knowledge, information, or be-

i858] AT OTTAWA 155

lief, disturb the fact? It can only show that he was used by conspirators, and was not a leader of them.

Now, in regard to his reminding me of the moral rule that persons who tell what they do not know to be true falsify as much as those who knowingly tell falsehoods. I remember the rule, and it must be borne in mind that in what I have read to you I do not say that I know such a con- spiracy to exist. To that I reply, I believe it. If the judge says that I do not believe it, then he says what he does not know, and falls within his own rule that he who asserts a thing which he does not know to be true falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood. I want to call your attention to a little discussion on that branch of the case, and the evidence which brought my mind to the conclusion which I expressed as my belief. If, in arraying that evidence, I had stated anything which was false or erroneous, it needed but that Judge Douglas should point it out, and I would have taken it back with all the kindness in the world. I do not deal in that way. If I have brought forward anything not a fact, if he will point it out, it will not even ruffle me to take it back. But if he will not point out anything er- roneous in the evidence, is it not rather for him to show by a comparison of the evidence that I have reasoned falsely than to call the "kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman" a liar? If I have reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vocation of an able debater to show by argument that I have wandered to an erroneous conclusion. I want to ask your attention to a portion of the Nebraska bill which Judge Douglas has quoted : "It being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to

156 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Thereupon Judge Douglas and others began to argue in favor of "popular sovereignty" — the right of the people to have slaves if they wanted them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want them. "But," said, in substance, a senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase, I believe), "we more than suspect that you do not mean to allow the people to exclude slavery if they wish to; and if you do mean it, accept an amendment which I propose expressly au- thorizing the people to exclude slavery." I believe I have the amendment here before me, which was offered, and under which the people of the Territory, through their proper rep- resentatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein. And now I state it as a fact, to be taken back if there is any mis- take about it, that Judge Douglas and those act- ing with him voted that amendment down. I now think that those men who voted it down had a real reason for doing so. They know what that rea- son was. It looks to us, since we have seen the Dred Scott decision pronounced, holding that, "under the Constitution," the people cannot ex- clude slavery — I say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, "amiable, intelligent gentlemen," as though the niche was left as a place to put that Dred Scott decision in, a niche which would have been spoiled by adopting the amendment. And now I say again, if this was not the reason, it will avail the judge much more to calmly and good-

1858] AT OTTAWA 157

humoredly point out to these people what that other reason was for voting the amendment down than swelling- himself up to vociferate that he may be provoked to call somebody a liar.

Again : there is in that same quotation from the Nebraska bill this clause : "It being the true in- tent and meaning of this bill not to legislate slav- ery into any Territory or State." I have always been puzzled to know what business the word "State" had in that connection. Judge Douglas knows. He put it there. He knows what he put it there for. We outsiders cannot say what he put it there for. The law they were passing was not about States, and was not making provision for States. What was it placed there for ? After seeing the Dred Scott decision which holds that the people cannot exclude slavery from a Terri- tory, if another Dred Scott decision shall come, holding that they cannot exclude it from a State, we shall discover that when the word was origi- nally put there, it was in view of something which was to come in due time, we shall see that it was the other half of something. I now say again, if there is any different reason for putting it there, Judge Douglas, in a good-humored way, without calling anybody a liar, can tell what the reason was.

When the judge spoke at Clinton, he came very near making a charge of falsehood against me. He used, as I found it printed in a newspaper, which, I remember was very nearly like the real speech, the following language :

I did not answer the charge [of conspiracy] before for the reason that I did not suppose there was a man in America with a heart so corrupt as to believe such a charge could be true. I have too much respect for

158 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

Mr. Lincoln to suppose he is serious in making the charge.

I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of respect for me he should consider I was mak- ing what I deemed rather a grave charge in fun. I confess it strikes me rather strangely. But I let it pass. As the judge did not for a moment believe that there was a man in America whose heart was so "corrupt" as to make such a charge, and as he places me among the "men in America" who have hearts base enough to make such a charge, I hope he will excuse me if I hunt out another charge very like this ; and if it should turn out that in hunting I should find that other, and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas him- self who made it, I hope he will reconsider this question of the deep corruption of heart he has thought fit to ascribe to me. In Judge Douglas's speech of March 22, 1858, which I hold in my hand, he says :

In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of news- papers, or notice the articles which they publish in regard to myself; but the course of the Washington Union has been so extraordinary for the last two or three months that I think it well enough to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of the Democratic party every other day, at least for two or three months, and keeps reading me out, and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues to read me out, using such terms as "traitor," "renegade," "deserter," and. other kind and polite epithets of that nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my Democracy against the Washington Union, or any other newspaper — I am will- ing to allow my history and actions for the last twenty years to speak for themselves as to my political princi- ples, and my fidelity to political obligations. The Washington Union has a personal grievance. When the editor was nominated for public printer I declined

i858] AT OTTAWA

TS9

to vote for him, and stated that at some time I might give my reasons for doing so. Since I declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and constant attacks, have been repeated almost daily on me. Will my friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude?

This is a part of the speech. You must excuse me from reading the entire article of the Wash- ington Union, as Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. Douglas. The judge goes on and sums up, as I think, correctly :

Mr. President, you here find several distinct proposi- tions advanced boldly by the Washington Union editori- ally and apparently authoritatively, and any man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primary object of all government at its original institution is the protection of person and property; second, that the Constitution of the United States de- clares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of the govern- ment and Constitution of the United States; and, fourth that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner.

Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th of November, and on the 18th ap- peared the first article giving the adhesion of the Union to the Lecompton constitution. It was in these words:

"Kansas and her Constitution. The vexed ques- tion is settled. The problem is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone."

And a column nearly of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton constitution, you

160 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put forth editorially in the Union. What is it?

"Article 7, Section 1." The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its in- crease is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever."

Then in the schedule is a provision that the constitu- tion 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 L^compton 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 Le- compton constitution on the 18th 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 por- tion 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 im- possible 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 im- plying a design to make the institution of slavery

1858] AT OTTAWA 161

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 pub- lic printer, but when we get at it, the charge it- self 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 constitu- tion are brought in with the editor of the news- paper 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 not only so, but the article was an authoritative article. By whose authority ? Is there any ques- tion but that he means it was by the authority of the President and his cabinet — the administra- tion? Is there any sort of question but that he means to make that charge ? Then there are the editors of the Union, the framers of the Lecomp- ton constitution, the President of the United States and his cabinet, and all the supporters of the Lecompton constitution, in Congress and out of Congress, who are all involved in this "fatal blow being struck." I commend to Judge Doug- las's consideration the question of how corrupt a man's heart must be to make such a charge ? Now, my friends, I have but one branch of the

162 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

subject, in the little time I have left, to which to call your attention, and as I shall come to a close at the end of that branch, it is probable that I shall not occupy quite all the time allotted to me. Although on these questions I would like to talk twice as long as I have, I could not enter upon another head and discuss it properly without run- ning over my time. I ask the attention of the people here assembled and elsewhere, to the course that Judge Douglas is pursuing every day as bearing upon this question of making slavery national. Not going back to the records, but tak- ing the speeches he makes, the speeches he made yesterday and day before, and makes constantly all over the country — I ask your attention to them. In the first place, what is necessary to make the institution national? Not war. There is no danger that the people of Kentucky will shoulder their muskets, and, with a young nigger stuck on every bayonet, march into Illinois and force them upon us. There is no danger of our going over there and making war upon them. Then what is necessary for the nationalization of slavery? It is simply the next Dred Scott deci- sion. It is merely for the Supreme Court to de- cide that no State under the Constitution can ex- clude it, just as they have already decided that under the Constitution neither Congress nor the territorial legislature can do it. When that is decided and acquiesced in, the whole thing is done. This being true, and this being the way, as I think, that slavery is to be made na- tional, let us consider what Judge Douglas is do- ing every day to that end. In the first place, let us see what influence he is exerting on public sentiment. In this and like communities, public

i8s8] AT OTTAWA 163

sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail ; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions pos- sible or impossible to be executed. This must be borne in mind, as also the additional fact that Judge Douglas is a man of vast influence, so great that it is enough for many men to profess to believe anything when they once find out that Judge Douglas professes to believe it. Consider also the attitude he occupies at the head of a large party — a party which he claims has a majority of all the voters in the country.

This man sticks to a decision which forbids the people of a Territory to exclude slavery, and he does so not because he says it is right in itself, — he does not give any opinion on that, — but be- cause it has been decided by the court, and, being decided by the court, he is, and you are, bound to take it in your political action as law — not that he judges at all of its merits, but because a de- cision of the court is to him a "Thus saith the Lord." He places it on that ground alone, and you will bear in mind that thus committing him- self unreservedly to this decision commits him to the next one just as firmly as to this. He did not commit himself on account of the merit or demerit of the decision, but it is a "Thus saith the Lord." The next decision, as much as this, will be a "Thus saith the Lord." There is nothing that can divert or turn him away from this de- cision. It is nothing that I point out to him that his great prototype, General Jackson, did not be- lieve in the binding force of decisions. It is nothing to him that Jefferson did not so believe. I

1 64 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

have said that I have often heard him approve of Jackson's course in disregarding the decision of the Supreme Court pronouncing a national bank constitutional. He says I did not hear him say so. He denies the accuracy of my recollection. I say he ought to know better than I, but I will make no question about this thing, though it still seems to me that I heard him say it twenty times. I will tell him, though, that he now claims to stand on the Cincinnati platform, which affirms that Congress cannot charter a national bank, in the teeth of that old standing decision that Con- gress can charter a bank. And I remind him of another piece of history on the question of re- spect for judicial decisions, and it is a piece of Illinois history, belonging to a time when a large party to which Judge Douglas belonged were dis- pleased with a decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois, because they had decided that a governor could not remove a secretary of state. You will find the whole story in Ford's "History of Illi- nois," and I know that Judge Douglas will not deny that he was then in favor of overslaughing that decision by the mode of adding five new judges, so as to vote down the four old ones. Not only so, but it ended in the judge's sitting down on the very bench as one of the five new judges to break down the four old ones. It was in this way precisely that he got his title of judge. Now, when the judge tells me that men ap- pointed conditionally to sit as members of a court will have to be catechised beforehand upon some subject, I say, "You know, judge; you have tried it." When he says a court of this kind will lose the confidence of all men, will be prostituted and disgraced by such a proceeding, I say, "You

i8sS] AT OTTAWA 165

know best, judge; you have been through the mill."

But I cannot shake Judge Douglas's teeth loose from the Dred Scott decision. Like some obsti- nate animal (I mean no disrespect) that will hang on when he has once got his teeth fixed, — you may cut off a leg, or you may tear away an arm, still he will not relax his hold. And so I may point out to the judge, and say that he is bespat- tered all over, from the beginning of his political life to the present time, with attacks upon judicial decisions, — I may cut off limb after limb of his public record, and strive to wrench from him a single dictum of the court, yet I cannot divert him from it. He hangs to the last of the Dred Scott decision. These things show there is a purpose strong as death and eternity for which he ad- heres to this decision, and for which he will ad- here to all other decisions of the same court. [A Hibernian: "Give us something besides Drid Scott."] Yes ; no doubt you want to hear some- thing that don't hurt. Now, having spoken of the Dred Scott decision, one more word and I am done. Henry Clay, my beau ideal of a states- man, the man for whom I fought all my humble life — Henry Clay once said of a class of men who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ulti- mate emancipation, that they must, if they would do this, go back to the era of our independence, and muzzle the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return ; they must blow out the moral lights around us ; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate there the love of liberty; and then, and not till then, could they perpetuate slavery in this country! To my thinking, Judge Douglas is, by his example and vast influ-

166 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

ence, doing that very thing in this community when he says that the negro has nothing in the Declaration of Independence. Henry Clay plainly understood the contrary. Judge Douglas is go- ing back to the era of our Revolution, and to the extent of his ability muzzling the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return. When he in- vites any people, willing to have slavery, to es- tablish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us. When he says he "cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up" — that it is a sacred right of self-government — he is, in my judgment, penetrating the human soul and eradi- cating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American people. And now I will only say that when, by all these means and appliances, Judge Douglas shall succeed in bringing public sentiment to an exact accordance with his own views — when these vast assemblages shall echo back all these sentiments — when they shall come to repeat his views and to avow his principles, and to say all that he says on these mighty ques- tions— then it needs only the formality of the second Dred Scott decision, which he indorses in advance, to make slavery alike lawful in all the States — old as well as new, North as well as South.

My friends, that ends the chapter. The judge can take his half hour.

Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder.

Fellow-citizens: I will now occupy the half hour allotted to me in replying to Mr. Lincoln. The first point to which I will call your attention is, as to what I said about the organization of the Republican party in 1854, and the platform that was formed on the 5th

i8583 AT OTTAWA 167

of October of that year, and I will then put the ques- tion to Mr. Lincoln, whether or not he approves of each article in that platform, and ask for a specific answer. I did not charge him with being a member of the committee which reported that platform. I charged that that platform was the platform of the Republican party adopted by them. The fact that it was the plat- form of the Republican party is not denied, but Mr. Lincoln now says that although his name was on the committee which reported it, he does not think he was there, but thinks he was in Tazewell, holding court. Now, I want to remind Mr. Lincoln that he was at Springfield when that convention was held and those resolutions adopted.

The point I am going to remind Mr. Lincoln of is this: that after I had made my speech in 1854, during the fair, he gave me notice that he was going to reply to me the next day. I was sick at the time, but I stayed over in Springfield to hear his reply and to reply to him. On that day this very convention, the resolutions adopted by which I have read, was to meet in the Senate chamber. He spoke in the hall of the House; and when he got through his speech — my recollection is distinct, and I shall never forget it — ■ Mr. Codding walked in as I took the stand to reply, and gave notice that the Republican State convention would meet instantly in the Senate chamber, and called upon the Republicans to retire there and go into this very convention, instead of remaining and listening to me.

In the first place, Mr. Lincoln was selected by the very men who made the Republican organization on that day, to reply to me. He spoke for them and for that party, and he was the leader of the party; and on the very day he made his speech in reply to me, preaching up this same doctrine of negro equality under the Declaration of Independence, this Republi- can party met in convention. Another evidence that he was acting in concert with them is to be found in the fact that that convention waited an hour after its time of meeting to hear Lincoln's speech, and Cod- ding, one of their leading men, marched in the moment Lincoln got through, and gave notice that they did not want to hear me, and would proceed with the business of the convention. Still another fact. I have here a

168 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

newspaper printed at Springfield — Mr. Lincoln's own town — in October, i854,_ a few days afterward, publish- ing these resolutions, charging Mr. Lincoln with enter- taining these sentiments, and trying to prove that they were also the sentiments of Mr. Yates, then candidate for Congress. This has been published on Mr. Lin- coln over and over again, and never before has he denied it.

But, my friends, this denial of his that he did not act on the committee, is a miserable quibble to avoid the main issue, which is that this Republican platform declares in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive-slave law. Has Lincoln answered whether he indorsed that or not? I called his attention to it when I first addressed you, and asked him for an answer, and then predicted that he would not answer. How does he answer? Why, that he was not on the com- mittee that wrote the resolutions. I then repeated the next proposition contained in the resolutions, which was to restrict slavery in those States in which it exists, and asked him whether he indorsed it. Does he answer yes or no? He says in reply, "I was not on the committee at the time; I was up in Tazewell." The next question I put to him was, whether he was in favor of prohibiting the admission of any more slave States into the Union. I put the question to him distinctly, whether, if the people of the Territory, when they had sufficient population to make a State, should form their constitution recognizing slavery, he would vote for or against its admission. He is a candidate for the United States Senate, and it is possible, if he should be elected, that he would have to vote directly on that question. I ask him to answer me and you, whether he would vote to admit a State into the Union, with slavery or without it, as its own people might choose. He did not answer that ques- tion. He dodges that question also, under cover that he was not on the committee at the time, that he was not present when the platform was made. I want to know, if he should happen to be in the Senate when ?, State applied for admission with a constitution accept- able to her own people, whether he would vote to admit that State if slavery was one of its institutions. He avoids the answer.

It is true he gives the Abolitionists to understand

i858] AT OTTAWA 169

by a hint that he would not vote to admit such a State. And why? He goes on to say that the man who would talk about giving each State the right to have slavery or not, as it pleased, was akin to the man who would muzzle the guns which thundered forth the annual joyous return of the day of our independence. He says that that kind of talk is casting a blight on the glory of this country. What is the meaning of that? That he is not in favor of each State to have the right of doing as it pleases on the slavery ques- tion? I will put the question to him again and again, and I intend to force it out of him.

Then again, this platform which was made at Spring- field by his own party, when he was its acknowledged head, provides that Republicans will insist on the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and I asked Lincoln specifically whether he agreed with them in that. ["Did you get an answer?"] He is afraid to answer it. He knows I will trot him down to Egypt. I intend to make him answer there, or I will show the people of Illinois that he does not intend to answer these questions. The convention to which I have been alluding goes a little further, and pledges itself to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the General Government has exclusive jurisdic- tion north of 360 30', as well as south. Now I want to know whether he approves that provision. I want him to answer, and when he does, I want to know his opinion on another point, which is, whether he will redeem the pledge of this platform and resist the ac- quirement of any more territory unless slavery therein shall be forever prohibited. I want him to answer this last question. All of the questions I have put to him are practical questions — questions based upon the fundamental principles of the Black Republican party; and I want to know whether he is the first, last, and only choice of a party with whom he does not agree in principle. He does not deny that that principle was unanimously adopted by the Republican party; he does not deny that the whole Republican party is pledged to it; he does not deny that a man who is not faithful to it is faithless to the Republican party; and now I want to know whether that party is unanimously in favor of a man who does not adopt that creed and agree with them in their principles: I want to know

j7o DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 21

whether the man who does not agree with them, and who is afraid to avow his differences, and who dodges the issue, is the first, last, and only choice of the Republican party. [A voice: "How about the conspir- acy?"} Never mind, I will come to that soon enough. But the platform which I have_ read to you not only lays down these principles, but it adds:

Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles we will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office, under the General or State Government, who is not positively and fully committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal character and conduct are not a guaranty that he Is re- liable, and who shall not have abjured old party allegiance and ties.

The Black Republican party stands pledged that they will never support Lincoln until he has pledged himself to that platform, but he cannot devise his answer; he has not made up his mind whether he will or not. He talked about everything else he could think of to occupy his hour and a half, and when he could not think of anything more to say, without an excuse for refusing to answer these questions, he sat down long before his time was out.

In relation to Mr. Lincoln's charge of conspiracy against me, I have a word to say. In his speech to- day he quotes a playful part of his speech at Spring- field, about Stephen, and James, and Franklin, and Roger, and says that I did not take exception to it. I did not answer it, and he repeats it again. I did not take exception to this figure of his. He has a right to be as playful as he pleases in throwing his argu- ments together, and I will not object; but I did take objection to his second Springfield speech, in which he stated that he intended his first speech as a charge of corruption or conspiracy against the Supreme Court of the United States, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself. That gave the offensive character to the charge. He then said that when he made it he did not know whether it was true or not, but inasmuch as Judge Douglas had not denied it, although he had replied to the other parts of his speech three times, he repeated it as a charge of conspiracy

i8s8] AT OTTAWA 171

against me, thus charging me with moral turpitude. When he put it in that form, I did say, that inasmuch as he repeated the charge simply because I had not denied it, I would deprive him of the opportunity of ever repeating it again by declaring that it was in all its bearings an infamous lie. He says he will repeat it until I answer his folly and nonsense about Stephen, and Franklin, and Roger, and Bob, and James.

He studied that out— prepared that one sentence with the greatest care, committed it to memory, and put it in his first Springfield speech, and now he carries that speech around and reads that sentence to show how pretty it is. His vanity is wounded because I will not go into that beautiful figure of his about the build- ing of a house. All I have to say is that I am not- green enough to let him make a charge which he acknowledges he does not know to be true, and then take up my time in answering it, when I know it to be false and nobody else knows it to be true.

I have not brought a charge of moral turpitude against him. When he, or any other man, brings one against me, instead of disproving it, I will say that it is a lie, and let him prove it if he can.

I have lived twenty-five years in Illinois. I have served you with all the fidelity and ability which I possess, and Mr. Lincoln is at liberty to attack my public action, my votes, and my conduct; but when he dares to attack my moral integrity, by a charge of conspiracy between myself, Chief Justice Taney and the Supreme Court, and two Presidents of the United States, I will repel it.

Mr. Lincoln has not character enough for integrity and truth, merely on his own ipse dixit, to arraign President Buchanan, President Pierce, and nine judges of the Supreme Court, not one of whom would be complimented by being put on an equality with him. There is an unpardonable presumption in a man put- ting himself up before thousands of people, and pre- tending that his ipse dixit, without proof, without fact, and without truth, is enough to bring down and destroy the purest and best of living men.

Fellow-citizens, my time is fast expiring; I must pass on. Mr. Lincoln wants to know why I voted against Mr. Chase's amendment to the Nebraska bill. I will tell him. In the first place, the bill already conferred

3 72 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS IAug. 21

all the power which .Congress had, by giving the people the whole power over the subject. Chase offered a proviso that they might abolish slavery, which by implication would convey the idea that they could prohibit by not introducing that institution. General Cass asked him to modify his amendment, so as to provide that the people might either prohibit or introduce slavery, and thus make it fair and equal. Chase refused to so modify his proviso, and then General Cass and all the rest of us voted it down. Those facts appear on the journals and debates of Congress, where Mr. Lincoln found the charge, and if he had told the whole truth, there would have been no necessity for me to occupy your time in explaining the matter.

Mr. Lincoln wants to know why the word "State," as well as "Territory," was put into the Nebraska bill? I will tell him. It was put there to meet just such false arguments as he has been adducing. That first, not only the people of the Territories should do as they pleased, but that when they come to be admitted as States, they should come into the Union with or without slavery, as the people determined. I meant to knock in the head this Abolition doctrine of Mr. Lincoln's, that there shall be no more slave States, even if the people want them. And it does not do for him to say, or or for any other Black Republican to say, that there is nobody in favor of the doctrine of no more slave States, and that nobody wants to interfere with the right of the people to do as they please. What was the origin of the Missouri difficulty and the Missouri Compromise? The people of Missouri formed a constitution as a slave State, and asked ad- mission into the Union, but the Free-soil party of the North, being in a majority, refused to admit her because she had slavery as one of her institutions. Hence this first slavery agitation arose upon a State and not upon a Territory, and yet Mr. Lincoln does not know why the word State was placed in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The whole Abolition agitation arose on that doctrine of prohibiting a State from coming in with slavery or not, as it pleased, and that same doctrine is here in this Republican platform of 1854; it has never been repealed; and every Black Republican stands pledged by that platform never to

1858] AT OTTAWA 173

vote for any man who is not in favor of it. Yet Mr. Lincoln does not know that there is a man in the world who is in favor of preventing a State from com- ing in as it pleases, notwithstanding the Springfield platform says that they, the Republican party, will not allow a State to come in under such circumstances. He is an ignorant man.

Now you see that upon these very points I am as far from bringing Mr. Lincoln up to the line as I ever was before. He does not want to avow his prin- ciples. I do want to avow mine, as clear as sunlight in midday. Democracy is founded upon the eternal principles of right. The plainer these principles are avowed before the people, the stronger will be the support which they will receive. I only wish I had the power to make them so clear that they would shine in the heavens for every man, woman, and child to read. The first of those principles that I would pro- claim would be in opposition to Mr. Lincoln's doctrine of uniformity between the different States, and I would declare instead the sovereign right of each State to decide the slavery question as well as all other domes- tic questions for themselves, without interference from any other State or power whatsoever.

When that principle is recognized you will have peace and harmony and fraternal feeling between all the States of this Union; until you do recognize that doc- trine there will be sectional warfare agitating and dis- tracting the country. What does Mr. Lincoln pro- pose? He says that the Union cannot exist divided into free and slave States. If it cannot endure thus divided, then he must strive to make them all free or all slave, which will inevitably bring about a dissolu- tion of the Union.

Gentlemen, I am told that my time is out, and I am obliged to stop.*

* Next day (August 22, 1858), in a letter written from Ottawa to J. O. Cunningham, Lincoln wrote : "Douglas and I, for the first time this canvass, crossed swords here yesterday ; the fire flew some, and I am glad to know I am yet alive. There was a vast concourse of people- more than could get near enough to hear."

i74 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

Second Joint Debate, at Freeport.

August 27, 1858.

Mr. Lincoln s Opening Speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen: On Saturday last, Judge Douglas and myself first met in public dis- cussion. He spoke one hour, I an hour and a half, and he replied for half an hour. The order is now reversed. I am to speak an hour, he an hour and a half, and then I am to reply for half an hour. I propose to devote myself during the first hour to the scope of what was brought with- in the range of his half-hour speech at Ottawa. Of course there was brought within the scope of that half-hour's speech something of his own opening speech. In the course of that opening argument Judge Douglas proposed to me seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech of an hour and a half, I attended to some other parts of his speech, and incidentally, as I thought, answered one of the interrogatories then. I then distinctly intimated to him that I would answer the rest of his interrogatories on condition only that he should agree to answer as many for me. He made no intimation at the time of the proposition, nor did he in his reply allude at all to that sug- gestion of mine. I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in deal- ing with me as though I had refused to answer his interrogatories. I now propose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condi- tions that he will answer questions from me not exceeding the same number. I give him an op- portunity to respond. The judge remains silent. I now say that I will answer his interrogatories,

i858] AT FREEPORT 175

whether he answers mine or not; and that after I have done so, I shall propound mine to him.

I have supposed myself, since the organization of the Republican party at Bloomington, in May, 1856, bound as a party man by the platforms of the party then and since. If in any interroga- tories which I shall answer I go beyond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will be per- ceived that no one is responsible but myself. Having said this much, I will take up the judge's interrogatories as I find them printed in the Chi- cago Times, and answer them seriatim. In or- der that there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them. The first one of these in- terrogatories is in these words :

Question 1. "I desire to know whether Lin- coln to-day stands as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive-slave law?"

Answer. I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive- slave law.

Q. 2. "I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more slave States into the Union, even if the people want them ?"

A. I do not now, nor ever did, stand pledged against the admission of any more slave States into the Union.

Q. 3. "I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make?"

A. I do not stand pledged against the ad- mission of a new State into the Union with such

176 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

a constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make.

Q. 4. "I want to know whether he stands to- day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia ?"

A. I do not stand to-day pledged to the aboli- tion of slavery in the District of Columbia.

O. 5. "I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave- trade between the different States."

A. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different States.

Q. 6. "I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, North as well as South of the Missouri Compromise line?"

A. I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the right and duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the United States Terri- tories.

Q. 7. "I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein?"

A. I am not generally opposed to honest ac- quisition of territory; and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, ac- cordingly as I might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the slavery question among ourselves.

Now, my friends, it will be perceived upon an examination of these questions and answers that so far I have only answered that I was not pledged to this, that, or the other. The judge has not framed his interrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and I have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and

1858] AT FREEPORT 177

have answered truly that I am not pledged at all upon any of the points to which I have answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his interrogatory. I am really disposed to take up at least some of these questions, and state what I really think upon them.

As to the first one, in regard to the fugitive- slave law, I have never hesitated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Southern States are entitled to a congres- sional fugitive-slave law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the existing fugitive-slave law, further than that I think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modification of that law, I would not be the man to introduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of slavery.

In regard to the other question of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another slave State admitted into the Union; but I must add that if slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the terri- torial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adopt the Constitu- tion, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no

178 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

alternative, if we own the country,* but to admit them into the Union. -

The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second, it being, as I conceive, the same as the second.

The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to that, I have my mind very distinctly made up. I should be exceedingly glad to see slavery abol- ished in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. Yet as a member of Congress, I should not with my present views be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia unless it would be upon these condi- tions : First, that the abolition should be gradu- al ; second, that it should be on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in the District; and third, that compensation should be made to un- willing owners. With these three conditions, I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see Con- gress abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and, in the language of Henry Clay, "sweep from our capital that foul blot upon our nation."

In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say here that as to the question of the abolition of the slave-trade between the different States, I can truly answer, as I have, that I am pledged to nothing about it. It is a subject to which I have not given that mature consideration that would make me feel authorized to state a position so as to hold myself entirely bound by it. In other words, that question has never been prominently enough before me to induce me to investigate

* A qualification intended to exempt Cuba, whose annex- ation was contemplated by President Buchanan.

»858] AT FREEPORT

179

whether we really have the constitutional power to do it. I could investigate it if I had sufficient time to bring myself to a conclusion upon that subject, but I have not done so, and I say so frankly to you here and to Judge Douglas. I must say, however, that if I should be of opinion that Congress does possess the constitutional power to abolish the slave-trade among the dif- ferent States, I should still not be in favor of the exercise of that power unless upon some conserv- ative principle as I conceive it, akin to what I have said in relation to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

My answer as to whether I desire that slavery should be prohibited in all the Territories of the United States is full and explicit within itself, and cannot be made clearer by any comments of mine. So I suppose in regard to the question whether I am opposed to the acquisition of any more territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein ;* my answer is such that I could add noth- ing by way of illustration, or making myself bet- ter understood, than the answer which I have placed in writing.

Now in all this the judge has me, and he has me on the record. I suppose he had flattered himself that I was really entertaining one set of opinions for one place and another set for another place — that I was afraid to say at one place what I uttered at another. What I am saying here I suppose I say to a vast audience as strongly tend- ing to Abolitionism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I believe I am saying that which, if it would be offensive to any persons and ren-

* The proposed annexation of Cuba is referred to.

180 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

der them enemies to myself, would be offensive to persons in this audience.

I now proceed to propound to the judge the interrogatories so far as I have framed them. I will bring forward a new instalment when I get them ready. I will bring them forward now, only reaching to number four.

The first one is :

Question 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other re- spects, adopt a State constitution, and ask ad- mission into the Union under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the English bill, — some ninety-three thousand, — will you vote to admit them?

Q. 2. Can the people of a United States Ter- ritory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State consti- tution ?

Q. 3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of ac- quiescing in, adopting, and following such deci- sion as a rule of political action ?

Q. 4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question ?

As introductory to these interrogatories which Judge Douglas propounded to me at Ottawa, he read a set of resolutions which he said Judge Trumbull and myself had participated in adopt- ing, in the first Republican State convention, held at Springfield, in October, 1854. He insisted that I and Judge Trumbull, and perhaps the entire Republican party, were responsible for the doc-

18581 AT FREEPORT 181

trines contained in the set of resolutions which he read, and I understand that it was from that set of resolutions that he deduced the interrogatories which he propounded to me, using these resolutions as a sort of author- ity for propounding those questions to me. Now I say here to-day that I do not answer his inter- rogatories because of their springing at all from that set of resolutions which he read. I answered them because Judge Douglas thought fit to ask them. I do not now, nor ever did, recognize any responsibility upon myself in that set of resolu- tions. When I replied to him on that occasion, I assured him that I never had anything to do with them. I repeat here to-day, that I never in any possible form had anything to do with that set of resolutions. It turns out, I believe, that those resolutions were never passed by any convention held in Springfield. It turns out that they were never passed at any convention or any public meeting that I had any part in. I be- lieve it turns out, in addition to all this, that there was not, in the fall of 1854, any conven- tion holding a session in Springfield calling itself a Republican State convention ; yet it is true there was a convention, or assemblage of men calling themselves a convention, at Spring- field, that did pass some resolutions. But so little did I really know of the proceedings of that convention, or what set of resolutions they had passed, though having a general knowledge that there had been such an assemblage of men there, that when Judge Douglas read the resolu- tions, I really did not know but that they had been the resolutions passed then and there. I did not question that they were the resolutions

r82 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

adopted. For I could not bring myself to sup- pose that Judge Douglas could say what he did upon this subject without knowing that it was true. I contented myself, on that occasion, with denying, as I truly could, all connection with them, not denying or affirming whether they were passed at Springfield. Now it turns out that he had got hold of some resolutions passed at some convention or public meeting in Kane County. I wish to say here, that I don't conceive that in any fair and just mind this discovery re- lieves me at all. I had just as much to do with the convention in Kane County as that at Spring- field. I am just as much responsible for the reso- lutions at Kane County as those at Springfield, the amount of the responsibility being exactly nothing in either case ; no more than there would be in regard to a set of resolutions passed in the moon.

I allude to this extraordinary matter in this canvass for some further purpose than anything yet advanced, judge Douglas did not make his statement upon that occasion as matters that he believed to be true, but he stated them roundly as being true, in such form as to pledge his verac- ity for their truth. When the whole matter turns out as it does, and when we consider who Judge Douglas is, — that he is a distinguished senator of the United States ; that he has served nearly twelve years as such ; that his character is not at all limited as an ordinary senator of the United States, but that his name has become of world- wide renown, — it is most extraordinary that he should so far forget all the suggestions of justice to an adversary, or of prudence to himself, as to venture upon the assertion of that which the

i858] AT FREEPORT 183

slightest investigation would have shown him to be wholly false. I can only account for his hav- ing done so upon the supposition that that evil genius which has attended him through his life, giving to him an apparent astonishing prosperity, such as to lead very many good men to doubt there being any advantage in virtue over vice — I say I can only account for it on the supposition that that evil genius has at last made up its mind to forsake him.

And I may add that another extraordinary feature of the judge's conduct in this canvass — made more extraordinary by this incident — is, that he is in the habit, in almost all the speeches he makes, of charging falsehood upon his adver- saries, myself and others. I now ask whether he is able to find in anything that Judge Trumbull, for instance, has said, or in anything that I have said, a justification at all compared with what we have, in this instance, for that sort of vulgarity.

I have been in the habit of charging as a mat- ter of belief on my part, that, in the introduction of the Nebraska bill into Congress, there was a conspiracy to make slavery perpetual and na- tional. I have arranged from time to time the evidence which establishes and proves the truth of this charge. I recurred to this charge at Ot- tawa. I shall not now have time to dwell upon it at very great length ; but inasmuch as Judge Douglas in his reply of half an hour made some points upon me in relation to it, I propose notic- ing a few of them.

The judge insists that, in the first speech I made, in which I very distinctly made that charge, he thought for a good while I was in fun — that I was playful — that I was not sincere

1 84 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS I Aug. ti

about it — and that he only grew angry and some- what excited when he found that I insisted upon it as a matter of earnestness. He says he char- acterized it as a falsehood as far as I implicated his moral character in that transaction. Well, I did not know, till he presented that view, that I had implicated his moral character. He is very much in the habit, when he argues me up into a position I never thought of occupying, of very cozily saying he has no doubt Lincoln is "con- scientious" in saying so. He should remember that I did not know but what he was altogether "conscientious" in that matter. I can conceive it possible for men to conspire to do a good thing, and I really find nothing in Judge Doug- las's course of arguments that is contrary to or inconsistent with his belief of a conspiracy to nationalize and spread slavery as being a good and blessed thing, and so I hope he will under- stand that I do not at all question but that in all this matter he is entirely "conscientious."

But to draw your attention to one of the points I made in this case, beginning at the beginning. When the Nebraska bill was introduced, or a short time afterward, by an amendment, I be- lieve, it was provided that it must be considered "the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, sub- ject only to the Constitution of the United States."* I have called his attention to the fact

* Douglas proposed this amendment February 7, 1854, two weeks after the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was introduced. Senator Benton of Missouri characterized it as "a little

i858] AT FREEPORT 185

that when he and some others began arguing that they were giving an increased degree of liberty to the people in the Territories over and above what they formerly had on the question of slavery, a question was raised whether the law was enacted to give such unconditional liberty to the people; and to test the sincerity of this mode of argument, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, intro- duced an amendment, in which he made the law — if the amendment were adopted — expressly declare that the people of the Territory should have the power to exclude slavery if they saw fit. I have asked attention also to the fact that Judge Douglas, and those who acted with him, voted that amendment down, notwithstanding it expressed exactly the thing they said was the true intent and meaning of the law. I have called attention to the fact that in subsequent times a decision of the Supreme Court has been made in which it has been declared that a Terri- torial Legislature has no constitutional right to exclude slavery.* And I have argued and said that for men who did intend that the people of the Territory should have the right to exclude slavery absolutely and unconditionally, the voting down of Chase's amendment is wholly inexplicable. It is a puzzle — a riddle. But I have said that with men who did look forward to such a decision, or who had it in contempla- tion that such decision of the Supreme Court would or might be made, the voting down of that amendment would be perfectly rational and

stump speech injected into the belly of the bill." The bill, as amended, repealed in effect the Missouri Compro- mise of 1820, which prohibited slavey north of latitude 36° 30'.

* The Dred Scott decision, rendered March 6, 1857.

1 86 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

intelligible. It would keep Congress from com- ing in collision with trie decision when it was made. Anybody can conceive that if there was an intention or expectation that such a decision was to follow, it would not be a very desirable party attitude to get into for the Supreme Court — all or nearly all its members belonging to the same party — to decide one way, when the party in Congress had decided the other way. Hence it would be very rational for men expecting such a decision to keep the niche in that law clear for it. After pointing this out, I tell Judge Douglas that it looks to me as though here was the reason why Chase's amendment was voted down. I tell him that as he did it, and knows why he did it, if it was done for a reason different from this, he knows what that reason was, and can tell us what it was. I tell him, also, it will be vastly more satisfactory to the country for him to give some other plausible, intelligible reason why it was voted down than to stand upon his dignity and call people liars. Well, on Saturday he did make his answer, and what do you think it was ? He says if I had only taken upon myself to tell the whole truth about that amendment of Chase's, no explanation would have been neces- sary on his part — or words to that effect. Now I say here that I am quite unconscious of having suppressed anything material to the case, and I am very frank to admit if there is any sound reason other than that which appeared to me material, it is quite fair for him to present it. What reason does he propose? That when Chase came forward with his amendment ex- pressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery from the limits of every Territory, General Cass

1858] AT FREEPORT 187

proposed to Chase, if he (Chase) would add to his amendment that the people should have the power to introduce or exclude, they would let it go.

This is absolutely all of his reply. And be- cause Chase would not do that they voted his amendment down. Well, it turns out, I believe, upon examination, that General Cass took some part in the little running debate upon that amendment, and then ran away and did not vote on it at all. Is not that the fact? So confident, as I think, was General Cass that there was a snake somewhere about, he chose to run away from the whole thing. This is an inference I draw from the fact that though he took part in the debate his name does not appear in the ayes and noes. But does Judge Douglas's reply amount to a satisfactory answer? [Cries of "Yes," "Yes" and "No," "No."] There is some little difference of opinion here. But I ask attention to a few more views bearing on the question of whether it amounts to a satisfactory answer. The men who were determined that that amendment should not get into the bill, and spoil the place where the Dred Scott decision was to come in, sought an excuse to get rid of it somewhere. One of these ways — one of these excuses — was to ask Chase to add to his pro- posed amendment a provision that the people might introduce slavery if they wanted to. They very well knew Chase would do no such thing — that Mr. Chase was one of the men differing from them on the broad principle of his insisting that freedom was better than slavery — a man who would not consent to enact a law penned with his own hand, by which he was made to

188 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

recognize slavery on the one hand and liberty on the other as precisely equal ; and when they insisted on his doing this, they very well knew they insisted on that which he would not for a moment think of doing, and that they were only bluffing him. I believe — I have not, since he made his answer, had a chance to examine the journals or Congressional Globe, and therefore speak from memory — I believe the state of the bill at that time, according to parliamentary rules, was such that no member could propose an additional amendment to Chase's amendment. I rather think this is the truth — the judge shakes his head. Very well. I would like to know then, if they wanted Chase's amendment fixed over, why somebody else could not have offered to do it? If they wanted it amended, why did they not offer the amendment ? Why did they stand there taunting and quibbling at Chase ? Why did they not put it in themselves? But to put it on the other ground : suppose that there was such an amendment offered, and Chase's was an amend- ment to an amendment ; until one is disposed of by parliamentary law, you cannot pile another on. Then all these gentlemen had to do was to vote Chase's on, and then, in the amended form in which the whole stood, add their own amend- ment to it if they wanted to put it in that shape. This was all they were obliged to do, and the ayes and noes show that there were thirty-six who voted it down, against ten who voted in favor of it. The thirty-six held entire sway and control. They could in some form or other have put that bill in the exact shape they wanted. If there was a rule preventing their amending it at the time, they could pass that, and then, Chase's

1858] AT FREEPORT 189

amendment being merged, put it in the shape they wanted. They did not choose to do so, but they went into a quibble with Chase to get him to add what they knew he would not add, and because he would not, they stand upon that flimsy pretext for voting down what they argued was the meaning and intent of their own bill. They left room thereby for this Dred Scott deci- sion, which goes very far to make slavery na- tional throughout the United States.

I pass one or two points I have because my time will very soon expire, but I must be allowed to say that Judge Douglas recurs again, as he did upon one or two other occasions, to the enormity of Lincoln — an insignificant individual like Lin- coln— upon his ipse dixit charging a conspiracy upon a large number of members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and two Presidents, to na- tionalize slavery. I want to say that, in the first place, I have made no charge of this sort upon my ipse dixit. I have only arrayed the evidence tending to prove it, and presented it to the un- derstanding of others, saying what I think it proves, but giving you the means of judging whether it proves it or not. This is precisely what I have done. I have not placed it upon my ipse dixit at all. On this occasion, I wish to re- call his attention to a piece of evidence which I brought forward at Ottawa on Saturday, show- ing that he had made substantially the same charge against substantially the same persons, excluding his dear self from the category. I ask him to give some attention to the evidence which I brought forward, that he himself had discov- ered a "fatal blow being struck" against the right of the people to exclude slavery from their

190 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

limits, which fatal blow he assumed as in evi- dence in an article in" the Washington Union, published "by authority." I ask by whose au- thority? He discovers a similar or identical pro- vision in the Lecompton constitution. Made by whom? The framers of that constitution. Ad- vocated by whom? By all the members of the party in the nation, who advocated the introduc- tion of Kansas into the Union under the Le- compton constitution.

I have asked his attention to the evidence that he arrayed to prove that such a fatal blow was being struck, and to the facts which he brought forward in support of that charge — being identi- cal with the one which he thinks so villainous in me. He pointed it not at a newspaper editor merely, but at the President and his cabinet, and the members of Congress advocating the Le- compton constitution, and those framing that in- strument. I must again be permitted to remind him, that although my ipse dixit may not be as great as his, yet it somewhat reduces the force of his calling my attention to the enormity of my making a like charge against him.

Go on, Judge Douglas.

Mr. Douglas's Reply.

Ladies and Gentlemen: The silence with which you have listened to Mr. Lincoln during his hour is credita- ble to this vast audience, composed of men of various political parties. Nothing is more honorable to any large mass of people assembled for the purpose of a fair discussion, than that kind and respectful attention that is yielded not only to your political friends, but to those who are opposed to you in politics.

I am glad that at last I have brought Mr. Lincoln to *he conclusion that he had better define his position on

1858] AT FREEPORT 191

certain political questions to which I called his attention at Ottawa. He there showed no disposition, no inclina- tion, to answer them. I did not present idle questions for him to answer merely for my gratification. I laid the foundation for those interrogatories by showing that they constituted the platform of the party whose nomi- nee he is for the Senate. I did not presume that I had the right to catechise him as I saw proper, unless I showed that his party, or a majority of it, stood upon the platform, and were in favor of the propositions upon which my questions were based. I desired simply to know, inasmuch as he had been nominated as the first, last, and only choice of his party, whether he concurred in the platform which that party had adopted for its government. In a few moments I will proceed to re- view the answers which he has given to these interroga- tories, but in order to relieve his anxiety I will first respond to these which he has presented to me. Mark you, he has not presented interrogatories which have ever received the sanction of the party with which I am acting, and hence he has no other foundation for them than his own curiosity.

First, he desires to know if the people of Kansas shall form a constitution by means entirely proper and unobjectionable and ask admission into the Union as a State, before they have the requisite population for a member of Congress, whether I will vote for that ad- mission. Well, now, I regret exceedingly that he did not answer that interrogatory himself before he put it to me, in order that we might understand, and not be left to infer, on which side he is. Mr. Trumbull, during the last session of Congress, voted from the beginning to the end against the admission of Oregon, although a free State, because she had not the requisite population for a member of Congress. Mr. Trumbull would not consent, under any circumstances, to let a State, free or slave, come into the Union until it had the requisite population. As Mr. Trumbull is in the field, fighting for Mr. Lincoln, I would like to have Mr. Lincoln answer his own question and tell me whether he is fighting Trumbull on that issue or not. But I will an- swer his question. In reference to Kansas, it is my opinion that as she has population enough to constitute a slave State, she has people enough for a free State. I will not make Kansas an exceptional case to the other

192 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

States of the Union. I hold it to be a sound rule of universal application to require a Territory to contain the requisite population for-a member of Congress, be- fore it is admitted as a State into the Union. I made that proposition in the Senate in 1856, and I renewed it during the last session, in a bill providing that no Territory of the United States should form a constitu- tion and apply for admission until it had the requisite population. On another occasion I proposed that neither Kansas, nor any other Territory, should be ad- mitted until it had the requisite population. Congress did not adopt any of my propositions containing this general rule, but did make an exception of Kansas. I will stand by that exception. Either Kansas must come in as a free State, with whatever population she may have, or the rule must be applied to all the other Terri- tories alike. I therefore answer at once that, it having been decided that Kansas has people enough for a slave State, I hold that she has enough for a free State. I hope Mr. Lincoln is satisfied with my answer ; and now I would like to get his answer to his own interrogatory — whether or not he will vote to admit Kansas before she has the requisite population. I want to know whether he will vote to admit Oregon before that Terri- tory has the requisite population. Mr. Trumbull will not, and the same reason that commits Mr. Trumbull against the admission of Oregon commits him against Kansas, even if she should apply for admission as a free State. If there is any sincerity, any truth, in the argument of Mr. Trumbull in the Senate, against the admission of Oregon because she had not 93,420 people, although her population was larger than that of Kan- sas, he stands pledged against the admission of both Oregon and Kansas until they have 93,420 inhabitants. I would like Mr.Lincoln to answer this question. I would like him to take his own medicine. If he differs with Mr. Trumbull, let him answer his argument against the admission of Oregon, instead of poking questions at me. The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is : Can the people of a Territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution? I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people

i8s8] AT FREEPORT

*93

of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State con- stitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Con- stitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere unless it is supported by local regulations. Those police regu- lations can only be established by the local legislature, and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and com- plete under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point.*

* This was the avowal that Lincoln had been playing for. In a letter to Henry Asbury, written July 31, 1858, the day the arrangements for the debates had been con- cluded. Mr. Lincoln said : "The points you propose to press upon Douglas he will be very hard to get up to, but I think you labor under a mistake when you say no one cares how he answers. This implies that it is equal with him whether he is injured here or at the South. This is a mistake. He cares nothing for the South ; he knows he is already dead there. He only leans Southward more to keep the Buchanan party from growing in Illinois. You shall have hard work to get him directly to the point whether a territorial legislature has or has not the power to exclude slavery. But if you succeed in bringing him to it — though he will be compelled to say it possesses no such power — he will instantly take ground that slavery cannot actually exist in the Territory unless the people desire it, and so give it protection by territorial legis- lation. If this offends the South, he will let it offend them, as at all events he means to hold on to his chances in Illinois."

The position of Douglas became known as the "Free«

i94 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

In this connection I will notice the charge which he has introduced in relation to Mr. Chase's amendment. I thought that I had chased that amendment out of Mr. Lincoln's brain at Ottawa; but it seems still to haunt his imagination, and he is not yet satisfied. I had sup- posed that he would be ashamed to press that question further. He is a lawyer, and has been a member of Congress, and has occupied his time and amused you by telling you about parliamentary proceedings. He ought to have known better than to try to palm off his misera- ble impositions upon this intelligent audience. The Ne-

port theory of unfriendly legislation." Of it J. F. Rhodes, in his "History of the United States," remarks : "This answer attracted more attention than any statement of Douglas during the campaign ; and, while he couM not have been elected Senator without taking that position, the enunciation of the doctrine was an insuperable obstacle to cementing the division in the Democratic party."

At a conference of Republican leaders the night before the Freeport debate Lincoln announced his intention of forcing this declaration from Douglas. He was counseled not to do so, since the theory would be popular with the Illinois voters and would probably win the Senatorship for Douglas. Lincoln replied that the South would never accept the man who enunciated the doctrine as President. "I am after larger game," he said; "the battle of i860 is worth a hundred of this."

Events fulfilled Lincoln's prophecy. The South accused Douglas of violating a bargain with it. Senator Judah P. Benjamin, of Louisiana, said (in a speech in the Senate, May 22, i860) :

We accuse him [Douglas] for this : to wit, that having bargained with us upon a point upon which we were at issue that it should be considered a judicial point ; that he would abide by the decision ; that he would act under the decision, and consider it a doctrine of the party ; that having said that to us here in the Senate, he went home, and under the stress of a local election, his knees gave way ; his whole person trembled. His adversary stood upon principle and was beaten ; and lo ! he is the candidate of a mighty party for the Presidency of the United States. The Senator from Illinois faltered. He got the prize for which he faltered ; but lo ! the grand prize of his ambition to-day slips from his grasp because of his faltering in his former contest, and his success in the canvass for the Senate, purchased for an ignoble prize, has cost him the loss of the Presidency of the United States.

.1858] AT FREEPORT 195

braska bill provided that the legislative power and au- thority of the said Territory should extend to all right- ful subjects of legislation consistent with the organic act and the Constitution of the United States. It did not make any exception as to slavery, but gave all the power that it was possible for Congress to give, without violating the Constitution, to the territorial legislature, with no exception or limitation on the subiect of slavery at all The language of that bill which I have quoted gave the full power and the full authority over the subject of slavery, affirmatively and negatively, to intro- duce it or exclude it, so far as the Constitution of the United States would permit. What more could Mr. Chase give by his amendment ? Nothing. He offered his amendment for the identical purpose for which Mr. Lincoln is using it, to enable demagogues in the couutry to try and deceive the people.

His amendment was to this effect. It provided that the legislature should have the power to exclude slavery; and General Cass suggested, "Why not give the power to introduce as well as exclude?" The an- swer was, they have the power already in the bill to do both. Chase was afraid his amendment would be adopted if he put the alternative proposition and so make it fair both ways, but would not yield. He offered it for the purpose of having it rejected. He offered it, as he has himself avowed over and over again, simply to make capital out of it for the stump. He expected that it would be capital for small politicians in the country, and that they would make an effort to deceive the people with it ; and he was not mistaken, for Lin- coln is carrying out the plan admirably. Lincoln knows that the Nebraska bill, without Chase's amendment, gave all the power which the Constitution would permit. Could Congress confer any more? Could Congress go beyond the Constitution of the country? We gave all ■ — a full grant, with no exception in regard to slavery one way or the other. We left that question as we left all others, to be decided by the people for themselves, just as they pleased. I will not occupy my time on this question. I have argued it before all over Illinois. I have argued it in this beautiful city of Freeport ; I have argued it in the North, the South, the East, and the West, avowing the same sentiments and the same principles. I have not been afraid to avow my senti-

196 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS EAug. 27

ments up here for fear I would be trotted down into Egypt.

The third question which TVtr. Lincoln presented is, if the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that a State of this Union cannot exclude slavery from its own limits, will I submit to it? I am amazed that Lincoln should ask such a question. ["A schoolboy knows better/'] Yes, a schoolboy does know better. Mr. Lincoln's object is to cast an imputation upon the Supreme Court. He knows that there never was but one man in America claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, who ever for a moment pretended such a thing. It is true that the Washington Union, in an article published on the 17th of last December, did put forth that doctrine, and I denounced the article on the floor of the Senate, in a speech which Mr. Lincoln now pretends was against the President. The Union had claimed that slavery had a right to go into the free States, and that any provision in the constitution or laws of the free States to the contrary was null and void. I denounced it in the Senate, as I said before, and I was the first man who did. Lincoln's friends, Trumbull, and Seward, and Hale, and Wilson, and the whole Black Republican side of the Senate were silent. They left it to me to denounce it. And what was the reply made to me on that occasion? Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, got up and undertook to lecture me on the ground that I ought not to have deemed the article wor- thy of notice, and ought not to have replied to it ; that there was not one man, woman, or child south of the Potomac, in any slave State, who did not repudiate any such pretension. Mr. Lincoln knows that that reply was made on the spot, and yet now he asks this ques- tion. He might as well ask me, suppose Mr. Lincoln should steal a horse, would I sanction it? and it would- be as genteel in me to ask him, in the event he stole a horse, what ought to be done with him. He casts an imputation upon the Supreme Court of the United States by supposing that they would violate the Con- stitution of the United States. I tell him that such a thing is not possible. It would be an act of moral treason that no man on the bench could ever descend to. Mr. Lincoln himself would never in his partisan feelings so far forget what was right as to be guilty of such an act.

1858] AT FREEPORT

197

The fourth question of Mr. Lincoln is : Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard as to how such acquisition may affect the Union on the slavery question? This question is very ingeniously and cunningly put.

The Black Republican creed lays it down expressly, that under no circumstances shall we acquire any more territory unless slavery is first prohibited in the country. I ask Mr. Lincoln whether he is in favor of that propo- sition. Are you [addressing Mr. Lincoln] opposed to the acquisition of any more territory, under any circum- stances, unless slavery is prohibited in it ? That he does not like to answer. When I ask him whether he stands up to that article in the platform of his party, he turns, Yankee-fashion, and, without answering it, asks me whether I am in favor of acquiring territory without regard to how it may affect the Union on the slavery question. I answer that whenever it becomes necessary, in our growth and progress, to acquire more territory, that I am in favor of it, without reference to the ques- tion of slavery, and when we have acquired it, I will leave the people free to do as they please, either to make it slave or free territory, as they prefer. It is idle to tell me or you that we have territory enough. Our fathers supposed that we had enough when our territory ex- tended to the Mississippi River, but a few years' growth and expansion satisfied them that we needed more, and the Louisiana territory, from the west branch of the Mississippi to the British possessions, was acquired. Then we acquired Oregon, then California and New Mexico. We have enough now for the present, but this is a young and a growing nation. It swarms as often as a hive of bees, and as new swarms are turned out each year, there must be hives in which they can gather and make their honey. In less than fifteen years, if the same progress that has distinguished this country for the last fifteen years continues, every foot of vacant land be- tween this and the Pacific ocean, owned by the United States, will be occupied. Will you not continue to in- crease at the end of fifteen years as well as now? I tell you, increase, and multiply, and expand, is the law of this nation's existence. You cannot limit this great re- public by mere boundary lines, saying, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no further." Any one of you gentlemen might as well say to a son twelve years old that he is

198 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS tAug. 27

big enough, and must not grow any larger, and in order to prevent his growth put- a hoop around him to keep him to his present size. What would be the result ? Either the hoop must burst and be rent asunder, or the child must die. So it would be with this great nation. With our natural increase, growing with a rapidity unknown in any other part of the globe, with the tide of immigration that is fleeing from despotism in the Old World to seek refuge in our own, there is a constant torrent pouring into this country that requires more land, more territory upon which to settle, and just as fast as our interests and our destiny require additional territory in the North, in the South, or on the islands of the ocean, I am for it, and when we acquire it, will leave the people, according to the Nebraska bill, free to do as they please on the subject of slavery and every other question.

I trust now that Mr. Lincoln will deem himself an- swered on his four points. He racked his brain so much in devising these four questions that he exhausted him- self, and had not strength enough to invent others. As soon as he is able to hold a council with his advisors, Lovejoy, Farnsworth, and Fred Douglass, he will frame and propound others. ["Good, good."] You Black Re- publicans who say good, I have no doubt think that they are all good men. I have reason to recollect that some people in this county think that Fred Douglass is a very good man. The last time I came here to make a speech, while talking from the stand to you, people of Freeport, as I am doing to-day, I saw a carriage, and a magnificent one it was, drive up and take a position on the outside of the crowd ; a beautiful young lady was sitting on the box-seat, whilst Fred Douglass and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage acted as driver. I saw this in your own town. ["What of itf"] All I have to say of it is this, that if you Black Republicans think that the negro ought to be on a social equality with your wives and daughters, and ride in a carriage with your wife, whilst you drive the team, you have a perfect right to do so. I am told that one of Fred Douglass's kinsmen, another rich black negro, is now traveling in this part of the State making speeches for his friend Lincoln as the champion of black men. ["What have you to say against itf"] All I have to say on that subject is, that those of you who believe that

iS5S] AT FREEPORT 199

the negro is your equal and ought to be on an equality with you socially, politically, and legally, have a right to entertain those opinions, and of course will vote for Mr. Lincoln.

I have a word to say on Mr. Lincoln's answer to the interrogatories contained in my speech at Ottawa, and which he has pretended to reply to here to-day. Mr. Lincoln makes a great parade of the fact that I quoted a platform as having been adopted by the Black Republican party at Springfield in 1854, which, it turns out, was adopted at another place. Mr. Lincoln loses sight of the thing itself in his ecstasies over the mis- take I made in stating the place where it was done. He thinks that that platform was not adopted on the right "spot."

When I put the direct questions to Mr. Lincoln to ascertain whether he now stands pledged to that creed — to the unconditional repeal of the fugitive-slave law, a refusal to admit any more slave States into the Union even if the people want them, a determination to apply the Wilmot proviso, not only to all the territory we now have, but all that we may hereafter acquire — he refused to answer, and his followers say, in excuse, that the resolutions upon which I based my interroga- tories were not adopted at the right "spot." Lincoln and his political friends are great on "spots." In Congress, as a representative of this State, he declared the Mexican war to be unjust and infamous, and would not support it, or acknowledge his own country to be right in the contest, because he said that American blood was not shed on American soil in the right "spot." * And now he cannot answer the questions I put to him at Ottawa because the resolutions I read were not adopted at the right "spot." It may be possible that I was led into an error as to the spot on which the resolutions I then read were proclaimed, but I was not, and am not in error as to the fact of their forming the basis of the creed of the Republican party when that party was first organized. I will state to you the evidence I had, and upon which I relied for my statement that the resolutions in question were adopted at Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854.

* See the "Spot Resolutions," page 113, volume two, present edition.

goo DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

Although I was aware that such resolutions had been passed in this district, .and nearly all the northern congressional districts and county conventions, I had not noticed whether or not they had been adopted by any State convention. In 1856 a debate arose in Con- gress between Major Thomas L. Harris, of the Spring- field district, and Mr. Norton, of the Joliet district, on political matters connected with our State, in the course of which Major Harris quoted those resolu- tions as having been passed by the first Republican State convention that ever assembled in Illinois. I knew that Major Harris was remarkable for his ac- curacy, that he was a very conscientious and sincere man, and I also noticed that Norton did not question the accuracy of this statement. I therefore took it for granted that it was so, and the other day when I con- cluded to use the resolutions at Ottawa, I wrote to Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, at Springfield, calling his attention to them, telling him that I had been informed that Major Harris was lying sick at Springfield, and desiring him to call upon him and ascertain all the facts concerning the resolutions, the time and the place where they were adopted. In reply Mr. Lanphier sent me two copies of his paper, which I have here. The first is a copy of the State Register, published at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's own town, on the 16th of October, 1854 only eleven days after the adjournment of the convention, from which I desire to read the following:

During the late discussions in this city, Lincoln made a speech, to which Judge Douglas replied : In Lincoln's speech he took the broad ground that, according to the Declaration of Independence, the whites and blacks are equal. From this he drew the conclusion, which he sev- eral times repeated, that the white man had no right to pass laws for the government of the black man without the nigger's consent. This speech of Lincoln's was heard and applauded by all the Abolitionists assembled in Spring- field. So soon as Mr. Lincoln was done speaking. Mr. Codding arose and requested all the delegates to the Black Republican convention to withdraw into the Senate chamber. They did so, and after long deliberation, they laid down the following Abolition platform as the plat- form on which they stood. We call the particular atten- tion of our readers to it.

1858] AT FREEPORT 201

Then follows the identical platform, word for word, which I read at Ottawa. Now, that was published in Mr. Lincoln's own town, eleven days after the conven- tion was held, and it has remained on record up to this day never contradicted.

When I quoted the resolutions at Ottawa and ques- tioned Mr. Lincoln in relation to them, he said that his name was on the committee that reported them, but he did not serve, nor did he think he served, be- cause he was, or thought he was, in Tazewell County at the time the convention was in session. He did not deny that the resolutions were passed by the Spring- field convention. He did not know better, and evi- dently thought that they were, but afterward his friends declared that they had discovered that they varied in some respects from the resolutions passed by that convention. I have shown you that I had good evi- dence for believing that the resolutions had been passed at Springfield. Mr. Lincoln ought to have known better; but not a word is said about his ignorance on the subject, whilst I, notwithstanding the circumstances, am accused of forgery.

Now, I will show you that if I have made a mistake as to the place where these resolutions were adopted — and when I get down to Springfield I will investigate the matter and see whether or not I have — the princi- ples they enunciate were adopted as the Black Re- publican platform ["White, white"], in the various counties and congressional districts throughout the north end of the State in 1854. This platform was adopted in nearly every county that gave a Black Re- publican majority for the legislature in that year, and here is a man [pointing to Mr. Denio, who sat on the stand near Deacon Bross] who knows as well as any living man that it was the creed of the Black Re- publican party at that time. I would be willing to call Denio as a witness, or any other honest man belonging to that party. I will now read the resolutions adopted at the Rockford convention on the 30th of August, 1854, which nominated Washburne for Congress. You elected him on the following platform:

Resolved, That the continued and increasing aggressions of slavery in our country are destructive of the best rights of a free people, and that such aggressions cannot be

DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS EAug. 27

successfully resisted without the united political action of all good men.

Resolved, That the citizens of the United States hold in their hands peaceful, constitutional, and efficient remedy against the encroachments of the slave power, the ballot- box ; and if that remedy is boldly and wisely applied, the principles of liberty and eternal justice will be established.

Resolved, That we accept this issue forced upon us by the slave power, and, in defense of freedom, will cooperate and be known as Republicans, pledged to the accomplish- ment of the following purposes :

To bring the administration of the government back to the control of first principles ; to restore Kansas and Nebraska to the position of free Territories ; to repeal and entirely abrogate the fugitive-slave law ; to restrict slavery to those States in which it exists ; to prohibit the admission of any more slave States into the Union ; to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the General Government has exclusive jurisdiction, and to resist the acquisition of any more Territories unless the introduction of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited.

Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles we will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office under the General or State Government who is not positively committed to the sup- port of these principles, and whose personal character and conduct is not a guaranty that he is reliable and shall abjure all party allegiance and ties.

Resolved, That we cordially invite persons of all former political parties whatever in favor of the object expressed in the above resolutions to unite with us in carrying them into effect.

Well, you think that is a very good platform, do you not? If you do, if you approve it now, and think it is all right, you will not join with those men who say that I libel you by calling these your principles, will you? Now, Mr. Lincoln complains; Mr. Lincoln charges that I did you and him injustice by saying that this was the platform of your party. I am told that Washburne made a speech in Galena last night, in which he abused me awfully for bringing to light this platform, on which he was elected to Congress. He thought that you had forgotten it, as he and Mr. Lin coin desire to. He did not deny but that you had adopted it, and that he had subscribed to and was pledged by it, but he did not think it was fair to call

185S] AT FREEPORT 203

it up and remind the people that it was their plat- form.

But I am glad to find that you are more honest in your Abolitionism than your leaders, by avowing that it is your platform, and right in your opinion.

In the adoption of that platform, you not only de- clared that you would resist the admission of any more slave States, and work for the repeal of the fugitive-slave law, but you pledged yourself not to vote for any man for State or Federal offices who was not committed to these principles. You were thus com- mitted. Similar resolutions to those were adopted in your county convention here; and now with your ad- missions that they are your platform and embody your sentiments new as they did then, what do you think of Mr. Lincoln, your candidate for the United States Senate, who is attempting to dodge the responsibility of this platform, because it was not adopted in the right spot? I thought thai it was adopted in Spring- field, but it turns out it was not, that it was adopted at Rockford, and in the various counties which com- prise this congressional district. When I get into the next district, I will show that the same platform was adopted there, and so on through the State, until I nail the responsibility of it upon the back of the Black Republican party throughout the State. [A voice: "Couldn't you modify and call it brown?"] Not a bit. I thought that you were becoming a little brown when your members in Congress voted for the Crittenden- Montgomery bill, but since you have backed out from that position, and gone back to Abolitionism, you are black and not brown.

Gentlemen, I have shown you what your platform was in 1854. You still adhere to it. The same platform was adopted by nearly all the counties where the Black Republican party had a majority in 1854. I wish now to call your attention to the action of your representa- tives in the legislature when they assembled together at Springfield. In the first place you must remember that this was the organization of a new party. It is so de- clared in the resolutions themselves, which say that you are going to dissolve all old party ties and call the new party Republican. The Old Whig party was to have its throat cut from ear to ear, and the Democratic party was to be annihilated and blotted out of existence,

204 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

whilst in lieu of these parties the Black Republican party was to be organized on this Abolition platform. You know who the chief leaders were in breaking up and destroying these two great parties. Lincoln on the one hand and Trumbull on the other, being disappointed politicians, and having retired or been driven to ob- scurity by an outraged constituency because of their political sins, formed a scheme to Abolitionize the two parties, and lead the old-line Whigs and old-line Demo- crats captive, bound hand and foot, into the Abolition camp. Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Lovejoy were here to christen them whenever they were brought in. Lincoln went to work to dissolve the old-line Whig party. Clay was dead, and although the sod was not yet green on his grave, this man undertook to bring into disrepute those great compromise measures of 1850, with which Clay and Webster were identified. Up to 1854 the Old Whig party and the Democratic party had stood on a common platform so far as this slavery ques- tion was concerned. You Whigs and we Democrats differed about the bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the subtreasury, but we agreed on this slavery question and the true mode of preserving the peace and harmony of the Union. The compromise measures of 1850 were introduced by Clay, were de- fended by Webster, and supported by Cass, and were approved by Fillmore, and sanctioned by the national men of both parties. They constituted a common plank upon which both Whigs and Democrats stood. In 1852 the Whig party, in its last national convention at Balti- more, indorsed and approved these measures of Clay, and so did the national convention of the Democratic party held that same year. Thus the old-line Whigs and the old-line Democrats stood pledged to the great principle of self-government, which guarantees to the people of each Territory the right to decide the slavery question for themselves. In 1854, after the death of Clay and Webster, Mr. Lincoln, on the part of the Whigs, under- took to Abolitionize the Whig party by dissolving it, transferring the members into the Abolition camp and making them train under Giddings, Fred Douglass, Lovejoy, Chase, Farnsworth, and other Abolition lead- ers. Trumbull undertook to dissolve the Democratic party by taking old Democrats into the Abolition camp. Mr. Lincoln was aided in his efforts by many leading

1858] AT FREEPORT 205

Whigs throughout the State — your member of Congress, Mr. Washburne, being one of the most active. Trum- bull was aided by many renegades from the Democratic party, among whom were John Wentworth, Tom Turner, and others with whom you are familiar.

Mr. Turner, who was one of the moderators, here interposed, and said that he had drawn the resolutions which Senator Douglas had read.

Mr. Douglas: Yes, and Turner says that he drew these resolutions. ["Hurrah for Turner!" "Hurrah for Douglas!"] That is right; give Turner cheers for drawing the resolutions, if you approve them. If he drew those resolutions, he will not deny that they are the creed of the Black Republican party.

Mr. Turner : They are our creed exactly.

Mr. Douglas : And yet Lincoln denies that he stands on them. Mr. Turner says that the creed of the Black Republican party is the admission of no more slave States, and yet Mr. Lincoln declares that he would not like to be placed in a position where he would have to vote for them. All I have to say to friend Lincoln is, that I do not think there is much danger of his being placed in such a position. As Mr. Lincoln would be very sorry to be placed in such an embarrassing position as to be obliged to vote on the admission of any more slave States, I propose, out of mere kindness, to relieve him from any such necessity. When the bargain be- tween Lincoln and Trumbull was completed for Aboli- tionizing the Whig and Democratic parties, they "spread" over the State, Lincoln still pretending to be an old-line Whig, in order to "rope in" the Whigs, and Trumbull pretending to be as good a Democrat as he ever was, in order to coax the Democrats over into the Abolition ranks. They played the part that "decoy ducks" play down on the Potomac River. In that part of the country they make artificial ducks, and put them on the water in places where the wild ducks are to be found, for the purpose of decoying them. Well, Lincoln and Trumbull played the part of these "decoy ducks," and deceived enough old-line Whigs and old-line Dem- ocrats to elect a Black Republican legislature. When that legislature met, the first thing it did was to elect as Speaker of the House the very man who is now boasting that he wrote the Abolition platform on which Lincoln .will not stand. I want to know of Mr. Turner whether

206 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

or not, when he was elected, he was a good embodiment of Republican principles?

Mr. Turner : I hope I was then and am now.

Mr. Douglas : He swears that he hopes he was then and is now. He wrote that Black Republican platform, and is satisfied with it now. I admire and acknowledge Turner's honesty. Every man of you knows what he says about these resolutions being the platform of the Black Republican party is true, and you also know that each one of these men. who are shuffling and trying to deny it is only trying to cheat the people out of their votes for the purpose of deceiving them still more after the election. I propose to trace this thing a little further, in order that you can see what additional evi- dence there is to fasten this revolutionary platform upon the Black Republican party. When the legislature as- sembled, there was a United States senator to elect in the place of General Shields, and before they proceeded to ballot, Lovejoy insisted on laying down certain prin- ciples by which to govern the party. It has been pub- lished to the world and satisfactorily proven that there was, at the time the alliance was made between Trum- bull and Lincoln to Abolitionize the two parties, an agreement that Lincoln should take Shieids's place in the United States Senate, and Trumbull should have mine so soon as they could conveniently get rid of me. When Lincoln was beaten for Shieids's place, in a man- ner I will refer to in a few minutes, he felt very sore and restive ; his friends grumbled, and some of them came out and charged that the most infamous treachery had been practised against him ; that the bargain was that Lincoln was to have Shieids's place, and Trum- bull was to have waited for mine, but that Trumbull, having the control of a few Abolitionized Democrats, prevented them from voting for Lincoln, thus keeping him within a few votes of an election until he succeeded in forcing the party to drop him and elect Trumbull. Well, Trumbull having cheated Lincoln, his friends made a fuss, and in order to keep them and Lincoln quiet, the party were obliged to come forward, in ad- vance, at the last State election, and make a pledge that they would go for Lincoln and nobody else. Lincoln could not be silenced in any other way.

Now, there are a great many Black Republicans of you who do not know this thing was done. ["White,

i8s8] AT FREEPORT 207

white" and great clamor.] I wish to remind you that while Mr. Lincoln was speaking there was not a Demo- crat vulgar and blackguard enough to interrupt him. But I know that the shoe is pinching you. I am clinch- ing Lincoln now, and you are scared to death for the result. I have seen this thing before. I have seen men make appointments for joint discussions, and, the mo- ment their man has been heard, try to interrupt and prevent a fair hearing of the other side. I have seen your mobs before, and defy their wrath. [Tremendous applause.] My friends, do not cheer, for I need my whole time. The object of the opposition is to occupy my attention in order to prevent me from giving the whole evidence and nailing this double-dealing on the Black Republican party. As I have before said, Love- joy demanded a declaration of principles on the part of the Black Republicans of the legislature before going into an election for United States senator. He offered the following preamble and resolutions which I hold in my hand :

Whereas, Human slavery is a violation of the principles of natural and revealed rights ; and whereas, the fathers of the Revolution, fully imbued with the spirit of these principles, declared freedom to be the inalienable birth- right of all men ; and whereas, the preamble to the Con- stitution of the United States avers that that instrument was ordained to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ; and whereas, in furtherance of the above principles, slavery was forever prohibited in the old Northwest Territory, and more recently in all that territory lying west and north of the State of Missouri by the act of the Federal Government ; and whereas, the repeal of the prohibition last referred to was contrary to the wishes of the people of Illinois, a violation of an implied compact, long deemed sacred by the citizens of the United States, and a wide departure from the uniform action of the General Government in relation to the extension of slavery ; therefore,

Resolved, by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein, That our senators in Congress be in- structed, and our representatives requested to introduce, if not otherwise introduced, and to vote for a bill to restore such prohibition to the aforesaid Territories, and also to extend a similar prohibition to all territory which now belongs to the United States, or which may hereafter come under their jurisdiction.

Resolved, That our senators in Congress be instructed, and our representatives requested, to vote against the

2o8 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

admission of any State into the Union, the constitution of which does not prohibit slavery, whether the territory out of which such State may have been formed shall have been acquired by conquest, treaty, purchase, or from orig- inal territory of the United States.

Resolved, That our senators in Congress be instructed, and our representatives requested, to introduce and vote for a bill to repeal an act entitled "An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the services of their masters" ; and, failing in that, for such a modification of it as shall secure the right of habeas corpus and trial by jury before the regularly constituted authorities of the State, to all persons claimed as owing service or labor.

Those resolutions were introduced by Mr. Lovejoy immediately preceding the election of senator. They declared first, that the Wilmot proviso must be applied to all territory north of 360 30'; secondly, that it must be applied to all territory south of 360 30' ; thirdly, that it must be applied to all the territory now owned by the United States ; and finally, that it must be applied to all territory hereafter to be acquired by the United States. The next resolution declares that no more slave States shall be admitted into this Union under any circum- stances whatever, no matter whether they are formed out of territory now owned by us or that we may here- after acquire, by treaty, by Congress, or in any manner whatever. The next resolution demands the uncondi- tional repeal of the fugitive-slave law, although its un- conditional repeal would leave no provision for carry- ing out that clause of the Constitution of the United States which guarantees the surrender of fugitives. If they could not get an unconditional repeal, they de- manded that that law should be so modified as to make it as nearly useless as possible. Now, I want to show you who voted for these resolutions. When the vote was taken on the first resolution, it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 41, nays 32. You will find that this is a strict party vote, between the Democrats on the one hand, and the Black Republicans on the other. [Cries of "White, white/' and clamor.] I know your name, and always call things by their right name. The point I wish to call your attention to is this : that these reso- lutions were adopted on the 7th day of February, and that on the 8th they went into an election for a United

1858] AT FREEPORT 209

States senator, and that day every man who voted for these resolutions, with but two exceptions, voted for Lincoln for the United States Senate. ["Give us their names."] I will read the names over to you if you want them, but I believe your object is to occupy my time.

On the next resolution the vote stood, yeas 33, nays 40; and on the third resolution, yeas 35, nays 47. I wish to impress upon you that every man who voted for those resolutions, with but two exceptions, voted on the next day for Lincoln for United States senator. Bear in mind that the members who thus voted for Lincoln were elected to the legislature pledged to vote for no man for office under the State or Federal Gov- ernment who was not committed to this Black Repub- lican platform. They were all so pledged. Mr. Turner, who stands by me, and who then represented you, and who says that he wrote those resolutions, voted for Lincoln, when he was pledged not to do so unless Lincoln was in favor of those resolutions. I now ask Mr. Turner [turning to Mr. Turner], did you violate your pledge in voting for Mr. Lincoln, or did he com- mit himself to your platform before you cast your vote for him?

I could go through the whole list of names here and show you that all the Black Republicans in the legisla- ture, who voted for Mr. Lincoln, had voted on the day previous for these resolutions. For instance, here are the names of Sargent and Little, of Jo Daviess and Car- roll; Thomas J. Turner, of Stephenson', Lawrence, of Boone and McHenry ; Swan, of Lake ; Pinckney, of Ogle County ; and Lyman, of Winnebago. Thus you see every member from your congressional district voted for Mr. Lincoln, and they were pledged not to vote for him unless he was committed to the doctrine of no more slave States, the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, and the repeal of the fugitive-slave law. Mr. Lincoln tells you to-day that he is not pledged to any such doctrine. Either Mr. Lincoln was then com- mitted to those propositions, or Mr. Turner violated his pledges to you when he voted for him. Either Lincoln was pledged to each one of those propositions, or else every Black Republican representative from this con- gressional district violated his pledge of honor to his constituents by voting for him. I ask you which horn of the dilemma will you take? Will you hold Lincoln

210 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

up to the platform of his party or will you accuse every representative you. had in the legislature of violating his pledge of honor to his constituents? There is no escape for you. Either Mr. Lincoln was committed to those propositions, or your members violated their faith. Take either horn of the dilemma 70U choose. There is no dodging the question ; I want Lincoln's answer. He says he was not pledged to repeal the fugitive-slave law, that he does not quite like to do it ; he will not intro- duce a law to repeal it, but thinks there ought to be some law ; he does not tell what it ought to be ; upon the whole, he is altogether undecided, and don't know what to think or do. That is the substance of his answer upon the repeal of the fugitive-slave law. I put the question to him distinctly, whether he indorsed that part of the Black Republican platform which calls for the entire abrogation and repeal of the fugitive-slave law. He answers, no ! — that he does not indorse that ; but he does not tell what he is for, or what he will vote for. His answer is, in fact, no answer at all. Why cannot he speak out and say what he is for and what he will do?

In regard to there being no more slave States, he is not pledged to that. He would not like, he says, to be put in a position where he would have to vote one way or another upon that question. I pray you, do not put him in a position that would embarrass him so much. Gentlemen, if he goes to the Senate he may be put in that position, and Avhich way will he vote? [A voice: "How will you vote?"] I will vote for the admission of just such a State as by the form of their constitu- tion the people show they want. If they want slavery, they shall have it ; if they prohibit slavery, it shall be prohibited. They can form their institutions to please themselves, subject only to the Constitution; and I for one stand ready to receive them into the Union. Why cannot your Black Republican candidates talk out as plain as that when they are questioned?

I do not want to cheat any man out of his vote. No man is deceived in regard to my principles if I have the power to express myself in terms explicit enough to convey my ideas.

Mr. Lincoln made a speech when he was nominated for the United States Senate which covers all these Abolition platforms. He there lays down a proposition

1858] AT FREEPORT 211

so broad in its Abolitionism as to cover the whole ground.

In my ODinion it [the slavery agitation'] will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. 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.

There you find that Mr. Lincoln lays down the doc- trine that this Union cannot endure divided as our fathers made it, with free and slave States. He says they must all become one thing or all the other ; that they must all be free or all slave, or else the Union cannot continue to exist. It being his opinion that to admit any more slave States, to continue to divide the Union into free and slave States, will dissolve it, I want to know of Mr. Lincoln whether he will vote for the ad- mission of another slave State.

He tells you the Union cannot exist unless the States are all free or all slave ; he tells you that he is opposed to making them all slave, and hence he is for making them all free, in order that the Union may exist ; and yet he will not say that he will not vote against another slave State, knowing that the Union must be dissolved if he votes for it. I ask you if that is fair dealing? The true intent and inevitable conclusion to be drawn from his first Springfield speech is, that he is opposed to the admission of any more slave States under any circum- stances. If he is so opposed, why not say so? If he believes this Union cannot endure divided into free and slave States, that they must all become free in order to save the Union, he is bound as an honest man, to vote against any more slave States. If he believes it he is bound to do it. Show me that it is my duty in order to save the Union to do a particular act, and I will do it if the Constitution does not prohibit it. I am not for the dissolution of the Union under any circumstances. I will pursue no course of conduct that will give just

212 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

cause for the dissolution of the Union. The hope of the friends of freedom throughout the world rests upon the perpetuity of this Union. The downtrodden and op- pressed people who are suffering under European des- potism all look with hope and anxiety to the American Union as the only resting-place and permanent home of freedom and self-government.

Mr. Lincoln says that he believes that this Union cannot continue to endure with slave States in it, and yet he will not tell you distinctly whether he will vote for or against the admission of any more slave States, but says he would not like to be put to the test. I do not think he will be put to the test. I do not think that the people of Illinois desire a man to represent them who would not like to be put to the test on the performance of a high constitutional duty. I will re- tire in shame from the Senate of the United States when I am not willing to be put to the test in the performance of my duty. I have been put to severe tests. I have stood by my principles in fair weather and in foul, in the sunshine and in the rain. I have defended the great principles of self-government here among you when Northern sentiment ran in a torrent against me, and I have defended that same great principle when Southern sentiment came down like an avalanche upon me. I was not afraid of any test they put to me. I knew I was right — I knew my principles were sound — I knew that the people would see in the end that I had done right, and I knew that the God of Heaven would smile upon me if 1 was faithful in the performance of my duty.

Mr. Lincoln makes a charge of corruption against the Supreme Court of the United States, and two Presidents of the United States, and attempts to bol- ster it up by saying that I did the same against the Washington Union. Suppose I did make that charge of corruption against the Washington Union, when it was true, does that justify him in making a false charge against me and others? That is the question I would put. He says that at the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, and before it was passed, there was a conspiracy between the judges of the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and my- self by that bill, and the decision of the court, to break down the barrier and establish slavery all over

1858] AT FREEPORT 213

the Union. Does he not know that that charge is historically false as against President Buchanan? He knows that Mr. Buchanan was at that time in England, representing this country with distinguished ability at the Court of St. James, that he was there for a long time before, and did not return for a year or more after. He knows that to be true, and that fact proves his charge to be false as against Mr. Buchanan. Then again, I wish to call his attention to the fact that at the time the Nebraska bill was passed, the Dred Scott case was not before the Supreme Court at all; it was not upon the docket of the Supreme Court; it had not been brought there, and the judges in all probability knew nothing of it. Thus the history of the country proves the charge to be false as against them. As to President Pierce, his high character as a man of integ- rity and honor is enough to vindicate him from such a charge; and as to myself, I pronounce the charge an infamous lie, whenever and wherever made, and by whomsoever made. I am willing that Mr. Lincoln should go and rake up every public act of mine, every measure I have introduced, report I have made, speech delivered, and criticise them; but when he charges upon me a corrupt conspiracy for the purpose of perverting the institutions of the country, I brand it as it deserves. I say the history of the country proves it to be false, and that it could not have been possible at the time. But now he tries to protect himself in this charge, because I made a charge against the Washington Union. My speech in the Senate against the Washing- ton Union was made because it advocated a revolu- tionary doctrine, by declaring that the free States had not the right to prohibit slavery within their own limits. Because I made that charge against the Wash- ington Union, Mr. Lincoln says it was a charge against Mr. Buchanan. Suppose it was ; is Lincoln the peculiar defender of Mr. Buchanan? Is he so in- terested in the Federal administration, and so bound to it, that he must jump to the rescue and defend it from every attack that I may make against it? I un- derstand the whole thing. The Washington Union, under that most corrupt of all men, Cornelius Wendell, is advocating Mr. Lincoln's claim to the Senate. Wen- dell was the printer of the last Black Republican House of Representatives; he was a candidate before

214 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

the present Democratic House, but was ignominiously kicked out, and then he took the money which he had made out of the public printing by means of the Black Republicans, bought the Washington Union, and is now publishing it in the name of the Democratic party, and advocating Mr. Lincoln's election to the Senate. Mr. Lincoln therefore considers an attack upon Wen- dell and his corrupt gang as a personal attack upon him. This only proves what I have charged, that there is an alliance between Lincoln and his sup- porters, and the Federal office-holders of this State, and presidential aspirants out of it, to break me down at home.

Mr. Lincoln feels bound to come in to the rescue of the Washington Union. In that speech which I de- livered in answer to the Washington Union, I made it distinctly against the Union alone. I did not choose to go beyond that. If I have occasion to attack the President's conduct, I will do it in language that will not be misunderstood. When I differed with the President I spoke out so that you all heard me. That question passed away; it resulted in the triumph of my principle by allowing the people to do as they please, and there is an end of the controversy. Whenever the great principle of self-government — the right of the people to make their own constitution, and come into the Union with slavery or without it, as they see proper — shall again arise, you will find me standing firm in defense of that principle, and fighting whoever fights it. If Mr. Buchanan stands, as I doubt not he will, by the recommendation contained in his message, that hereafter all State constitutions ought to be sub- mitted to the people before the admission of the State into the Union, he will find me standing by him firmly, shoulder to shoulder, in carrying it out. I know Mr. Lincoln's object; he wants to divide the Democratic party, in order that he may defeat me and go to the Senate.

[Mr. Douglas's time here expired, and he stopped on the moment^]

Mr. Lincoln's Rejoinder.

My Friends: It will readily occur to you that I cannot in half an hour notice all the things that

i"8s8] AT FREEPORT 215

so able a man as Judge Douglas can say in an hour and a half; and I hope, therefore, if there be anything that he has said upon which you would like to hear something from me, but which I omit to comment upon, you will bear in mind that it would be expecting an impossibility for me to go over his whole ground. I can but take up some of the points that he has dwelt upon, and employ my half hour specially on them.

The first thing I have to say to you is a word in regard to Judge Douglas's declaration about the 'Vulgarity and blackguardism" in the audi- ence— that no such thing, as he says, was shown by any Democrat while I was speaking. Now I only wish, by way of reply on this subject, to say that while I was speaking I used no "vulgarity or blackguardism" toward any Democrat.

Now, my friends, I come to all this long por- tion of the judge's speech — perhaps half of it — which he has devoted to the various resolutions and platforms that have been adopted in the dif- ferent counties, in the different congressional dis- tricts, and in the Illinois legislature — which he supposes are at variance with the positions I have assumed before you to-day. It is true that many of these resolutions are at variance with the posi- tions I have here assumed. All I have to ask is that we talk reasonably and rationally about it. I happen to know, the judge's opinion to the con- trary notwithstanding, that I have never tried to conceal my opinions, nor tried to deceive any one in reference to them. He may go and examine all the members who voted for me for United States senator in 1855, after the election of 1854. They were pledged to certain things here at home, and were determined to have pledges from me,

216 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

and if he will find any of these persons who will tell him anything inconsistent with what I say now, I will retire from the race, and give him no more trouble.

The plain truth is this. At the introduction of the Nebraska policy, we believed there was a new era being introduced in the history of the repub- lic, which tended to the spread and perpetuation of slavery. But in our opposition to that measure we did not agree with one another in everything. The people in the north end of the State were for stronger measures of opposition than we of the central and southern portions of the State, but we were all opposed to the Nebraska doctrine. We had that one feeling and that one sentiment in common. You at the north end met in your conventions and passed your resolutions. We in the middle of the State and further south did not hold such conventions and pass the same resolu- tions, although we had in general a common view and a common sentiment. So that these meetings which the judge has alluded to, and the resolu- tions he has read from, were local, and did not spread over the whole State. We at last met to- gether in 1856, from all parts of the State, and we agreed upon a common platform. You who held more extreme notions, either yielded those notions, or if not wholly yielding them, agreed to yield them practically, for the sake of embody- ing the opposition to the measures which the op- posite party were pushing forward at that time. We met you then, and if there was anything yielded, it was for practical purposes. We agreed then upon a platform for the party throughout the entire State of Illinois, and now we are all bound, as a party, to that platform. And I say

1858] AT FREE PORT 2x7

here to you, if any one expects of me, in the case of my election, that I will do anything not signi- fied by our Republican platform and my answers here to-day, I tell you very frankly that person will be deceived. I do not ask for the vote of any one who supposes that I have secret purposes or pledges that I dare not speak out. Cannot the judge be satisfied? If he fears, in the unfortu- nate case of my election, that my going to Wash- ington will enable me to advocate sentiments con- trary to those which I expressed when you voted for and elected me, I assure him that his fears are wholly needless and groundless. Is the judge really afraid of any such thing? I'll tell you what he is afraid of. He is afraid we'll all pull together. This is what alarms him more than anything else. For my part, I do hope that all of us, entertaining a common sentiment in opposi- tion to what appears to us a design to national- ize and perpetuate slavery, will waive minor dif- ferences on questions which either belong to the dead past or the distant future, and all pull to- gether in this struggle. What are your senti- ments? If it be true that on the ground which I occupy — ground which I occupy as frankly and boldly as Judge Douglas does his — my views, though partly coinciding with yours, are not as perfectly in accordance with your feelings as his are, I do say to you in all candor, go for him and not for me. I hope to deal in all things fairly with Judge Douglas, and with the people of the State, in this contest. And if I should never be elected to any office, I trust I may go down with no stain of falsehood upon my reputation, not- withstanding the hard opinions Judge Douglas chooses to entertain of me.

2i8 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

The judge has again addressed himself to the Abolition tendencies of" a speech of mine, made at Springfield in June last. I have so often tried to answer what he is always saying on that mel- ancholy theme, that I almost turn with disgust from the discussion — from the repetition of an answer to it. I trust that nearly all of this intelli- gent audience have read that speech. If you have, I may venture to leave it to you to inspect it closely, and see whether it contains any of those "bugaboos" which frighten Judge Douglas.

The judge complains that I did not fully an- swer his questions. If I have the sense to com- prehend and answer those questions, I have done so fairly. If it can be pointed out to me how I can more fully and fairly answer him, Twill do it — but I aver I have not the sense to see how it is to be done. He says I do not declare I would in any event vote for the admission of a slave State into the Union. If I have been fairly re- ported, he will see that I did give an explicit an- swer to his interrogatories. I did not merely say that I would dislike to be put to the test, but I said clearly, if I were put to the test, and a Territory from which slavery had been excluded should present herself with a State constitution sanctioning slavery, — a most extraordinary thing and wholly unlikely to happen, — I did not see how I could avoid voting for her admission. But he re- fuses to understand that I said so, and he wants this audience to understand that I did not say so. Yet it will be so reported in the printed speech that he cannot help seeing it.

He says if I should vote for the admission of a slave State I would be voting for a dissolution of the Union, because I hold that the Union can-

i8s8] AT FREEPORT 219

not permanently exist half slave and half free. I repeat that I do not believe this government can endure permanently half slave and half free, yet I do not admit, nor does it at all follow, that the admission of a single slave State will permanently fix the character and establish this as a universal slave nation. The judge is very happy indeed at working up these quibbles. Before leaving the subject of answering questions, 1 aver as my con- fident belief, when you come to see our speeches in print, that you will find every question which he has asked me more fairly and boldly and fully answered than he has answered those which I put to him. Is not that so? The two speeches may be placed side by side ; and I will venture to leave it to impartial judges whether his questions have not been more directly and circumstantially an- swered than mine.

Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon the editor of the Washington Union, alone, of enter- taining a purpose to rob the States of their power to exclude slavery from their limits. I undertake to say, and I make the direct issue, that he did not make his charge against the editor of the Union alone. I will undertake to prove by the record here that he made that charge against more and higher dignitaries than the editor of the Washington Union. I am quite aware that he was shirking and dodging around the form in which he put it, but I can make it manifest that he leveled his "fatal blow" against more persons than this Washington editor. Will he dodge it now by alleging that I am trying to defend Mr. Buchanan against the charge ? Not at all. Am I not making the same charge myself? I am try- ing to show that you, Judge Douglas, are a wit-

220 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

ness on my side. I am not defending Buchanan, and I will tell Judge Douglas that in my opinion when he made that charge he had an eye farther north than he was to-day.* He was then fight- ing against people who called him a Black Repub- lican and an Abolitionist. It is mixed all through his speech, and it is tolerably manifest that his eye was a great deal farther north than it is to-day. The judge says that though he made this charge, Toombs got up and declared there was not a man in the United States, except the editor of the Union, who was in favor of the doctrines put forth in that article. And thereupon I under- stand that the judge withdrew the charge. Al- though he had taken extracts from the news- paper, and then from the Lecompton constitution, to show the existence of a conspiracy to bring about a "fatal blow," by which the States were to be deprived of the right of excluding slavery, it all went to pot as soon as Toombs got up and told him it was not true. It reminds me of the story that John Phoenix, the California railroad surveyor, tells. He says they started out from the Plaza to the mission of Dolores. They had two ways of determining distances. One was by a chain and pins taken over the ground ; the other was by a "go-it-ometer," — an invention of his own, — a three-legged instrument, with which he computed a series of triangles between the points. At night he turned to the chain-man to ascertain what distance they had come, and found that by some mistake he had merely dragged the chain

* A hint at the charge, made at the time of Douglas's break with Buchanan on the Lecompton matter, that the Senator was preparing to enter the Republican party when circumstances became propitious.

i8s8] AT FREEPORT 221

over the ground without keeping any record. By the "go-it-ometer" he found he had made ten miles. Being skeptical about this, he asked a dray- man who was passing how far it was to the Plaza. The drayman replied it was just half a mile, and the surveyor put it down in his book — just as Judge Douglas says, after he had made his calculations and computations, he took Toombs's statement. I have no doubt that after Judge Douglas had made his charge, he was as easily satisfied about its truth as the surveyor was of the drayman's statement of the distance to the Plaza. Yet it is a fact that the man who put forth all that matter which Douglas deemed a "fatal blow" at State sovereignty, was elected by the Democrats as public printer.

Now, gentlemen, you may take Judge Doug- las's speech of March 22, 1858, beginning about the middle of page 21, and reading to the bottom of page 24, and you will find the evidence on which I say that he did not make his charge against the editor of the Union alone. I cannot stop to read it, but I will give it to the reporters. Judge Douglas said :

Mr. President, you here find several distinct prop- ositions advanced boldly by the Washington Union editorially, and apparently authoritatively, and every man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The proposi- tions are: first, that the primary object of all govern- ment at its original institution is the protection of persons and property; second, that the Constitution of the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and im- munities of citizens in the several States; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and

222 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of the government and Constitu- tion of the United States; and fourth, that the emanci- pation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner.

Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th of November, and on the 18th ap- peared the first article giving the adhesion of the Union to the Lecompton constitution. It was in these words:

"Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed ques- tion is settled. The problem is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone."

And a column nearly, of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton constitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put forth editorially in the Union. What is it?

"Article 7, Section 1. The right of property is be- fore and higher than any constitutional sanction; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as invariable as the right of the owner of any property whatever."

Then in the schedule is a provision that the constitu- tion 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 this authoritative article in the Washington Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this constitution.

When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Le- compton constitution on the 18th 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.

Here he says, "Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly, and apparently authoritatively." By whose authority, Judge Douglas? Again, he says in another place, "It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecomp-

1858] AT FREEPORT 223

ton constitution that they are identical in spirit with this authoritative article." By whose au- thority? Who do you mean to say authorized the publication of these articles ? He knows that the Washington Union is considered the organ of the administration. I demand of Judge Doug- las by whose authority he meant to say those articles were published, if not by the authority of the President of the United States and his cab- inet? I defy him to show whom he referred to, if not to these high functionaries in the Federal Government. More than this, he says the articles in that paper and the provisions of the Lecomp- ton constitution are "identical," and being identi- cal, he argues that the authors are cooperating and conspiring together. He does not use the word "conspiring," but what other construction can you put upon it ? He winds up with this :

When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Le- compton constitution on the 18th 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 ask him if all this fuss was made over the editor of this newspaper. It would be a terribly "fatal blow" indeed which a single man could strike, when no President, no cabinet officer, no member of Congress, was giving strength and efficiency to the movement. Out of respect to Judge Douglas's good sense I must believe he didn't manufacture his idea of the "fatal" char- acter of that blow out of such a miserable scape- grace as he represents that editor to be. But the judge's eye is farther south now. Then, it was

224 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Aug. 27

very peculiarly and decidedly north. His hope rested on the idea of .enlisting the great "Black Republican" party, and making it the tail of his new kite. He knows he was then expecting from day to day to turn Republican and place himself at the head of our organization. He has found that these despised "Black Republicans" estimate him by a standard which he has taught them only too well. Hence he is crawling back into his old camp, and you will find him eventually installed in full fellowship among those whom he was then battling, and with whom he now pretends to be at such fearful variance. [Loud applause, and cries of "Go on, go on."] I cannot, gentlemen, my time has expired.

"Fooling the People/'

Between the second and third debates with Douglas, Lincoln spoke at Clinton, 111., on the afternoon of September 8. In this he uttered his famous expression : "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time," pointing the epigram at Senator Doug- las. A report of the substance of his opening remarks appeared in the Bloomington Panto- graph the next day. From this it appears that, after proposing to show the commanding import- ance of the slavery question, he returned upon the senator himself Douglas's charge that he, Lin- coln, was a disturber of national peace. "On the fourth of January, 1854," said Lincoln, "Judge Douglas introduced the Kansas-Nebraska bill- He initiated a new policy which he claimed was to put an end to the agitation of the slavery ques-

i8583 AT FREEPORT 225

tion. Whether that was his object or not I will not stop to discuss, but at all events some kind of a policy was initiated ; and what has been the re- sult? Instead of the quiet times and good feel- ing which was promised us by the self-styled author of Popular Sovereignty, we have had nothing but ill-feeling and agitation. According to Judge Douglas, the passage of the Nebraska bill would tranquilize the whole country — there would be no slavery agitation in or out of Con- gress, and the vexed question would be left en- tirely to the people of the Territories. Such was the opinion of Judge Douglas, and such were the opinions of the leading men of the Democratic party. Even as late as the spring of 1856, Mr. Buchanan, nominee for President, said that Kan- sas would be tranquil in less than six weeks.

"Did the angry debates in Congress last winter over the admission of Kansas into the Union with a constitution detested by ninety-nine of every hundred of her citizens, lead you to suppose that the slavery agitation was settled?"

Mr. Lincoln then took up Douglas's charge that the Republicans believe in social equality of whites and blacks. Here Lincoln read from a speech he had made in Peoria in 1854 (see page 249, volume two, present edition). [The editor of the Pantagraph states that "the audience, after hearing the extracts read and comparing their conservative sentiments with those now advo- cated by Mr. Lincoln, testified their approval by loud applause. How any reasonable man can hear one of Mr. Lincoln's speeches without being converted to Republicanism is something that we can't account for/']

226 SPEECHES [Sept. 13

"Popular Sovereignty" the Right to Flog Negroes.

Fragment of Speech at Paris, III. Septem- ber 8, 1858.

Let us inquire what Judge Douglas really in- vented when he introduced the Nebraska bill. He called it popular sovereignty. What does that mean? It means the sovereignty of the people over their own affairs — in other words, the right of the people to govern themselves. Did Judge Douglas invent this ? Not quite. The idea of popular sovereignty was floating about several ages before the author of the Nebraska bill was born — indeed, before Columbus set foot on this continent. In the year 1776 it took form in the noble words which you are all familiar with : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," etc. Was not this the origin of popular sovereignty, as applied to the American people? Here we are told that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent B of the gov- erned. If that is not popular sovereignty, then I have no conception of the meaning of words. If Judge Douglas did not invent this kind of popu- lar sovereignty, let us pursue the inquiry and find out what kind he did invent. Was it the right of emigrants to Kansas and Nebraska to govern themselves, and a lot of "niggers," too, if they wanted them? Clearly, this was no invention of his, because General Cass put forth the same doc- trine in 1848 in his so-called Nicholson letter, six years before Douglas thought of such a thing. Then what was it that the "Little Giant" in-

i8s8] AT EDWARDSVILLE 227

vented? It never occurred to General Cass to call his discovery by the odd name of popular sovereignty. He had not the face to say that the right of the people to govern "niggers" was the right of the people to govern themselves. His notions of the fitness of things were not moulded to the brazenness of calling the right to put a hundred "niggers" through under the lash in Nebraska a "sacred" right of self-government. And here I submit to you was Judge Douglas's discovery, and the whole of it : He discovered that the right to breed and flog negroes in Ne- braska was popular sovereignty.

The Issue Between the Parties,

and

Justice the Bulwark of American Democracy.

Fragments of Speech at Edwardsville, III. September 13, 1858.

I have been requested to give a concise state- ment of the difference, as I understand it, be- tween the Democratic and Republican parties, on the' leading issue of the campaign. This question has been put to me by a gentleman whom I do not know. I do not even know whether he is a friend of mine or a supporter of Judge Douglas in this contest, nor does that make any difference. His question is a proper one. Lest I should forget it, I will give you my answer before proceeding with the line of argu- ment I have marked out for this discussion.

The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties on the leading issues of the contest, as I understand it, is that the former con-

228 SPEECHES [Sept. 13

sider slavery a moral, social, and political wrong, while the latter do not' consider it either a moral, a social, or a political wrong; and the action of each, as respects the growth of the country and the expansion of our population, is squared to meet these views. I will not affirm that the Dem- ocratic party consider slavery morally, socially, and politically right, though their tendency to that view has, in my opinion, been constant and unmistakable for the past five years. I prefer to take, as the accepted maxim of the party, the idea put forth by Judge Douglas, that he "don't care whether slavery is voted down or voted up." I am quite willing to believe that many Demo- crats would prefer that slavery should be always "voted down," and I know that some prefer that it be always "voted up" ; but I have a right to in- sist that their action, especially if it be their con- stant action, shall determine their ideas and pref- erences on this subject. Every measure of the Democratic party of late years, bearing directly or indirectly on the slavery question, has corre- sponded with this notion of utter indifference whether slavery or freedom shall outrun in the race of empire across to the Pacific — every meas- ure, I say, up to the Dred Scott decision, where, it seems to me, the idea is boldly suggested that slavery is better than freedom. The Republican party, on the contrary, hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it as an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists, they will not overlook the constitutional guards which our fathers placed around it; they will do nothing

i8s8] AT EDWARDSVILLE 229

that can give proper offence to those who hold slaves by legal sanction ; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the evil from becoming larger and involving more negroes, more white men, more soil, and more States in its deplorable consequences. They will, if pos- sible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate peace- able extinction in God's own good time. And to this end they will, if possible, restore the govern- ment to the policy of the fathers — the policy of preserving the new Territories from the baneful influence of human bondage, as the Northwestern Territories were sought to be preserved by the Ordinance of 1787, and the Compromise Act of 1820. They will oppose, in all its length and breadth, the modern Democratic idea, that slav- ery is as good as freedom, and ought to have room for expansion all over the continent, if people can be found to carry it. All, or nearly all, of Judge Douglas's arguments are logical, if you admit that slavery is as good and as right as freedom, and not one of them is worth a rush if you deny it. This is the difference, as I under- stand it, between the Republican and Democratic parties.

My friends, I have endeavored to show you the logical consequences of the Dred Scott de- cision, which holds that the people of a Territory cannot prevent the establishment of slavery in their midst. I have stated, which cannot be gain- said, that the grounds upon which this decision is made are equally applicable to the free States as to the free Territories, and that the peculiar reasons put forth by Judge Douglas for endors-

230 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

ing- this decision commit him, in advance, to the next decision and to -all other decisions coming from the same source. And when, by all these means, you have succeeded in dehumanizing the negro; when you have put him down and made it impossible for him to be but as the beasts of the field ; when you have extinguished his soul in this world and placed him where the ray of hope is blown out as in the darkness of the damned, are you quite sure that the demon you have roused will not turn and rend you? What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independ- ence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoasts, our army and our navy. These are not our reliance against tyranny. All of those may be turned against us without mak- ing us weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defence is in the spirit which prized liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bond- age and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own in- dependence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you. And let me tell you, that all these things are prepared for you by the teachings of history, if the elec- tions shall promise that the next Dred Scott de- cision and all future decisions will be quietly ac- quiesced in by the people.

i8s8] AT JONES BORO 231

Third Joint Debate, at Jonesboro.

September 15, 1858. Mr. Douglas's Opening Speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen: I appear before you to-day in pursuance of a previous notice, and have made ar- rangements with Mr. Lincoln to divide time, and dis- cuss with him the leading political topics that now agitate the country.

Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political parties known as Whig and Democratic. These parties differed from each other on certain questions which were then deemed to be important to the best interests of the republic. Whigs and Demo- crats differed about a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the subtreasury. On those issues we went before the country, and discussed the prin- ciples, objects, and measures of the two great parties. Each of the parties could proclaim its principles in Louisiana as well as in Massachusetts, in Kentucky as well as in Illinois. Since that period, a great revolu- tion has taken place in the formation of parties, by which they now seem to be divided by a geographical line, a large party in the North being arrayed under the Abolition or Republican banner, in hostility to the Southern States, Southern people, and Southern in- stitutions. It becomes important for us to inquire how this transformation of parties has occurred, made from those of national principles to geographical factions. You remember that in 1850 — this country was agitated from' its center to its circumference about, this slavery question — it became necessary for the leaders of the great Whig party and the leaders of the great Democratic party to postpone for the time being their particular disputes, and unite first to save the Union before they should quarrel as to the mode in which it was to be governed. During the Congress of 1849-50, Henry Clay was the leader of the Union men, supported by Cass and Webster, and the leaders of the Democracy and the leaders of the Whigs, in op- position to Northern Abolitionists or Southern Dis- unionists. The great contest of 1850 resulted in the establishment of the compromise measures of that

232 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

year, which measures rested on the great principle that the people of each State and each Territory of this Union ought to be permitted to regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject to no other limitation than that which the Federal Constitu- tion imposes.

I now wish to ask you whether that principle was right or wrong which guaranteed to every State and every community the right to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves. These meas- ures were adopted, as I have previously said, by the joint action of the Union Whigs and Union Democrats in opposition to Northern Abolitionists and Southern Disunionists. In 1858, when the Whig party as- sembled at Baltimore in national convention for the last time, they adopted the principle of the compromise measures of 1850 as their rule of party action in the future. One month thereafter the Democrats assem- bled at the same place to nominate a candidate for the presidency, and declared the same great principle as the rule of action by which the Democracy would be governed. The presidential election of 1852 was fought on that basis. It is true that the Whigs claimed special merit for the adoption of those measures, because they asserted that their great Clay originated them, their godlike Webster defended them, and their Fillmore signed the bill making them the law of the land; but on the other hand, the Democrats claimed special credit for the Democracy upon the ground that we gave twice as many votes, in both houses of Congress for the passage of these measures as the Whig party.

Thus you see that in the presidential election of 1852 the Whigs were pledged by their platform and their candidate to the principle of the compromise measures of 1850, and the Democracy were likewise pledged by our principles, our platform, and our candidate to the same line of policy, to preserve peace and quiet between the different sections of this Union. Since that period the Whig party has been transformed into a sectional party, under the name of the Republican party, whilst the Democratic party continues the same national party it was at that day. All sectional men, all men of Abolition sentiments and principles, no matter whether they were old Abolitionists or had

28s8] AT JONESBORO 233

been Whigs or Democrats, rally under the sectional Republican banner, and consequently all national men, all Union-loving men, whether Whigs, Democrats, or by whatever name they have been known, ought $0 rally under the Stars and Stripes in defense of the Constitution as our fathers made it, and of the Union as it has existed under the Constitution.

How has this departure from the faith of the Democracy and the faith of the Whig party been ac- complished? In 1854, certain restless, ambitious, and disappointed politicians throughout the land took ad- vantage of the temporary excitement created by the Nebraska bill to try and dissolve the Old Whig party and the old Democratic party, to Abolitionize their members, and lead them, bound hand and foot, cap- tives into the Abolition camp. In the State of New York a convention was held by some of these men, and a platform adopted, every plank of which was as black as night, each one relating to the negro, and not one referring to the interests of the white man. That example was followed throughout the Northern States, the effort being made to combine all the free States in hostile array against the slave States. The men who thus thought that they could build up a great sectional party, and through its organization control the politi- cal destinies of this country, based all their hopes on the single fact that the North was the stronger division of the nation, and hence, if the North could be com- bined against the South, a sure victory awaited their efforts. I am doing no more than justice to the truth of history when I say that in this State Abraham Lincoln, on behalf of the Whigs, and Lyman Trum- bull, on behalf of the Democrats, were the leaders who undertook to perform this grand scheme of Abolition- izing the two parties to which they belonged. They had a private arrangement as to what should be the political destiny of each of the contracting parties be- fore they went into the operation. The arrangement was that Mr. Lincoln was to take the old-line Whigs with him, claiming that he was still as good a Whig as ever, over to the Abolitionists, and Mr. Trumbull was to run for Congress in the Belleville district, and, claiming to be a good Democrat, coax the old Demo- crats into the Abolition camp, and when, by the joint efforts of the Abolitionized Whigs, the Abolitionized

234 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

Democrats, and the old-line Abolition and Free-soil party of this State, they should secure a majority in the legislature, Lincoln was then to be made United States senator in Shields's place, Trumbull remaining in Congress until I should be accommodating enough to die or resign, and give him a chance to follow Lincoln. That was a very nice little bargain so far as Lincoln and Trumbull were concerned, if it had been carried out in good faith, and friend Lincoln had attained to senatorial dignity according to the contract. They went into the contest in every part of the State, calling upon all disappointed politicians to join in the crusade against the Democracy, and appealed to the prevailing sentiments and prejudices in all the northern counties of the State. In three congressional districts in the north end of the State they adopted, as the platform of this new party thus formed by Lincoln and Trumbull in connection with the Abolitionists, all of those principles which aimed at a warfare on the part of the North against the South. They declared in that plat- form that the Wilmot proviso was to be applied to all the Territories of the United States, North as well as South of 360 30', and not only to all the territory we then had, but all that we might hereafter acquire; that hereafter no more slave States should be admitted into this Union, even if the people of such States desired slavery; that the fugitive-slave law should be absolutely and unconditionally repealed; that slavery should be abolished in the District of Columbia; that the slave- trade should be abolished between the different States, and, in fact, every article in their creed related to this slavery question, and pointed to a Northern geo- graphical party in hostility to the Southern States of this Union.

Such were their principles in northern Illinois. A little further south they became bleached and grew paler just in proportion as public sentiment moderated and changed in this direction. They were Republicans or Abolitionists in the North, anti-Nebraska me» down about Springfield, and in this neighborhood the^ contented themselves with talking about the inex- pediency of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. In the extreme northern counties they brought out men to canvass the State whose complexion suited their political creed, and hence Fred Douglass, the

i358] AT JONESBORO

235

negro, was to be found there, following General Cass, and attempting to speak on behalf of Lincoln, Trum- bull, and Abolitionism, against that illustrious senator. Why, they brought Fred Douglass to Freeport, when I was addressing a meeting there, in a carriage driven by the white owner, the negro sitting inside with the white lady and her daughter. When I got through canvassing the northern counties that year, and progressed as far south as Springfield, I was met and opposed in discussion by Lincoln, Lovejoy, Trumbull, and Sidney Breese, who were on one side. Father Giddings. the high priest of Abolitionism, had just been there, and Chase came about the time I left. ["Why didn't you shoot him?"] I did take a running shot at them, but as I was single-handed against the white, black, and mixed drove. I had to use a shot-gun and fire into the crowd instead of taking them off singly with a rifle. Trumbull had for his lieutenants in aid- ing him to Abolitionize the Democracy, such men as John Wentworth of Chicago, Governor Reynolds of Belleville, Sidney Breese of Carlisle, and John Dougherty of Union, each of whom modified his opinions to suit the locality he was in. Dougherty, for instance, would not go much further than to talk about the inexpediency of the Nebraska bill, whilst his allies at Chicago advocated negro citizenship and negro equality, putting the white man and the negro on the same basis under the law. Now these men, four years ago, were engaged in a conspiracy to break down the Democracy; to-day they are again acting together for the same purpose! They do not hoist the same flag; they do not own the same principles, or profess the same faith; but conceal their union for the sake of policy. In the northern counties you find that all the conventions are called in the name of the Black Republican party; at Springfield they dare not call a Republican convention, but invite all the enemies of the Democracy to unite, and when they get down into Egypt, Trumbull issues notices calling upon the "Free Democracy" to assemble and hear him speak. I have one of the handbills calling a Trumbull meeting at Waterloo the other day, which I received there, which is in the following language:

A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place in Waterloo, on Monday, Sept. 13th inst., whereat Hon.

236 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

Lyman Trumbull, Hon. Jehu Baker, and others will address the people upon the different political topics of the day. Members of all parties are cordially invited to be present and hear and determine for themselves.

The Monroe Free Democracy.

What is that name of "Free Democrats" put forth for unless to deceive the people, and make them believe that Trumbull and his followers are not the same party as that which raises the black flag of Abolitionism in the northern part of this State, and makes war upon the Democratic party throughout the State? When I put that question to them at Waterloo on Saturday last, one of them rose and stated that they had changed their name for political effect in order to get votes. There was a candid admission. Their object in changing their party organization and prin- ciples in different localities was avowed to be an attempt to cheat and deceive some portion of the people until after the election. Why cannot a political party that is conscious of the rectitude of its purposes and the soundness of its principles declare them every- where alike? I would disdain to hold any political principles that I could not avow in the same terms in Kentucky that I declared in Illinois, in Charleston as well as in Chicago, in New Orleans as well as in New- York. So long as we live under a constitution com- mon to all the States, our political faith ought to be as broad, as liberal, and just as that constitution itself, and should be proclaimed alike in every portion of the Union. But it is apparent that our opponents find it necessary for partisan effect, to change their colors in different counties in order to catch the popular breeze, and hope with these discordant materials com- bined together to secure a majority in the legislature for the purpose of putting down the Democratic party. This combination did succeed in 1854 so far as to elect a majority of their confederates to the legislature, and the first important act which they performed was to elect a senator in the place of the eminent and gallant Senator Shields. His term expired in the United States Senate at that time, and he had to be crushed by the Abolition coalition for the simple reason that he would not join in their conspiracy to wage war against one half of the Union. That was the only objection to

i8s8] AT JONESBORO 237

General Shields. He had served the people of the State with ability in the legislature, he had served you with fidelity and ability as auditor, he had performed his duties to the satisfaction of the whole country at the head of the Land Department at Washington, he had covered the State and the Union with immortal glory on the bloody fields of Mexico in defense of the honor of our flag, and yet he had to be stricken down by this unholy combination. And for what cause? Merely because he would not join a combination of one half of the States to make war upon the other half, after having poured out his heart's blood for all the States in the Union. Trumbull was put in his place by Abolitionism. How did Trumbull get there?

Before the Abolitionists would consent to go into an election for United States senator, they required all the members of this new combination to show their hands upon this question of Abolitionism. Lovejoy, one of their high priests, brought in resolutions de- fining the Abolition creed, and required them to com- mit themselves on it by their votes — yea or nay. In that creed as laid down by Lovejoy, they declared first, that the Wilmot proviso must be put on all the Ter- ritories of the United States, north as well as south of 360 30', and that no more territory should ever be acquired unless slavery was at first prohibited therein; second, that no more States should ever be received into the Union unless slavery was first prohibited, by constitutional provision, in such States; third, that the fugitive-slave law must be immediately repealed, or, failing in that, then such amendments were to be made to it as would render it useless and inefficient for the objects for which it was passed, etc. The next day after these resolutions were offered they were voted upon, part of them carried, and the others defeated, the same men who voted fo* them, with only two ex- ceptions, voting soon after for Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the United States Senate. He came within one or two votes of being elected, but he could not quite get the number required, for the simple rea- son that his friend Trumbull, who was a party to the bargain by which Lincoln was to take Shields's place, controlled a few Abolitionized Democrats in the legis- lature, and would not allow them all to vote for him, thus wronging Lincoln by permitting him on each

238 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

ballot to be almost elected, but not quite, until he forced them to drop Lincoln and elect him (Trum- bull), in order to unite the party. Thus you find that although the legislature was carried that year by the bargain between Trumbull, Lincoln, and the Aboli- tionists, and the union of these discordant elements in one harmonious party, yet Trumbull violated his pledge, and played a Yankee trick on Lincoln when they came to divide the spoils. Perhaps you would like a little evidence on this point. If you would, I will call Colonel James H. Matheny of Springfield, to the stand, Mr. Lincoln's especial confidential friend for the last twenty years, and see what he will say upon the subject of this bargain. Matheny is now the Black Republican or Abolition candidate for Congress in the Springfield district against the gallant Colonel Harris, and is making speches all over that part of the State against me and in favor of Lincoln, in con- cert with Trumbull. He ought to be a good witness, and I will read an extract from a speech which he made in 1856, when he was mad because his friend Lin- coln had been cheated. It is one of numerous speeches of the same tenor that were made about that time, exposing this bargain between Lincoln, Trumbull, and the Abolitionists. Matheny then said:

Th* Whigs, Abolitionists, Know-nothings, and renegade Democrats made a solemn compact for the purpose of carrying this State against the Democracy on this plan : First, that they would all combine and elect Mr. Trum- bull to Congress, and thereby carry his district for the legislature, in order to throw all the strength that could be obtained into that body against the Democrats ; second, that when the legislature should meet, the officers of that body, such as speaker, clerks, doorkeepers, etc., would be given to the Abolitionists ; and third, that the Whigs were to have the United States senator. That, accordingly, in good faith, Trumbull was elected to Congress, and his district carried for the legislature, and, when it convened the Abolitionists got all the officers of that body, and thus far the "bond" was fairly executed. The Whigs, on their part, demanded the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that the bond might be fulfilled, the other parties to the contract having already secured to themselves all that was called for. But, in the most perfidious manner, they refused to elect Mr. Lincoln ; and the mean, low-lived, sneaking Trumbull succeeded,

i858] AT JONESBORO 239

by pledging all that was required by any party, in thrusting Lincoln aside and foisting himself, an excrescence from the rotten bowels of the Democracy, into the United States Senate ; and thus it has ever been., that an honest man makes a bad bargain when he conspires or contracts with rogues.

Matheny thought his friend Lincoln made a bad bargain when he conspired and contracted with such rogues as Trumbull and his Abolition associates in that campaign. Lincoln was shoved off the track, and he and his friends all at once began to mope; became sour and mad, and disposed to tell, but dare not; and thus they stood for a long time, until the Abolitionists coaxed and flattered him back by their assurances that he should certainly be a senator in Douglas's place. In that way the Abolitionists have been able to hold Lincoln to the alliance up to this time, and now they have brought him into a fight against me, and he is to see if he is again to be cheated by them. Lincoln this time, though, required more of them than a promise, and holds their bond, if not security, that Lovejoy shall not cheat him as Trumbull did.

When the Republican convention assembled at Spring- field in June last, for the purpose of nominating State officers only, the Abolitionists could not get Lincoln and his friends into it until they would pledge themselves that Lincoln should be their candidate for the Senate ; and you will find, in proof of this, that that convention passed a resolution unanimously declaring that Abra- ham Lincoln was the "first, last, and only choice" of the Republicans for United States senator. He was not willing to have it understood that he was merely their first choice, or their last choice, but their only choice. The Black Republican party had nobody else. Browning was nowhere ; Governor Bissell was of no account ; Archie Williams was not taken into consideration; John Wentworth was not worth mentioning; John M. Palmer was degraded; and their party presented the extraordinary spectacle of having but one — the first, the last, and only choice for the Senate. Suppose that Lincoln should die, what a horrible condition the Republican party would be in ! They would have nobody left. They have no other choice, and it was necessary for them to put themselves before the world in this ludicrous, ridiculous

240 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

attitude of having no other choice in order to quiet Lincoln's suspicions, and. assure him that he was not to be cheated by Lovejoy, and the trickery by which Trumbull out-generaled him. Well, gentlemen, I think they will have a nice time of it before they get through. I do not intend to give them any chance to cheat Lin- coln at all this time. I intend to relieve him of all anxiety upon that subject, and spare them the mortifica- tion of more exposures of contracts violated, and the pledged honor of rogues forfeited.

But I wish to invite your attention to the chief points at issue between Mr. Lincoln and myself in this discus- sion. Mr. Lincoln, knowing that he was to be the candi- date of his party on account of the arrangement of which I have already spoken, knowing that be was to receive the nomination of the convention for the United States Senate, had his speech, accepting that nomination, all written and committed to memory, ready to be deliv- ered the moment the nomination was announced. Ac- cordingly when it was made he was in readiness and delivered his speech, a portion of which I will read in order that I may state his political principles fairly, by repeating them in his own language :

We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed object, and Math the confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation ; under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. I believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dis- solved— 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 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 until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, North as well as South.

There you have Mr. Lincoln's first and main pro- position, upon which he bases his claims, stated in his own language. He tells you that this republic can- not endure permanently divided into slave and free States, as our fathers made it. He says that they must

i8s8] AT JONESBORO 241

all become free or all become slave, that they must all be one thing or all be the other, or this government cannot last. Why can it not last, if we will execute the government in the same spirit and upon the same prin- ciples upon which it is founded? Lincoln, by his propo- sition, says to the South, "If you desire to maintain your institutions as they are now, you must not be satis- fied with minding your own business, but you must in- vade Illinois and all the other Northern States, estab- lish slavery in them, and make it universal" ; and in the same language he says to the North, "You must not be content with regulating your own affairs, and minding your own business, but if you desire to maintain your freedom, you must invade the Southern States, abolish slavery there and everywhere, in order to have the States all one thing or all the other." I say that this is the inevitable and irresistible result of Mr. Lincoln's argument, inviting a warfare between the North and the South, to be carried on with ruthless vengeance, until the one section or the other shall be driven to the wall, and become the victim of the rapacity of the other, What good would follow such a system of warfare? Suppose the North should succeed in conquering the South, how much would she be the gainer? or suppose the South should conquer the North, could the Union be preserved in that way? Is this sectional warfare to be waged between Northern States and Southern States until they all shall become uniform in their local and domestic institutions merely because Mr. Lincoln says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and pre- tends that this scriptural quotation, this language of our Lord and Master, is applicable to the American Union and the American Constitution? Washington and his compeers, in the convention that framed the Constitu- tion, made this government divided into free and slave States. It was composed then of thirteen sovereign and independent States, each having sovereign authority over its local and domestic institutions, and all bound together by the Federal Constitution. Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the Federal Constitution, joining free and slave States together, to a house divided against itself, and says that it is contrary to the law of God and cannot stand. When did he learn, and by what authority does he proclaim, that this government is contrary to the law of God and cannot stand? It has stood thus divided

242 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

into free and slave States from its organization up to this day.

During that period we have increased from four mil- lions to thirty millions of people ; we have extended our territory from the Mississippi to the Pacific ocean ; we have acquired the Floridas and Texas, and other terri- tory sufficient to double our geographical extent ; we have increased in population, in wealth, and in power beyond any example on earth ; we have risen from a weak and feeble power to become the terror and admi- ration of the civilized world; and all this has been done under a Constitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says is in violation of the law of God, and under a Union divided into free and slave States, which Mr. Lincoln thinks, because of such division, cannot stand. Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those who framed the government. Washington did not believe, nor did his compatriots, that the local laws and domestic institutions that were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Ver- mont were suited to the rice plantations of South Caro- lina ; they did not believe at that day that in a republic so broad and expanded as this, containing such a variety of climate, soil, and interest, uniformity in the local laws and domestic institutions was either desirable or possible. They believed then, as our experience has proved to us now, that each locality, having different interests, a different climate, and different surroundings, required different local laws, local policy, and local institutions, adapted to the wants of that locality. Thus our government was formed on the principle of diver- sity in the local institutions and laws, and not on that of uniformity.

As my time flies, I can only glance at these points and not present them as fully as I would wish, because I desire to bring all the points in controversy between the two parties before you in order to have Mr. Lincoln's reply. He makes war on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case known as the Dred Scott case. I wish to say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no war to make on that decision, or any other ever rendered by the Supreme Court. I am content to take that decision as it stands delivered by the highest judicial tribunal on earth, a tribunal established by the Constitution of the United States for that purpose, and hence that decision becomes the law of the land, binding on you, on me,

1858] AT JONESBORO 243

and on every other good citizen, whether we like it or not. Hence I do not choose to go into an argument to prove, before this audience, whether or not Chief Justice Taney understood the law better than Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. Lincoln objects to that decision, first and mainly because it deprives the negro of the rights of citizenship. I am as much opposed to his reason for that objection as I am to the objection itself. I hold that a negro is not and never ought to be a citizen of the United States. I hold that this government was made on the white basis, by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men, and none others. I do not believe that the Almighty made the negro capable of self-government. I am aware that all the Abolition lecturers that you find traveling about through the country, are in the habit of reading the Declaration of Independence to prove that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. Lincoln is very much in the habit of following in the track of Love joy in this particular, by reading that part of the Declaration of Independence to prove that the negro was endowed by the Almighty with the inaliena- ble right of equality with white men. Now, I say to you, my fellow-citizens, that in my opinion the signers of the Declaration had no reference to the negro what- ever, whea they declared all men to be created equal. They desired to express by that phrase white men, men of European birth and European descent, and had no reference either to the negro, the savage Indians, the Feejee, the Malay, or any other inferior and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality of men. One great evidence that such was their understanding, is to be found in the fact that at that time every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding colony, every signer of the Declaration represented a slaveholding constitu- ency, and we know that no one of them emancipated his slaves, much less offered citizenship to them, when they signed the Declaration; and yet, if they intended to declare that the negro was the equal of the white man, and entitled by divine right to an equality with him, they were bound, as honest men, that day and hour to have put their negroes on an equality with themselves.

244 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

Instead of doing so, with uplifted eyes to heaven they implored the divine blessing upon them, during the seven years' bloody war they had to fight to maintain that Declaration, never dreaming that they were violat- ing divine law by still holding the negroes in bondage and depriving them of equality.

My friends, I am in favor of preserving this govern- ment as our fathers made it. It does not follow by any means that because a negro is not your equal or mine, that hence he must necessarily be a slave. On the con- trary, it does follow that we ought to extend to the negro every right, every privilege, every immunity which he is capable of enjoying, consistent with the good of society. When you ask me what these rights are, what their nature and extent is, I tell you that that is a question which each State of this Union must decide for itself. Illinois has already decided the question. We have decided that the negro must not be a slave within our limits ; but we have also decided that the negro shall not be a citizen within our limits ; that he shall not vote, hold office, or exercise any political rights. I maintain that Illinois, as a sovereign State, has a right thus to fix her policy with reference to the relation between the white man and the negro ; but while we had that right to decide the question for our- selves, we must recognize the same right in Kentucky and in every other State to make the same decision, or a different one. Having decided our own policy with reference to the black race, we must leave Kentucky and Missouri and every other State perfectly free to make just such a decision as they see proper on that question.

Kentucky has decided that question for herself. She has said that within her limits a negro shall not exer- cise any political rights, and she has also said that a por- tion of the negroes under the laws of that State shall be slaves. She had as much right to adopt that as her policy as we had to adopt the contrary for our policy. New York has decided that in that State a negro may vote if he has two hundred and fifty dollars' worth of property, and if he owns that much he may vote upon an equality with the white man. I, for one, am utterly opposed to negro suffrage anywhere and under any cir- cumstances; yet, inasmuch as the Supreme Court has decided in the celebrated Dred Scott case that a State

i8s8] AT JONESBORO 245

has a right to confer the privilege of voting upon free negroes, I am not going to make war upon New York because she has adopted a policy repugnant to my feel- ings. But New York must mind her own business, and keep her negro suffrage to herself, and not attempt to force it upon us.

In the State of Maine they have decided that a negro may vote and hold office on an equality with a white man. I had occasion to say to the senators from Maine, in a discussion last session, that if they thought that the white people within the limits of their State were no better than negroes, I would not quarrel with them for it, but they must not say that my white constituents of Illinois were no better than negroes, or we would be sure to quarrel.

The Dred Scott decision covers the whole question, and declares that each State has the right to settle this question of suffrage for itself, and all questions as to the relations between the white man and the negro. Judge Taney expressly lays down the doctrine. I re- ceive it as law, and I say that while those States are adopting regulations on that subject disgusting and ab- horrent, according to my views, I will not make war on them if they will mind their own business and let us alone.

I now come back to the question, why cannot this Union exist forever divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if each State will carry out the principles upon which our institutions were founded — to wit, the right of each State to do as it pleases, without meddling with its neighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and this Union will not only live forever, but it will extend and expand until it covers the whole continent, and makes this confederacy one grand, ocean-bound republic. We must bear in mind that we are yet a young nation, growing with a rapidity unequaled in the history of the world, that our national increase is great, and that the emigration from the Old World is increasing, requiring us to expand and acquire new territory from time to time, in order to give our people land to live upon.

If we live up to the principle of State rights and State sovereignty, each State regulating its own affairs and minding its own business, we can go on and extend indefinitely, just as fast and as far as we need the terri-

246 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

tory. The time may come, indeed has now come, when our interests would be advanced by the acquisition of the island of Cuba. When we get Cuba we must take it as we find it, leaving the people to decide the question of slavery for themselves, without interference on the part of the Federal Government, or of any State of this Union. So when it becomes necessary to acquire any portion of Mexico or Canada, or of this continent or the adjoining islands, we must take them as we find them, leaving the people free to do as they please — to have slavery or not, as they choose. I never have inquired, and never will inquire, whether a new State applying for admission has slavery or not for one of her institutions. If the constitution that is presented be the act and deed of the people, and embodies their will, and they have the requisite population, I will admit them with slavery or without it, just as that people shall determine. My objection to the Lecompton constitution did not consist in the fact that it made Kansas a slave State. I would have been as much opposed to its admission under such a constitution as a free State as I was opposed to its ad- mission under it as a slave State. I hold that that was a question which that people had a right to decide for themselves, and that no power on earth ought to have interfered with that decision. In my opinion, the Le- compton constitution was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will, and the recent election in that Territory, at which it was voted down by nearly ten to one, shows conclusively that I was right in saying, when the constitution was presented, that it was not the act and deed of the people, and did not embody their will.

If we wish to preserve our institutions in their purity and transmit them unimpaired to our latest posterity, we must preserve with religious good faith that great prin- ciple of self-government which guarantees to each and every State, old and new, the right to make just such constitutions as they desire, and come into the Union with their own constitution, and not one palmed upon them. Whenever you sanction the doctrine that Con- gress may crowd a constitution down the throats of an unwilling people, against their consent, you will subvert the great fundamental principle upon which all our free institutions rest. In the future I have no fear that the attempt will ever be made. President Buchanan de-

i858] AT JONESBORO 247

clared in his annual message, that hereafter the rule adopted in the Minnesota case, requiring a constitution to be submitted to the people, should be followed in all future cases, and if he stands by that recommendation there will be no division in the Democratic party on that principle in the future. Hence the great mission of the Democracy is to unite the fraternal feeling of the whole country, restore peace and quiet by teaching each State to mind its own business and regulate its own domestic affairs, and all to unite in carrying out the Constitution as our fathers made it, and thus to preserve the Union and render it perpetual in all time to come. Why should we not act as our fathers who made the government? There was no sectional strife in Washington's army. They were all brethren of a common confederacy ; they fought under a common flag that they might bestow upon their posterity a common destiny, and to this end they poured out their blood in common streams, an4 shared, in some instances, a common grave.

Mr. Lincoln's Reply.

Ladies and Gentlemen: There is very much in the principles that Judge Douglas has here enunciated that I most cordially approve, and over which I shall have no controversy with him. In so far as he has insisted that all the States have the right to do exactly as they please about all their domestic relations, including that of slavery, I agree entirely with him. He places me wrong in spite of all I can tell him, though I repeat it again and again, insisting that I have made no difference with him upon this subject. I have made a great many speeches, some of which have been printed, and it will be utterly impossible for him to find anything that I have ever put in print contrary to what I now say upon this subject. I hold myself under constitu- tional obligations to allow the people in all the States, without interference, direct or indirect,

248 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS LSept. 15

to do exactly as they please, and I deny that I have any inclination to interfere with them, even if there were no such constitutional obligation. I can only say again that I am placed improperly — altogether improperly, in spite of all I can say — when it is insisted that I entertain any other view or purpose in regard to that matter.

While I am upon this subject, I will make some answers briefly to certain propositions that Judge Douglas has put. He says, "Why can't this Union endure permanently, half slave and half free?" I have said that I supposed it could not, and I will try, before this new audience, to give briefly some of the reasons for entertaining that opinion. Another form of his question is, "Why can't we let it stand as our fathers placed it?" That is the exact difficulty between us. I say that Judge Douglas and his friends have changed it from the position in which our fathers originally placed it. I say, in the way our fathers originally left the slavery question, the institu- tion was in the course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind rested in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. I say when this government was first established, it was the policy of its founders to prohibit the spread of slavery into the new Territories of the United States, where it had not existed. But Judge Douglas and his friends have broken up that policy, and placed it upon a new basis by which it is to become national and perpetual. All I have asked or desired anywhere is that it should be placed back again upon the basis that the fathers of our government originally placed it upon. I have no doubt that it would become ex- tinct, for all time to come, if we but readopted

1858] AT JONESBORO 249

the policy of the fathers by restricting it to the limits it has already covered — restricting it from the new Territories.

I do not wish to dwell at great length on this branch of the subject at this time, but allow me to repeat one thing that I have stated before. Brooks, the man who assaulted Senator Sumner on the floor of the Senate, and who was compli- mented with dinners, and silver pitchers, and gold-headed canes, and a good many other things for that feat, in one of his speeches declared that when this government was originally established, nobody expected that the institution of slavery would last until this day. That was but the opinion of one man, but it was such an opinion as we can never get from Judge Douglas, or any- body in favor of slavery in the North at all. You can sometimes get it from a Southern man. He said at the same time that the framers of our government did not have the knowledge that ex- perience has taught us — that experience and the invention of the cotton-gin have taught us that the perpetuation of slavery is a necessity. He insisted, therefore, upon its being changed from the basis upon which the fathers of the govern- ment left it to the basis of its perpetuation and nationalization.

I insist that this is the difference between Judge Douglas and myself — that Judge Douglas is helping that change along. I insist upon this government being placed where our fathers orig- inally placed it.

I remember Judge Douglas once said that he saw the evidences on the statute-books of Con- gress of a policy in the origin of government to divide slavery and freedom by a geographical

250 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

line — that he saw an -indisposition to maintain that policy, and therefore he set about studying up a way to settle the institution on the right basis — the basis which he thought it ought to have been placed upon at first ; and in that speech he confesses that he seeks to place it, not upon the basis that the fathers placed it upon, but upon one gotten up on "original principles." When he asks me why we cannot get along with it in the attitude where our fathers placed it, he had better clear up the evidences that he has himself changed it from that basis ; that he has himself been chiefly instrumental in changing the policy of the fathers. Any one who will read his speech of the 22d of last March will see that he there makes an open confession, showing that he set about fixing the institution upon an altogether different set of principles. I think I have fully answered him when he asks me why we cannot let it alone upon the basis where our fathers left it, by showing that he has himself changed the whole policy of the government in that regard.

Now, fellow-citizens, in regard to this matter about a contract that was made between Judge Trumbull and myself, and all that long portion of Judge Douglas's speech on this subject, I wish simply to say what I have said to him before, that he cannot know whether it is true or not, and I do know that there is not a word of truth in it. And I have told him so before. I don't want any harsh language indulged in, but I do not know how to deal with this persistent insist- ing on a story that I know to be utterly without truth. It used to be a fashion amongst men that when a charge was made, some sort of proof was brought forward to establish it, and if no proof

185.8] AT JONESBORO 251

was found to exist, the charge was dropped. I don't know how to meet this kind of an argu- ment. I don't want to have a fight with Judge Douglas, and I have no way of making an argu- ment up into the consistency of a corn-cob and stopping his mouth with it. All I can do is, good-humoredly, to say that from the beginning to the end of all that story about a bargain be- tween Judge Trumbull and myself, there is not a word of truth in it. I can only ask him to show some sort of evidence of the truth of his story. He brings forward here and reads from what he contends is a speech by James H. Matheny, charging such a bargain between Trumbull and myself. My own opinion is that Matheny did do some such immoral thing as to tell a story that he knew nothing about. I believe he did. I contradicted it instantly, and it has been con- tradicted by Judge Trumbull, while nobody has produced any proof, because there is none. Now, whether the speech which the judge brings forward here is really the one Matheny made, I do not know, and I hope the judge will pardon me for doubting the genuineness of this docu- ment, since his production of those Springfield resolutions at Ottawa. I do not wish to dwell at any great length upon this matter. I can say nothing when a long story like this is told, ex- cept that it is not true, and demand that he who insists upon it shall produce some proof. That is all any man can do, and I leave it in that way, for I know of no other way of dealing with it. The judge has gone over a long account of the Old Whig and Democratic parties, and it con- nects itself with this charge against Trumbull and myself. He says that they agreed upon a

252 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

compromise in regard to the slavery question in 1850; that in a national Democratic convention resolutions were passed to abide by that com- promise as a finality upon the slavery question. He also says' that the Whig- party in national convention agreed to abide by and regard as a finality the compromise of 1850. I understand the judge to be altogether right about that; I understand that part of the history of the coun- try as stated by him to be correct. I recollect that I, as a member of that party, acquiesced in that compromise. I recollect in the presidential election which followed, when we had General Scott up for the presidency, Judge Douglas was around berating us Whigs as Abolitionists, pre- cisely as he does to-day — not a bit of difference. I have often heard him. We could do nothing when the Old Whig party was alive that was not Abolitionism, but it has got an extremely good name since it has passed away.

When that compromise was made, it did not repeal the old Missouri Compromise. It left a region of United States territory half as large as the present territory of the United States, north of the line of 360 30', in which slavery was pro- hibited by act of Congress. This compromise did not repeal that one. It did not affect or pro- pose to repeal it. But at last it became Judge Douglas's duty, as he thought (and I find no fault with him), as chairman of the Committee on Territories, to bring in a bill for the organiza- tion of a territorial government — first of one, then of two Territories north of that line. When he did so it ended in his inserting a provision substantially repealing the Missouri Compro- mise. That was because the compromise of 1850

i858] AT JONESBORO 253

had not repealed it. And now I ask why he could not have left that compromise alone? We were quiet from the agitation of the slavery question. We were making no fuss about it. All had acquiesced in the compromise measures of 1850. We never had been seriously disturbed by any Abolition agitation before that period. When he came to form governments for the Territories north of 360 30', why could he not have let that matter stand as it was standing? Was it necessary to the organization of a Terri- tory? Not at all. Iowa lay north of the line and had been organized as a Territory, and came into the Union as a State without disturbing that compromise. There was no sort of necessity for destroying it to organize these Territories. But, gentlemen, it would take up all my time to meet all the little quibbling arguments of Judge Doug- las to show that the Missouri Compromise was repealed by the compromise of 1850. My own opinion is that a careful investigation of all the arguments to sustain the position that that com- promise was virtually repealed by the compro- mise of 1850 would show that they are the mer- est fallacies. I have the report that Judge Doug- las first brought into Congress at the time of the introduction of the Nebraska bill, which in its original form did not repeal the Missouri Compromise, and he there expressly stated that he had forborne to do so because it had not been done by the compromise of 1850. I close this part of the discussion on my part by asking him the question again, "Why, when we had peace under the Missouri Compromise, could you not have let it alone?"

In complaining of what I said in my speech at

254 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

Springfield, in which he says I accepted my nom- ination for the senatorship (where, by the way, he is at fault, for if he will examine it, he will find no acceptance in it), he again quotes that portion in which I said that "a. house divided against itself cannot stand." Let me say a word in regard to that matter.

He tries to persuade us that there must be a variety in the different institutions of the States of the Union ; that that variety necessarily pro- ceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the face of the country, and the difference in the natural features of the States. I agree to all that. Have these very matters ever produced any difficulty amongst us? Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the fact that they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulate the commerce that springs from the production of sugar? or because we have a different class rela- tive to the production of flour in this State? Have they produced any differences? Not at all. They are the very cements of this Union. They don't make the house a house divided against itself. They are the props that hold up the house and sustain the Union.

But has it been so with this element of slavery ? Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties over it? And when will we cease to have quar- rels over it? Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while to observe that we have gener- ally had a comparative peace upon the slavery question, and that there has been no cause for alarm until it was excited by the effort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it has been lim- ited to its present bounds, and there has been no effort to spread it, there has been peace. All the

iT8s8] AT JONESBORO 255

trouble and convulsion has proceeded from ef- forts to spread it over more territory. It was thus at the date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so again with the annexation of Texas ; so with the territory acquired by the Mexican war ; and it is so now. Whenever there has been an effort to spread it there has been agitation and resistance. Now, I appeal to this audience (very few of whom are my political friends), as rational men, whether we have reason to expect that the agitation in regard to this subject will cease while the causes that tend to reproduce agitation are actively at work? Will not the same cause that produced agitation in 1820, when the Missouri Compromise was formed, — that which produced the agitation upon the annexa- tion of Texas, and at other times, — work out the same results always? Do you think that the na- ture of man will be changed — that the same causes that produced agitation at one time will not have the same effect at another?

This has been the result so far as my observa- tion of the slavery question and my reading in his- tory extend. What right have we then to hope that the trouble will cease, that the agitation will come to an end ; until it shall either be placed back where it originally stood, and where the fathers originally placed it, or, on the other hand, until it shall entirely master all opposition? This is the view I entertain, and this is the rea- son why I entertained it, as Judge Douglas has read from my Springfield speech.

Now, my friends, there is one other thing that I feel under some sort of obligation to mention. Judge Douglas has here to-day — in a very rambling way, I was about saying — spoken of

256 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

the platforms for which he seeks to hold me re- sponsible. He says, "Why can't you come out and make an open avowal of principles in all places alike?" and he reads from an advertise- ment that he says was used to notify the people of a speech to be made by Judge Trumbull at Waterloo. In commenting on it he desires to know whether we cannot speak frankly and man- fully as he and his friends do ! How, I ask, do his friends speak out their own sentiments? A convention of his party in this State met on the 2 1 st of April, at Springfield, and passed a set of resolutions which they proclaim to the country as their platform. This does constitute their platform, and it is because Judge Douglas claims it is his platform — that these are his principles and purposes — that he has a right to declare that he speaks his sentiments "frankly and man- fully." On the 9th of June, Colonel John Dough- erty, Governor Reynolds, and others, calling themselves National Democrats, met in Spring- field, and adopted a set of resolutions which are as easily understood, as plain and as definite in stating to the country and to the world what they believed in and would stand upon, as Judge Douglas's platform. Now, what is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing that Colonel Dougherty and Governor Reynolds should stand upon their own written and printed platform as well as he upon his ? Why must he look farther than their platform when he claims himself to stand by his platform?

Again, in reference to our platform : On the 1 6th of June the Republicans had their conven- tion and published their platform, which is as clear and distinct as Judge Douglas's. In it they

1858] AT JONESBORO 257

spoke their principles as plainly and as definitely to the world. What is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing that I should stand upon that platform ? Why must he go around hunting for some one who is supporting me, or has sup- ported me at some time in his life, and who has said something at some time contrary to that platform? Does the judge regard that rule as a good one ? If it turn out that the rule is a good one for me, — that I am responsible for any and every opinion that any man has expressed who is my friend, — then it is a good rule for him. I ask, is it not as good a rule for him as it is for me? In my opinion, it is not a good rule for either of us. Do you think differently, judge ?

Mr. Douglas : I do not.

Mr. Lincoln : Judge Douglas says he does not think differently. I am glad of it. Then can he tell me why he is looking up resolutions of five or six years ago, and insisting that they were my platform, notwithstanding my protest that they are not, and never were, my platform, and my pointing out the platform of the State conven- tion which he delights to say nominated me for the Senate? I cannot see what he means by parading these resolutions, if it is not to hold me responsible for them in some way. If he says to me here, that he does not hold the rule to be good, one way or the other, I do not comprehend how he could answer me more fully if he an- swered me at greater length. I will therefore put in as my answer to the resolutions that he has hunted up against me what I, as a lawyer, would call a good plea to a bad declaration. I understand that it is a maxim of law, that a poor plea may be a good plea to a bad declaration. I

258 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

think that the opinions the judge brings from those who support me, yet differ from me, are a bad declaration against me, but if I can bring the same things against him, I am putting in a good plea to that kind of declaration, and now I propose to try it.

At Freeport Judge Douglas occupied a large part of his time in producing resolutions and documents of various sorts, as I understood, to make me somehow responsible for them ; and I propose now doing a little of the same sort of thing for him. In 1850 a very clever gentleman by the name of Thompson Campbell, a personal friend of Judge Douglas and myself, a political friend of Judge Douglas and an opponent of mine, was a candidate for Congress in the Galena district. He was interrogated as to his views on this same slavery question. I have here before me the interrogatories, and Camp- bell's answers to them. I will read them :

Interrogatories.

1. Will you, if elected, vote for and cordially support a bill prohibiting slavery in the Territories of the United States?

2. Will you vote for and support a bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia?

3. Will you oppose the admission of any slave States which may be formed out of Texas or the Territories?

4. Will you vote for and advocate the repeal of the fugitive-slave law passed at the recent session of Congress?

5. Will you advocate and vote for the election of a Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall be willing to organize the committees of that House so as to give the free States their just influence in the busi- ness of legislation?

6. What are your views, not only as to the constitu- tional right of Congress to prohibit the slave-trade

i8s8] AT JONESBORO 259

between the States, but also as to the expediency of exercising that right immediately?

Campbell's Reply.

To the first and second interrogatories, I answer unequivocally in the affirmative.

To the third interrogatory, I reply that I am op- posed to the admission of any more slave States into the Union, that may be formed out of Texan or any other territory.

To the fourth and fifth interrogatories, I unhesitat- ingly answer in the affirmative.

To the sixth interrogatory, I reply that so long as the slave States continue to treat slaves as articles of com- merce, the Constitution confers power on Congress to pass laws regulating that peculiar commerce, and that the protection of human rights imperatively demands the interposition of every constitutional means to pre- vent this most inhuman and iniquitous traffic.

T. Campbell.

I want to say here that Thompson Campbell was elected to Congress on that platform, as the Democratic candidate in the Galena district, against Martin P. Sweet.

Judge Douglas : Give me the date of the letter.

Mr. Lincoln : The time Campbell ran was in 1850. I have not the exact date here. It was some time in 1850 that these interrogatories were put and the answer given. Campbell was elected to Congress, and served out his term. I think a second election came up before he served out his term, and he was not reelected. Whether de- feated or not nominated, I do not know. [Mr. Campbell was nominated for reelection by the Democratic party, by acclamation.'] At the end of his term his very good friend, Judge Douglas, got him a high office from President Pierce, and sent him off to California. Is not that the fact?

260 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

Just at the end of his term in Congress it ap- pears that our mutual "friend Judge Douglas got our mutual friend Campbell a good office, and sent him to California upon it. And not only so, but on the 27th of last month, when Judge Doug- las and myself spoke at Freeport in joint dis- cussion, there was his same friend Campbell, come all the way from California, to help the judge beat me ; and there was poor Martin P. Sweet standing on the platform, trying to help poor me to be elected. That is true of one of Judge Douglas's friends.

So again, in that same race of 1850, there was a congressional convention assembled at Joliet, and it nominated R. S. Molony for Congress, and unanimously adopted the following resolu- tion:

Resolved, That we are uncompromisingly opposed to the extension of slavery; and while we would not make such opposition a ground of interference with the interests of the States where it exists, yet we moder- ately but firmly insist that it is the duty of Congress to oppose its extension into territory now free by all means compatible with the obligations of the Con- stitution, and with good faith to our sister States; that these principles were recognized by the ordinance of 1787, which received the sanction of Thomas Jefferson, who is acknowledged by all to be the great oracle and expounder of our faith.

Subsequently the same interrogatories were propounded to Dr. Molony which had been ad- dressed to Campbell, as above, with the excep- tion of the sixth, respecting the interstate slave- trade, to which Dr. Molony, the Democratic nominee for Congress, replied as follows :

I received the interrogatories this day, and as you will see by the La Salle Democrat and Ottawa Free

1858] AT JONESBORO 261

Trader, I took at Peru on the 5th and at Ottawa on the 7th, the affirmative side of interrogatories 1st and 2d; and in relation to the admission of any more slave States from free territory, my position taken at these meetings, as correctly reported in said papers, was em- phatically and distinctly opposed to it. In relation to the admission of any more slave States from Texas, whether I shall go against it or not will depend upon the opinion that I may hereafter form of the true mean- ing and nature of the resolutions of annexation. If by said resolutions the honor and good faith of the nation is pledged to admit more slave States from Texas when she (Texas) may apply for admission of such State, then I should, if in Congress, vote for their admission. But if not so pledged and bound by sacred contract, then a bill for the admission of more slave States from Texas would never receive my vote.

To your fourth interrogatory I answer most deci- dedly in the affirmative, and for reasons set forth in my reported remarks at Ottawa last Monday.

To your fifth interrogatory I also reply in the af- firmative, most cordially, and that I will use my ut- most exertions to secure the nomination and election of a man who will accomplish the objects of said in- terrogatories. I most cordially approve of the resolu- tions adopted at the union meeting held at Princeton on the 27th September ult. Yours, etc.

R. S. Molony.

All I have to say in regard to Dr. Molony is that he was the regularly nominated Democratic candidate for Congress in his district; was elected at that time; at the end of his term was appointed to a land-office at Danville. (I never heard anything of Judge Douglas's instrumen- tality in this.) He held this office a considerable time, and when we were at Freeport the other day, there were handbills scattered about notify- ing the public that after our debate was over R. S. Molony would make a Democratic speech in favor of Judge Douglas. That is all I know of

262 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

my own personal knowledge. It is added here to this resolution (and truly, I believe) that "among those whose participated in the Joliet convention, and who supported its nominee, with his platform as laid down in the resolution of the convention, and in his reply as above given, we call at random the following names, all of which are recognized at this day as leading Dem- ocrats : Cook County — E. B. Williams, Charles McDonell, Arno Voss, Thomas Hoyne, Isaac Cook," — I reckon we ought to except Cook, — "F. C. Sherman. Will— Joel A. Matteson, S. W. Bowen. Kane— B. F. Hall, G. W. Renwick, A. M. Herrington, Elijah Wilcox. McHenry — W. M. Jackson, Enos W. Smith, Neil Donnelly. LaSalle— John Hise, William Reddick"— Will- iam Reddick — another one of Judge Douglas's friends that stood on the stand with him at Ot- tawa at the time the judge says my knees trembled so that I had to be carried away ! The names are all here : "DuPage — Nathan Allen. DeKalb— Z. B. Mayo."

Here is another set of resolutions which I think are apposite to the matter in hand.

On the 28th of February of the same year, a Democratic district convention was held at Na- perville, to nominate a candidate for circuit judge. Among the delegates were Bowen and Kelly, of Will ; Captain Naper, H. H. Cody, Na- than Allen, of DuPage; W. M. Jackson, J. M. Strode, P. W. Piatt, and Enos W. Smith, of Mc- Henry; J. Horsman and others, of Winnebago. Colonel Strode presided over the convention. The following resolutions were unanimously adopted — the first on motion of P. W. Piatt, the second on motion of William M. Jackson :

i8s8] AT JONESBORO 263

Resolved, That this convention is in favor of the Wilmot proviso, both in principle and practice, and that we know of no good reason why any person should oppose the largest latitude in free soil, free territory, and free speech.

Resolved, That in the opinion of this convention, the time has arrived when all men should be free, whites as well as others.

Judge Douglas : What is the date of those resolutions.

Mr. Lincoln: I understand it was in 1850, but I do not know it. I do not state a thing and say I know it when I do not. But I have the highest belief that this is so. I know of no way to arrive at the conclusion that there is an error in it. I mean to put a case no stronger than the truth will allow. But what I was going to com- ment upon is an extract from a newspaper in De- Kalb County, and it strikes me as being rather singular, I confess, under the circumstances. There is a Judge Mayo in that county, who is a candidate for the legislature, for the purpose, if he secures his election, of helping to reelect Judge Douglas. He is the editor of a newspaper [DeKalb County Sentinel], and in that paper I find the extract I am going to read. It is part of an editorial article in which he was election- eering as fiercely as he could for Judge Douglas and against me. It was a curious thing, I think, to be in such a paper. I will agree to that, and the judge may make the most of it :

Our education has been such that we have ever been rather in favor of this equality of the blacks; that is, that they should enjoy all the privileges of the whites where they reside. We are aware that this is not a very popular doctrine. We have had many a confab with some who are now strong "Republicans," we

204 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

taking the broad ground of equality and they the op- posite ground.

We were brought up in a State where blacks were voters, and we do not know of any inconvenience resulting from it, though perhaps it would not work so well where the blacks are more numerous. We have no doubt of the right of the whites to guard against such an evil, if it is one. Our opinion is that it would be best for all concerned to have the colored population in a State by themselves [in this I agree with him] ; but if within the jurisdiction of the United States, we say by all means they should have the right to have their senators and their representatives in Congress, and to vote for President. With us "worth makes the man, and want of it the fellow." We have seen many a "nigger" that we thought more of« than some white men.

That is one of Judge Douglas's friends. Now I do not want to leave myself in an attitude where I can be misrepresented, so I will say I do not think the judge is responsible for this article; but he is quite as responsible for it as I would be if one of my friends had said it. I think that is fair enough.

I have here also a set of resolutions passed by a Democratic State convention in Judge Doug- las's own good old State of Vermont, and that, I think, ought to be good for him too.

Resolved, That liberty is a right inherent and inalien- able in man, and that herein all men are equal.

Resolved, That we claim no authority in the Federal Government to abolish slavery in the several States. But we do claim for it constitutional power perpetually to prohibit the introduction of slavery into territory now free, and abolish it wherever, under the jurisdic- tion of Congress, it exists.

Resolved, That this power ought immediately to be exercised in prohibiting the introduction and existence 3f slavery in New Mexico and California, in abolishing slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia,

i8s8] AT JONESBORO 265

on the high seas, and wherever else, under the Consti- tution, it can be reached.

Resolved, That no more slave States should be ad- mitted into the Federal Union.

Resolved, That the government ought to return to its ancient policy, not to extend, nationalize, or encour- age, but to limit, localize, and discourage slavery.

At Freeport I answered several interrogato- ries that had been propounded to me by Judge Douglas at the Ottawa meeting. The judge has yet not seen fit to find any fault with the position that I took in regard to those seven interrogato- ries, which were certainly broad enough, in all conscience, to cover the entire ground. In my answers, which have been printed, and all have had the opportunity of seeing, I take the ground that those who elect me must expect that I will do nothing which will not be in accordance with those answers. I have some right to assert that Judge Douglas has no fault to find with them. But he chooses to still try to thrust me upon dif- ferent ground without paying any attention to my answers, the obtaining of which from me cost him so much trouble and concern. At the same time, I propounded four interrogatories to him, claiming it as a right that he should answer as many interrogatories for me as I did for him, and I would reserve myself for a future instal- ment when I got them ready. The judge, in an- swering me upon that occasion, put in what I suppose he intends as answers to all four of my interrogatories. The first one of these interroga- tories I have before me, and it is in these words :

Question 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State constitution, and ask admission into the Union

266 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

under it, before they -have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the English bill, — some ninety-three thousand, — will you vote to admit them?

As I read the judge's answer in the newspaper, and as I remember it as pronounced at the time, he does not give any answer which is equivalent to yes or no — I will or I won't. He answers at very considerable length, rather quarreling with me for asking the question, and insisting that Judge Trumbull had done something that I ought to say something about ; and finally getting out such statements as induce me to infer that he means to be understood he will, in that supposed case, vote for the admission of Kansas. I only bring this forward now for the purpose of saying that, if he chooses to put a different construc- tion upon his answer, he may do it. But if he does not, I shall from this time forward assume that he will vote for the admission of Kansas in disregard of the English bill. He has the right to remove any misunderstanding I may have. I only mention it now that I may here- after assume this to be the true construction of his answer, if he does not now choose to correct me.

The second interrogatory that I propounded to him was this :

Question 2. Can the people of a United States Ter- ritory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State constitution?

To this Judge Douglas answered that they can lawfully exclude slavery from the Territory prior to the formation of a constitution. He goes on to tell us how it can be done. As I understand

1858] AT JONESBORO 267

him, he holds that it can be done by the territo- rial legislature refusing to make any enactments for the protection of slavery in the Territory, and especially by adopting unfriendly legislation to it. For the sake of clearness, I state it again : that they can exclude slavery from the Territory — first, by withholding what he assumes to be an indispensable assistance to it in the way of legislation ; and, second, by unfriendly legisla- tion. If I rightly understand him, I wish to ask your attention for a while to his position.

In the first place, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that any congressional prohibition of slavery in the Territories is uncon- stitutional— they have reached this proposition as a conclusion from their former proposition, that the Constitution of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves ; and from that other constitutional provision, that no person shall be deprived of property without due proc- ess of law. Hence they reach the conclusion that as the Constitution of the United States ex- pressly recognizes property in slaves, and pro- hibits any person from being deprived of prop- erty without due process of law, to pass an act of Congress by which a man who owned a slave on one side of a line would be deprived of him if he took him on the other side is depriving him of that property without due process of law. That I understand to be the decision of the Su- preme Court. I understand also that Judge Douglas adheres most firmly to that decision; and the difficulty is, how is it possible for any power to exclude slavery from the Territory un- less in violation of that decision? That is the difficulty.

268 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

In the Senate of the United States, in 1856, Judge Trumbull, in a speech, substantially, if not directly, put the same interrogatory to Judge Douglas, as to whether the people of a Territory had the lawful power to exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution? Judge Douglas then answered at considerable length, and his answer will be found in the Congressional Globe, under the date of June 9, 1856. The judge said that whether the people could exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution or not was a question to be decided by the Supreme Court. He put that proposition, as will be seen by the Congressional Globe, in a variety of forms, all running to the same thing in substance — that it was a question for the Supreme Court. I maintain that when he says, after the Supreme Court has decided the question, that the people may yet exclude slavery by any means whatever, he does virtually say that it is not a question for the Supreme Court. He shifts his ground. I appeal to you whether he did not say it was a question for the Supreme Court? Has not the Supreme Court decided that question? When he now says that the people may exclude slavery, does he not make it a question for the people? Does he not virtually shift his ground and say that it is not a question for the court, but for the people? This is a very simple proposition — a very plain and naked one. It seems to me that there is no difficulty in deciding it. In a variety of ways he said that it was a question for the Supreme Court. He did not stop then to tell us that, whatever the Supreme Court decides, the people can by withholding necessary ''police reg- ulations" keep slavery out. He did not make

1858] AT JONESBORO 269

any such answer. I submit to you now, whether the new state of the case has not induced the judge to sheer away from his original ground. Would not this be the impression of every fair- minded man?

I hold that the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new country without police regulations is historically false. It is not true at all. I hold that the history of this country shows that the institution of slavery was originally planted upon this continent without these "police regulations" which the judge now thinks necessary for the actual establishment of it. Not only so, but is there not another fact — how came this Dred Scott decision to be made? It was made upon the case of a negro being taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota Territory, claiming his freedom because the act of Congress prohibited his being so held there. Will the judge pretend that Dred Scott was not held there without police regulations ? There is at least one matter of rec- ord as to his having been held in slavery in the Territory, not only without police regulations, but in the teeth of congressional legislation sup- posed to be valid at the time. This shows that there is vigor enough in slavery to plant itself in a new country even against unfriendly legisla- tion. It takes not only law but the enforcement of law to keep it out. That is the history of this country upon the subject.

I wish to ask one other question. It being un- derstood that the Constitution of the United States guarantees property in slaves in the Ter- ritories, if there is any infringement of the right of that property, would not the United States courts, organized for the government of the Ter-

270 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

ritory, apply such remedy as might be necessary in that case ? It is a" maxim held by the courts, that there is no wrong without its remedy ; and the courts have a remedy for whatever is ac- knowledged and treated as a wrong.

Again : I will ask you, my friends, if you were elected members of the legislature, what would be the first thing you would have to do before entering upon your duties ? Swear to support the Constitution of the United States. Suppose you believe, as Judge Douglas does, that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to your neighbor the right to hold slaves in that Territory, — that they are his property, — how can you clear your oaths unless you give him such legislation as is necessary to enable him to enjoy that property? What do you understand by supporting the Constitution of a State, or of the United States? Is it not to give such constitu- tional helps to the rights established by that Constitution as may be practically needed? Can you, if you swear to support the Constitution, and believe that the Constitution establishes a right, clear your oath, without giving it support ? Do you support the Constitution if, knowing or believing there is a right established under it which needs specific legislation, you withhold that legislation? Do you not violate and disre- gard your oath? I can conceive of nothing plainer in the world. There can be nothing in the words "support the Constitution," if you may run counter to it by refusing support to any right established under the Constitution. And what I say here will hold with still more force against the judge's doctrine of "unfriendly legislation." How could you, having sworn to support the

i858] AT JONESBORO 271

Constitution, and believing that it guaranteed the right to hold slaves in the Territories, assist in legislation intended to defeat that right? That would be violating your own view of the Con- stitution. Not only so, but if you were to do so, how long would it take the courts to hold your votes unconstitutional and void ? Not a moment.

Lastly I would ask — Is not Congress itself un- der obligation to give legislative support to any right that is established under the United States Constitution? I repeat the question — Is not Congress itself bound to give legislative support to any right that is established in the United States Constitution? A member of Congress swears to support the Constitution of the United States, and if he sees a right established by that Constitution which needs specific legislative pro- tection, can he clear his oath without giving that protection? Let me ask you why many of us who are opposed to slavery upon principle give our acquiescence to a fugitive-slave law? Why do we hold ourselves under obligations to pass such a law, and abide by it when it is passed? Because the Constitution makes provision that the owners of slaves shall have the right to reclaim them. It gives the right to reclaim slaves, and that right is, as Judge Douglas says, a barren right, unless there is legislation that will enforce it.

The mere declaration, "No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in conse- quence of any law or regulation therein be dis- charged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due," is powerless with-

272 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

out specific legislation to enforce it. Now, on what ground would a member of Congress who is opposed to slavery in the abstract vote for a fugitive law, as I would deem it my duty to do ? Because there is a constitutional right which needs legislation to enforce it. And although it is distasteful to me, I have sworn to support the Constitution, and having so sworn, I cannot con- ceive that I do support it if I withhold from that right any necessary legislation to make it practi- cal. And if that is true in regard to a fugitive- slave law, is the right to have fugitive slaves reclaimed any better fixed in the Constitution than the right to hold slaves in the Territories? For this decision is a just exposition of the Con- stitution, as Judge Douglas thinks. Is the one right any better than the other? Is there any man who, while a member of Congress, would give support to the one any more than the other? If I wished to refuse to give legislative support to slave property in the Territories, if a member of Congress, I could not do it, holding the view that the Constitution establishes that right. If I did it at all, it would be because I deny that this decision properly construes the Constitution. But if I acknowledge, with Judge Douglas, that this decision properly construes the Constitution, I cannot conceive that I would be less than a perjured man if I should refuse in Congress to give such protection to that property as in its nature it needed.

At the end of what I have said here I propose to give the judge my fifth interrogatory, which he may take and answer at his leisure. My fifth interrogatory is this :

If the slaveholding citizens of a United States

i858] AT JONESBORO 273

Territory should need and demand congressional legislation for the protection of their slave prop- erty in such Territory, would you as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation ?

Judge Douglas : Will you repeat that ? I want to answer that question.

Mr. Lincoln : If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should need and demand congressional legislation for the protection of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation?

I am aware that in some of the speeches Judge Douglas has made, he has spoken as if he did not know or think that the Supreme Court had decided that a territorial legislature cannot ex- clude slavery. Precisely what the judge would say upon the subject — whether he would say definitely that he does not understand they have so decided, or whether he would say he does understand that the court have so decided, I do not know; but I know that in his speech at Springfield he spoke of it as a thing they had not decided yet ; and in his answer to me at Freeport, he spoke of it again, so far as I can comprehend it, as a thing that had not yet been decided. Now I hold that if the judge does entertain that view, I think that he is not mistaken in so far as it can be said that the court has not decided anything save the mere question of jurisdiction. I know the legal arguments that can be made — that after a court has decided that it cannot take jurisdic- tion in a case, it then has decided all that is be- fore it, and that is the end of it. A plausible argu- ment can be made in favor of that proposition, but I know that Judge Douglas has said in one

274 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

of his speeches. that thje court went forward, like honest men as they were, and decided all the points in the case. If any points are really extra- judicially decided because not necessarily before them, then this one as to the power of the terri- torial legislature to exclude slavery is one of them, as also the one that the Missouri Compro- mise was null and void. They are both extra- judicial, or neither is, according as the court held that they had no jurisdiction in the case between the parties, because of want of capacity of one party to maintain a suit in that court. I want, if I have sufficient time, to show that the court did pass its opinion, but that is the only thing actually done in the case. If they did not decide, they showed what they were ready to decide when- ever the matter was before them. What is that opinion? After having argued that Congress had no power to pass a law excluding slavery from a United States Territory, they then used language to this effect : That inasmuch as Con- gress itself could not exercise such a power, it followed as a matter of course that it could not authorize a territorial government to exercise it, for the territorial legislature can do no more than Congress could do. Thus it expressed its opin- ion emphatically against the power of a terri- torial legislature to exclude slavery, leaving us in just as little doubt on that point as upon any other point they really decided.

Now, fellow-citizens, my time is nearly out. I find a report of a speech made by Judge Douglas at Joliet, since we last met at Freeport, — pub- lished, I believe, in the Missouri Republican, — > on the 9th of this month, in which Judge Doug- las says :

1858] AT JONESBORO 275

You know at Ottawa I read this platform, and asked him if he concurred in each and all of the principles set forth in it. He would not answer these questions. At last I said frankly, "I wish you to answer them, because when I get them up here where the color of your principles is a little darker than in Egypt, I in- tend to trot you down to Jonesboro." The very notice that I was going to take him down into Egypt made him tremble in the knees so that he had to be carried from the platform. He laid up seven days, and in the mean time held a consultation with his political physi- cians; they had Lovejoy and Farnsworth and all the leaders of the Abolition party. They consulted it all over, and at last Lincoln came to the conclusion that he would answer; so he came to Freeport last Friday.

Now that statement altogether furnishes a subject for philosophical contemplation. I have been treating it in that way, and I have really come to the conclusion that I can explain it in no other way than by believing the judge is crazy. If he was in his right mind, I cannot conceive how he would have risked disgusting the four or five thousand of his own friends who stood there and knew, as to my having been carried from the platform, that there was not a word of truth in it.

Judge Douglas: Didn't they carry you off?

Mr. Lincoln : There ; that question illustrates the character of this man Douglas, exactly. He smiles now and says, "Didn't they carry you off?" But he said then, "He had to be carried off" ; and he said it to convince the country that he had so completely broken me down by his speech that I had to be carried away. Now he seeks to dodge it, and asks, "Didn't they carry you off?" Yes, they did. But, Judge Douglas, why didn't you tell the truth ? I would like to know why you didn't tell the truth about it. And then again, "He laid up seven days." He

2;6 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

puts this in print for the people of the country to read as a serious document. I think if he had been in his sober senses he would not have risked that barefacedness in the presence of thousands of his own friends, who knew that I made speeches within six of the seven days at Henry, Marshall County; Augusta, Hancock County; and Macomb, McDonough County, including all the necessary travel to meet him again at Free- port at the end of the six days. Now, I say, there is no charitable way to look at that state- ment, except to conclude that he is actually crazy. There is another thing in that statement that alarmed me very greatly as he states it — that he was going to "trot me down to Egypt." Thereby he would have you to infer that I would not come to Egypt unless he forced me — that I could not be got here, unless he, giant-like, had hauled me down here. That statement he makes, too, in the teeth of the knowledge that I made the stipulation to come down here, and that he himself had been very reluctant to enter into the stipulation. More than all this, Judge Douglas, when he made that statement, must have been crazy, and wholly out of his sober senses, or else he would have known that, when he got me down here, that promise — that wrindy promise — of his powers to annihilate me wouldn't amount to anything. Now, how little do I look like being carried away trembling? Let the judge go on, and after he is done with his half hour, I want you all, if I can't go home myself, to let me stay and rot here ; and if anything happens to the judge, if I cannot carry him to the hotel and put him to bed, let me stay here and rot. I say, then, there is something extraordinary in this

i8s8] AT JONESBORO 277

statement. I ask you if you know any other living man who would make such a statement? I will ask my friend Casey, over there, if he would do such a thing? Would he send that out and have his men take it as the truth? Did the judge talk of trotting me down to Egypt to scare me to death? Why, I know this people better than he does. I was raised just a little east of here. I am a part of this people. But the judge was raised further north, and perhaps he has some horrid idea of what this people might be induced to do. But really I have talked about this matter perhaps longer than I ought, for it is no great thing, and yet the smallest are often the most difficult things to deal with. The judge has set about seriously trying to make the impression that when we meet at different places I am literally in his clutches — that I am a poor, helpless, decrepit mouse, and that I can do noth- ing at all. This is one of the ways he has taken to create that impression. I don't know any other way to meet it, except this. I don't want to quarrel with him, — to call him a liar, — but when I come square up to him I don't know what else to call him, if I must tell the truth out. I want to be at peace, and reserve all my fighting powers for necessary occasions. My time, now, is very nearly out, and I give up the trifle that is left to the judge to let him set my knees trembling again — if he can.

Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder.

My friends, while I am very grateful to you for the enthusiasm which you show for me, I will say in all candor, that your quietness will be much more agree-

278 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

able than your applause, inasmuch as you deprive me of some part of my time whenever you cheer.

I will commence where Mr. Lincoln left off, and make a remark upon this serious complaint of his about my speech at Joliet. I did say there in a play- ful manner that when I put these questions to Mr. Lincoln at Ottawa, he failed to answer, and that he trembled, and had to be carried off the stand, and re- quired seven days to get up his reply. That he did not walk off from that stand he will not deny. That when the crowd went away from the stand with me, a few persons carried him home on their shoulders and laid him down, he will admit. I wish to say to you that whenever I degrade my friends and myself by allowing them to carry me on their backs along through the public streets, when I am able to walk, I am willing to be deemed crazy. I did not say whether I beat him or he beat me in the argument. It is true I put these questions to him, and I put them not as mere idle questions, but showed that I based them upon the creed of the Black Republican party, as declared by their conventions in that portion of the State which he depends upon to elect him, and desired to know whether he indorsed that creed. He would not answer. When I reminded him that I intended bring- ing him into Egypt and renewing my questions if he refused to answer, he then consulted, and did get up his answers one week after — answers which I may refer to in a few minutes, and show you how equivocal they are. My object was to make him avow whether or not he stood by the platform of his party; the resolutions I then read, and upon which I based my questions, had been adopted by his party in the Galena congres- sional district, and the Chicago and Bloomington congressional districts, composing a large majority of the counties in this State that give Republican or Abolition majorities.

Mr. Lincoln cannot and will not deny that the doc- trines laid down in these resolutions were in substance put forth in Lovejoy's resolutions, which were voted for by a majority of his party, some of them, if not all, receiving the support of every man of his party. Hence I laid a foundation for my questions to him before I asked him whether that was or was not the platform of his party. He says that he answered my

1858] AT JONESBORO 279

questions. One of them was whether he would vote to admit any more slave States into the Union. The creed of the Republican party, as set forth in the resolutions of their various conventions, was that they would under no circumstances vote to admit another slave State. It was put forth in the Lovejoy resolu- tions in the legislature; it was put forth and passed in a majority of all the counties of this State which give Abolition or Republican majorities, or elect members to the legislature of that school of politics. I had a right to know whether he would vote for or against the admission of another slave State in the event the people wanted it. He first answered that he was not pledged on the subject, and then said:

In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in the position of having to pass on that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another slave State admitted into the Union ; but I must add that if slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people, having a fair chance and clear field when they come to adopt a constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union.

Now analyze that answer. In the first place he says he would be exceedingly sorry to be put in a position where he would have to vote on the question of the admission of a slave State. Why is he a candidate for the Senate if he would be sorry to be put in that position? I trust the people of Illinois will not put him in a position which he would be so sorry to occupy. The next position he takes is that he would be glad to know that there would never be another slave State, yet, in certain contingencies, he might have to vote for one. What is that contingency? "If Congress keeps slavery out by law while it is a Terri- tory, and then the people should have a fair chance and should adopt slavery, uninfluenced by the presence of the institution," he supposed he would have to admit the State. Suppose Congress should not keep slavery

280 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

out during their territorial existence, then how would he vote when the people- applied for admission into the Union with a slave constitution? That he does not answer, and that is the condition of every Territory we have now got. Slavery is not kept out of Kansas by act of Congress, and when I put the question to Mr. Lincoln, whether he will vote for the admission with or without slavery, as her people may desire, he will not answer, and you have not got an answer from him. In Nebraska slavery is not prohibited by act of Congress, but the people are allowed, under the Ne- braska bill, to do as they please on the subject; and when I ask him whether he will vote to admit Ne- braska with a slave constitution if her people desire it, he will not answer. So with New Mexico, Wash- ington Territory, Arizona, and the four new States to be admitted from1 Texas. You cannot get an answer from him to these questions. His answer only applies to a given case, to a condition — things which he knows do not exist in any one Territory in the Union. He tries to give you to understand that he would allow the people to do as they please, and yet he dodges the question as to every Territory in the Union. I now ask why cannot Mr. Lincoln answer to each of those Territories? He has not done it, and he will not do it. The Abolitionists up North understand that this answer is made with a view of not commit- ting himself on any one Territory now in existence. It is so understood there, and you cannot expect an answer from him on a case that applies to any one Territory, or applies to the new States which by com- pact we are pledged to admit out of Texas, when they have the requisite population and desire admission. I submit to you whether he has made a frank answer, so that you can tell how he would vote in any one of these cases. "He would be sorry to be put in the position." Why would he be sorry to be put in this position if his duty required him to give the vote? If the people of a Territory ought to be permitted to come into the Union as a State, with slavery or without it, as they please, why not give the vote admitting them cheer- fully? If in his opinion they ought not to come in with slavery, even if they wanted to, why not say that he would cheerfully vote against their admission? His intimation is that conscience would not let him vote

i8s8] AT JONESBORO 281

"No," and he would be sorry to do that which his conscience would compel him to do as an honest man.

In regard to the contract or bargain between Trum- bull, the Abolitionists, and him, which he denies, I wish to say that the charge can be proved by notorious historical facts. Trumbull, Lovejoy, Giddings, Fred Douglass, Hale, and Banks were traveling the State at that time making speeches on the same side and in the same cause with him. He contents himself with the same denial that no such thing occurred. Does he deny that he, and Trumbull, and Breese, and Giddings, and Chase, and Fred Douglass, and Lovejoy, and all those Abolitionists and deserters from the Democratic party, did make speeches all over this State in the same common cause? Does he deny that Jim Matheny was then, and is now, his confidential friend, and does he deny that Matheny made the charge of the bargain and fraud in his own language, as I have read it from his printed speech? Matheny spoke of his own per- sonal knowledge of that bargain existing between Lincoln, Trumbull, and the Abolitionists. He still remains Lincoln's confidential friend, and is now a candidate for Congress, and is canvassing the Spring- field district for Lincoln. I assert that I can prove the charge to be true in detail if I can ever get it where I can summon and compel the attendance of witnesses. I have the statement of another man to the same effect as that made by Matheny, which I am not permitted to use yet, but Jim Matheny is a good witness on that point, and the history of the country is conclusive upon it. That Lincoln up to that time had been a Whig, and then undertook to Abolitionize the Whigs and bring them into the Abolition camp, is beyond denial; that Trumbull up to that time had been a Demo- crat, and deserted, and undertook to Abolitionize the Democracy, and take them into the Abolition camp, is beyond denial; that they are both now active, leading, distinguished members of this Abolition Republican party, in full communion, is a fact that cannot be questioned or denied.

But Lincoln is not willing to be responsible for the creed of his party. He complains because I hold him responsible, and in order to avoid the issue he at- tempts to show that individuals in the Democratic party, many years ago, expressed Abolition senti-

282 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

ments. It is true that Tom Campbell, when a candi- date for Congress in 1850, published the letter which Lincoln read. When I asked Lincoln for the date of that letter he could not give it. The date of the letter has been suppressed by other speakers who have used it, though I take it for granted that Lincoln did not know the date. If he will take the trouble to examine, he will find that the letter was published only two days before the election, and was never seen until after it, except in one county. Tom Campbell would have been beat to death by the Democratic party if that letter had been made public in his district. As to Molony, it is true that he uttered sentiments of the kind referred to by Mr. Lincoln, and the best Democrats would not vote for him for that reason. I returned from Wash- ington after the passage of the compromise measures in 1850, and when I found Molony running under John Wentworth's tutelage, and on his platform, I de- nounced him, and declared that he was no Democrat. In my speech at Chicago, just before the election that year, I went before the infuriated people of that city and vindicated the compromise measures of 1850. Re- member, the city council had passed resolutions nullify- ing acts of Congress and instructing the police to withhold their assistance from the execution of the laws, and as I was the only man in the city of Chicago who was responsible for the passage of the compro- mise measures, I went before the crowd, justified each and every one of those measures, and let it be said to the eternal honor of the people of Chicago, that when they were convinced by my exposition that those measures were right, and that they had done wrong in opposing them, they repealed their nullifying resolu- tions, and declared that they would acquiesce in and support the laws of the land. These facts are well known, and Mr. Lincoln can only get up individual instances, dating back to 1849-50, which are con- tradicted by the whole tenor of the Democratic creed. But Mr. Lincoln does not want to be held responsi- ble for the Black Republican doctrine of no more slave States. Farnsworth is the candidate of his party to- day in the Chicago district, and he made a speech in the last Congress in which he called upon God to palsy his right arm if he ever voted for the admission of another slave State, whether the people wanted it

1858] AT JONESBORO 283

or not. Lovejoy is making speeches all over the State for Lincoln now, and taking ground against any more slave States. Wastiburne, the Black Republican candidate for Congress in the Galena district, is mak- ing speeches in favor of this same Abolition platform declaring no more slave States. Why are men run- ning for Congress in the northern districts, and taking that Abolition platform for their guide, when Mr. Lincoln does not want to be held to it down here in Egypt and in the center of the State, and objects to it so as to get votes here? Let me tell Mr. Lincoln that his party in the northern part of the State hold to that Abolition platform, and that if they do not in the south and in the center, they present the extraor- dinary spectacle of a "house divided against itself," and hence "cannot stand." I now bring down upon him the vengeance of his own Scripture quotation, and give it a more appropriate application than he did, when I say to him that his party, Abolition in one end of the State and opposed to it in the other, is a house divided against itself, and cannot stand, and ought not to stand, for it attempts to cheat the American people out of their votes by disguising its sentiments.

Mr. -Lincoln attempts to cover up and get over his Abolitionism by telling you that he was raised a little east of you, beyond the Wabash in Indiana, and he thinks that makes a mighty sound and good man of him on all these questions. I do not know that the place where a man is born or raised has much to do with his political principles. The worst Abolitionists I have ever known in Illinois have been men who have sold their slaves in Alabama and Kentucky, and have come here and turned Abolitionists while spending the money got for the negroes they sold, and I do not know that an Abolitionist from Indiana or Kentucky ought to have any more credit because he was born and raised among slave-holders. I do not know that a native of Kentucky is more excusable because raised among slaves; his father and mother having owned slaves, he comes to Illinois, turns Abolitionist, and slanders the graves of his father and mother, and breathes curses upon the institutions under which he was born, and his father and mother were bred. True, I was not born out West here. I was born away down in Yankee land; I was born in a valley in Vermont,

284 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 15

with the high mountains around me. I love the old green mountains and valleys of Vermont, where I was born, and where I played in my childhood. I went up to visit them some seven or eight years ago, for the first time for twenty odd years. When I got there they treated me very kindly. They invited me to the commencement of their college, placed me on the seats with their distinguished guests, and conferred upon me the degree of LL. D. in Latin (doctor of laws), the same as they did Old Hickory, at Cambridge, many years ago, and I give you my word and honor I understood just as much of the Latin as he did. When they got through conferring the honorary de- gree, they called upon me for a speech, and I got up with my heart full and swelling with gratitude for their kindness, and I said to them, "My friends, Vermont is the most glorious spot on the face of this globe for a man to be born in, provided he emigrates when he is very young."

I emigrated when I was very young. I came out here when I was a boy, and found my mind liberalized, and my opinions enlarged when I got on these broad prairies, with only the heavens to bound my vision, in- stead of having them circumscribed by the little -narrow ridges that surrounded the valley where I was born. But I discard all flings at the land where a man was born. I wish to be judged by my principles, by those great public measures and constitutional principles upon which the peace, the happiness, and the perpetuity of this republic now rest.

Mr. Lincoln has framed another question, propounded it to me, and desired my answer. As I have said before, I did not put a question to him that I did not first lay a foundation for by showing that it was a part of the platform of the party whose votes he is now seeking, adopted in a majority of the counties where he now hopes to get a majority, and supported by the candidates of his party now running in those counties. But I will answer his question. It is as follows : "If the slave- holding citizens of a United States Territory should need and demand congressional legislation for the pro- tection of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation?" I answer him that it is a fundamental article in the Democratic creed that there should be

i858] AT JONESBORO 285

non-interference and non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories. Mr. Lincoln could have found an answer to his question in the Cincinnati platform, if he had desired it. The Democratic party have always stood by that great principle of non-inter- ference and non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories alike, and I stand on that platform now.

Now I desire to call your attention to the fact that Lincoln did not define his own position in his own question. How does he stand on that question? Lie put the question to me at Freeport whether or not I would vote to admit Kansas into the Union before she had 93,420 inhabitants. I answered him at once that it having been decided that Kansas had now population enough for a slave State, she had population enough for a free State.

I answered the question unequivocally, and then I asked him whether he would vote for or against the admission of Kansas before she had 93,420 inhabitants, and he would not answer me. To-day he has called attention to the fact that, in his opinion, my answer on that question was not quite plain enough, and yet he has not answered it himself. He now puts a question in relation to congressional interference in the Terri- tories to me. I answer him direct, and yet he has not answered the question himself. I ask you whether a man has any right, in common decency, to put ques- tions, in these public discussions, to his opponent, which he will not answer himself when they are pressed home to him. I have asked him three times, whether he would vote to admit Kansas whenever the people ap- plied with a constitution of their own making and their own adoption, under circumstances that were fair, just, and unexceptionable, but I cannot get an answer from him. Nor will he answer the question which he put to me, and which I have just answered, in relation to congressional interference in the Territories, by making a slave code there.

It is true that he goes on to answer the question by arguing that under the decision of the Supreme Court it is the duty of a man to vote for a slave code in the Territories. He says that it is his duty, under the decision that the court has made, and if he believes in that decision he would be a perjured man if he did not

286 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

give the vote. I want to "know whether he is not bound to a decision which is contrary to his opinions just as much as to one in accordance with his opinions. If the decision of the Supreme Court, the tribunal created by the Constitution to decide the question, is final and binding, is he not bound by it just as strongly as if he was for it instead of against it originally? Is every man in this land allowed to resist decisions he does not like, and only support those that meet his approval? What are important courts worth unless their decisions are binding on all good citizens? It is the fundamental principle of the judiciary that its decisions are final. It is created for that purpose, so that when you cannot agree among yourselves on a disputed point you appeal to the judicial tribunal, which steps in and decides for you, and that decision is then binding on every good citizen. It is the law of the land just as much with Mr. Lincoln against it as for it. And yet he says if that decision is binding he is a perjured man if he does not vote for the slave code in the different Territories of this Union. Well, if you [turning to Mr. Lincoln] are not going to resist the decision, if you obey it, and do not intend to array mob law against the constituted authorities, then according to your own statement, you will be a perjured man if you do not vote to establish slavery in these Territories. My doctrine is, that even taking Mr. Lincoln's view that the decision recognizes the right of a man to carry his slaves into the Terri- tories of the United States, if he pleases, yet after he gets there he needs affirmative law to make that right of any value. The same doctrine not only applies to slave property, but all other kinds of property. Chief Justice Taney places it upon the ground that slave property is on an equal footing with other property. Suppose one of your merchants should move to Kansas and open a liquor-store ; he has a right to take groceries and liquors there, but the mode of selling them, and the circum- stances under which they shall be sold, and all the remedies, must be prescribed by local legislation, and if that is unfriendly it will drive him out just as effectually as if there was a constitutional provision against the sale of liquor. So the absence of local legislation to encourage and support slave property in a Territory excludes it practically just as effectually as if there was a positive constitutional provision against it. Hence I

1858] AT CHARLESTON 287

assert that under the Dred Scott decision you cannot maintain slavery a day in a Territory where there is an unwilling people and unfriendly legislation. If the peo- ple are opposed to it, our right is a barren, worthless, useless right; and if they are for it, they will support and encourage it. We come right back, therefore, to the practical question, if the people of a Territory want slavery they will have it, and if they do not want it you cannot force it on them. And this is the practical question, the great principle, upon which our institutions rest. I am willing to take the decision of the Supreme Court as it was pronounced by that august tribunal, without stopping to inquire whether I would have de- cided that way or not. I have had many a decision made against me on questions of law which I did not like, but I was bound by them just as much as if I had had a hand in making them, and approved them. Did you ever see a lawyer or a client lose his case that he approved the decision of the court? They always think the decision unjust when it is given against them. In a government of laws like ours we must sustain the Constitution as our fathers made it, and maintain the rights of the States as they are guaranteed under the Constitution, and then we will have peace and har- mony between the different States and sections of this glorious Union.

Fourth Joint Debate, at Charleston.

September 18, 1858. Mr. Lincoln's Opening Speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen: It will be very diffi- cult for an audience so large as this to hear dis- tinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is important that as profound silence be pre- served as possible.

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equal- ity between the negroes and white people. While

288 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that Subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, or ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qual- ifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for- ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in- asmuch as they cannot so live, while they do re- main together there must be the position of su- perior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this oc- casion that I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so

i858] AT CHARLESTON 289

frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its cor- rectness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great ap- prehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I will add one fur- ther word, which is this : that I do not under- stand that there is any place where an altera- tion of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State legislature — not in the Congress of the United States ; and as I do not really appre- hend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant hor- ror that some such danger is rapidly approach- ing, I propose, as the best means to prevent it> that the judge be kept at home and placed in the State legislature to fight the measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on the sub- ject.

When Judge Trumbull, our other senator in Congress, returned to Illinois in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in which he made what may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which I understand proved to be very offensive to him. The judge was at that time out upon one of his speaking tours through the country, and when the news of it reached

290 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

him, as I am informed, he denounced Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for having said what he did in regard to that matter. I was traveling at that time, and speaking at the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent days, and when I heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and what Douglas had said back again, I felt that I was in a position where I could not remain entirely silent in regard to the mat- ter. Consequently, upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no other wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by Trumbull against Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to say nothing about it — that I did personally know Judge Trumbull — that I believed him to be a man of veracity — that I be- lieved him to be a man of capacity sufficient to know very well whether an assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn from a set of facts, was true or false ; and as a conclusion of my own from that, I stated it as my belief, if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove everything he had said. I said this upon two or three occasions. Upon a subsequent oc- casion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before an audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his charge against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to substanti- ate it. This speech was published at length, and subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas al- luded to the matter. In the course of his speech, and near the close of it, he stated in regard to myself what I will now read : "Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that Lincoln having indorsed

i858] AT CHARLESTON 291

the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him (Lincoln) responsible for the slan- ders." I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitation to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not orig- inally been my purpose to discuss that matter at all. But inasmuch as it seems to be the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once in my life I will play General Jack- son, and to the just extent I take the responsi- bility.

I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters the portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at Jacksonville in answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of this debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I cannot now read them, for the rea- son that it would take half of my first hour to do so. I can only make some comments upon them. Trumbull's charge is in the following words : "Now, the charge is, that there was a plot en- tered into to have a constitution formed for Kan- sas, and put in force, without giving the people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot." I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he regards as sufficient evi- dence to substantiate this charge.

It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon the floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference among the senators, in which conference it was deter- mined to have an Enabling Act passed for the

292 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

people of Kansas to .form a constitution under ; and in this conference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a provision for sub- mitting the constitution to a vote of the people after it should be formed. He then brings for- ward evidence to show, and showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with that clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause in- serted into the bill, which would in its nature pre- vent a reference of the constitution back, for a vote of the people — if, indeed, upon a mere silence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to vote upon it. These are the general statements that he has made.

I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech, in which he attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he makes is : "Sup- pose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and that I struck it out — is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution upon them against their will ?" His striking out such a pro- vision, if there was such a one in the bill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would say, in the first place, that that would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, as Judge Douglas states, that many territorial bills have passed without hav- ing such a provision in them. I believe it is true, though I am not certain, that in some instances constitutions framed under such bills have been submitted to a vote of the people, with the law silent upon the subject; but it does not appear

i858] AT CHARLESTON 293

that they once had their enabling- acts framed with an express provision for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people, and then that it was stricken out when Congress did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have been bills which never had the pro- vision in, I do not question; but when was that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does this evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, when we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almost simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a conference among cer- tain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be passed leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meet- ing in which it was agreed they should so frame the bill that there should be no submission of the constitution to a vote of the people. The judge does not notice this part of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to be submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter into a plot to put in force a constitution for Kansas without giv- ing the people any opportunity of voting upon it.

But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is this : "But upon ex- amination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted." This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I only want

294 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

to ask this question— why did not Judge Douglas say that these words were not stricken out of the Toombs bill, or this bill from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out — a bill wThich goes by the name of Toombs, because he originally brought it forward? I ask why, if the judge wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not stricken out? Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the Toombs bill, and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were stricken out. Judge Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken out, were not stricken out, but he says there was no provision in the Toombs bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the words. He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about these words being stricken out; but he is really, when pushed up to it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken out, I have before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the Toombs bill, in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says were in it, were, in fact, originally there. If there be any dispute upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show they were there. If there be any controversy upon the sense of the words — whether these words which were stricken out really constituted a provision for submitting the matter to a vote of the people, as that is a matter of argument, I think I may as well use

1858] AT CHARLESTON

295

Trumbull's own argument. He says that the proposition is in these words :

That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas.

Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill when it came back, and he said this was a provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people, and his argument is this : "Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an election was to be held ?" That is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge at all, but stands up and says there was no such proposition in that bill for submit- ting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people. Trumbull admits that the language is not a direct provision for submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another pro- vision. He asks you how it is possible to ratify the land proposition at the election for the adoption of the constitution, if there was no election to be held for the adoption of the constitution. And he goes on to show that it is not any less a law because the provision is put in that indirect shape than it would be if it was put directly. But I presume I have said enough to draw attention to this point, and I pass it by also.

Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and at very great length, is that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said

296 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

in a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to be made would have to be submit- ted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thought so then, what ground is there for anybody think- ing otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, this much may be said in reply : That bill had been in the hands of a party to which Trumbull did not be- long. It had been in the hands of the committee at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had a printed copy of the original Toombs bill. I have not the evidence on that point, except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of business there. What al- terations, or what provisions in the way of alter- ing, were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, until the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterward, when it was re- ported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull in reading it hastily in the al- tered form did not perceive all the bearings of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not follow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive, that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that what Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did? Suppose Trum- bull had been in the plot with these other men, would that let Douglas out of it? Would it ex- onerate Douglas that Trumbull didn't then per- ceive he was in the plot ? He also asks the ques- tion : Why didn't Trumbull propose to amend the bill if he thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe that everything Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection with this question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of the Senate, had been

i858j AT CHARLESTON 297

promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his friends. He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to anything on this subject would receive the slightest consideration. Judge Trum- bull did bring the notice of the Senate at that time to the fact that there was no provision for submitting the constitution about to be made for the people of Kansas, to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture to say that Judge Douglas made some reply to this speech of Judge Trum- bull's, but he never noticed that part of it at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment, does not throw much blame upon him ; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact as to what Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat that if Trumbull had himself been in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial it should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, but that the pros- ecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at all touch the question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck that they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to be guilty too.

Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the fact that the bill had the provision in it for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people, when it went into his (Judge Douglas's) hands, that this was missing when he reported the bill to the Senate, and that in a public speech he had subsequently said the alteration in the bill was made while it was in committee, and that it

298 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

was made in consultation between him (Judge Douglas) and Toombs. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with another clause and another provision in it saying that "until the complete execution of this act there shall be no election in said Territory," which Trumbull argued was not only taking the provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but was adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the question. Now in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the issue — that he shifts his ground — and I believe he uses the term that "it being proven false, he has changed ground," — I call upon all of you when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's speech (for it will make a part of mine), to ex- amine whether Trumbull has shifted his ground or not. I say he did not shift his ground, but that he brought forward his original charge, and the evidence to sustain it, yet more fully, but pre- cisely as he originally made it. Then, in addi- tion thereto, he brought in a new piece of evi- dence. He shifted no ground. He brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with his for- mer testimony, but he brought a new piece tend- ing, as he thought, and as I think, to prove his proposition. To illustrate : A man brings an ac- cusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a second trial he introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and a third witness who tells the same

r858] AT CHARLESTON 299

thing, and in addition gives further testimony corroborative of the charge. So with Trumbull. There was no shifting of ground, nor inconsist- ency of testimony between the new piece of evi- dence and what he originally introduced.

But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and a sub- stitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is true that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. Trumbull has not said it was not. Trumbull has himself said that it was so stricken out. He says : "I am speaking of the bill as Judge Douglas reported it back. It was amended somewhat in the Sen- ate before it passed, but I am speaking of it as he brought it back." Now, when Judge Douglas parades the fact that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he asserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only said that he originally put it in — not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. When it came back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made by him in consultation with Toombs. Trumbull alleges therefore, as his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in. Then if Douglas wants to contradict Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not put it in, and not that he didn't take it out again. It is said that a bear is sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub, and so I pre- sume it was in this case. I presume the truth is that Douglas put it in and afterward took it out. That, I take it, is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing; Douglas says another

300 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

thing, and the two -don't contradict one another at all. The question is, what did he put it in for? In the first place, what did he take the other pro- vision out of the bill for? — the provision which Trumbull argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people? What did he take that out for ? and having taken it out, what did he put this in for? I say that, in the run of things, it is not unlikely forces conspired to render it vastly expedient for Judge Douglas to take the latter clause out again. The question that Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in, and he don't meet Trumbull at all un- less he denies that.

In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses this language toward Judge Trumbull. He says : "He forges his evidence from beginning to end, and by falsifying the rec- ord he endeavors to bolster up his false charge." Well, that is a pretty serious statement. Trum- bull forges his evidence from beginning to end. Now upon my own authority I say that it is not true. What is a forgery ? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has brought forward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to, examine whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had the bill or document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says that is a copy of the Toombs bill — the amendment offered by Toombs. He says that is a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas's hands. Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? That is one thing Trumbull brought forward. Judge Doug- las says he forged it from beginning to end ! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does

1 858] AT CHARLESTON 301

Douglas say that is a forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent examina- tion upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery ? Does he say it in his sweeping charge ? Does he say so now ? If he does not, then take this Toombs bill and the bill in the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see that the provision is in the one and not in the other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken out.

But while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull's other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull says there are in this original Toombs bill these words : "That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the people of Kansas, wrhen formed, for their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper here and see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December 9, 1857 :

I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the bill was introduced, and the ques- tion was raised and discussed, whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was held by those most intelligent on the subject, that in view of all the difficulties surrounding

302 DELATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

that Territory, [awe?] the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better there should be no such provision in the Toombs bill; and it was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the convention would make a constitution, and send it here without submitting it to the popular vote.

Then Trumbull follows on :

In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st Decem- ber, 1857 [Congressional Globe, same volume, page 113], Senator Bigler said: "Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or confiden- tial interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-official and called to promote the public good. My recollection was clear that I left the conference under the impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this convention. This impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great aversion ; but with the hope of accom- plishing a great good, and as no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their submission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, provid- ing for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows :

" 'That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas.'

"The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia, on the 25th of June, and referred to the com- mittee on Territories, contained the same section, word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the conference referred to ; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate

i858] AT CHARLESTON 303

with amendments the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the convention that the constitution should be approved by the people. The words, 'and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution,' had been stricken out."

Now these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the Congres- sional Globe on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is a forgery ? Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional Globe? What does he mean when he says Judge Trum- bull forges his evidence from beginning to end? So again he says, in another place, that Judge Douglas, in his speech December 9, 1857 [Con- gressional Globe, Part I, page 15], stated:

That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill from the committee on Terri- tories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought for- ward a substitute for my bill, which, after being modi- fied by him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate.

Now Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and is recorded in the Con- gressional Globe. Is it a forgery ? Is it there or not? It may not be there, but I want the judge to take these pieces of evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he dare do it. [A voice: "He will"] Well, sir, you had better not com- mit him. He gives other quotations — another from Judge Douglas. He says :

I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member of the Senate, in the whole debate on

304 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

the Toombs bill, and in the Union, from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the public. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on it ; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done which ought in fairness to have been done.

Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. Does Judge Douglas say it is forgery, and was not true? Trumbull says somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any one who will read this de- bate, that he did distinctly bring it to the notice of those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that provision, and then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge Douglas, where Judge Trumbull uses this language :

Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probably recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had objected to the Toombs bill, when pending, that it did not provide for a submission of the constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the Globe, page 22, in which he says :

"That the bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention was called to that about the time it was passed; and I took the fair construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the constitution would be submitted to the people."

Whether this statement is consistent with the state- ment just before made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that it was a new dis- covery, you will determine.

So I say. I do not know whether Judge Doug- las will dispute this, and yet maintain his posi-

i858] AT CHARLESTON 305

tion that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from beginning to end." I will remark that I have not got these Congressional Globes with me. They are large books and difficult to carry about, and if Judge Douglas shall say that on these points where Trumbull has quoted from them, there are no such passages there, I shall not be able to prove they are there upon this occasion, but I will have another chance. Whenever he points out the forgery and says, "I declare that this par- ticular thing which Trumbull has uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then my atten- tion will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest — stating now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the question is, how can Douglas call that a for- gery ? How can he make out that it is a forgery ? What is a forgery? It is the bringing forward something in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect when it is altogether untrue. If you come forward with my note for one hun- dred dollars when I have never given such a note, there is a forgery. If you come forward with a letter purporting to be written by me which I never wrote, there is another forgery. If you produce anything in writing or in print saying it is so and so, the document not being genuine, a forgery has been committed. How do you make this a forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine? If Judge Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false and forged, he has a full right to do so, but until he does it specifically, we don't know how to get at him. If he does say they are false and forged, I will then look further into it, and I presume I

306 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. i9

can procure the certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies. I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where Trumbull says it is. Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in making his sweeping charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged from beginning to end, at all meets the case — if that is the way to get at the facts. I repeat again, if he will point out which one is a forgery, I will carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one of them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it any longer. I have always wanted to deal with every one I meet candidly and honestly. If I have made any as- sertion not warranted by facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully. But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull calumni- ated, and the evidence he has brought forward branded in general terms "a forgery from begin- ning to end." This is not the legal way of meet- ing a charge, and I submit to all intelligent per- sons, both friends of Judge Douglas and of my- self, whether it is.

The point upon Judge Douglas is this. The bill that went into his hands had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to the people ; and I say its language amounts to an express provision for a submission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was known that the bill was silent in this particular ; but I say, Judge Douglas, it was not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the declaration when you got it, for a submission of the constitution to the people. And now, my direct question to Judge Douglas is to answer why, if he deemed the bill silent on this point, he found it necessary to strike out

i858] AT CHARLESTON 307

those particular harmless words. If he had found the bill silent and without this provision, he might say what he does now. If he supposes it was implied that the constitution would be sub- mitted to a vote of the people, how could these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to strike them out ? How could he in- fer that a submission was still implied, after its express provision had been stricken from the bill? I find the bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it out, and al- though he took out the other provision prevent- ing a submission to a vote of the people, I ask, why did you first put it in? I ask him whether he took the original provision out, which Trum- bull alleges was in the bill? If he admits that he did take it out, I ask him what he did it for ? It looks to us as if he had altered the bill. If it looks differently to him — if he has a different reason for his action from the one we assign him — he can tell it. I insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it.

I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three minutes of being out. I presume it is expired now. I therefore close.

Extract from Mr. Trumbull's Speech Made at Alton, Referred to by Mr. Lincoln in His Opening at Charleston.

I come now to another extract from a speech of Mr. Douglas, made at Beardstown, and reported in the Missouri Republican. This extract has reference to a statement made by me at Chicago, wherein I charged that an agreement had been entered into by the very persons now claiming credit for opposing a constitution

3o8 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

not submitted to the people, to have a constitution formed and put in force without giving the people of Kansas an opportunity to pass upon it. Without meet- ing this charge, which I substantiated by a reference to the record, my colleague is reported to have said :

For when this charge was once made in a much milder form in the Senate of the United States I did brand it as a lie in the presence of Mr. Trumbull, and Mr. Trumbull sat and heard it thus branded, without daring to say it was true. I tell you he knew it to be false when he uttered it at Chicago ; and yet he says he is "going to cram the lie down his throat until he should cry enough." The miser- able, craven-hearted wretch ! he would rather have both ears cut off than to use that language in my presence, where I could call him to account. I see the object is to draw me into a personal controversy, with the hope thereby of concealing from the public the enormity of the principles to which they are committed. I shall not allow much of my time in this canvass to be occupied by these personal assaults. I have none to make on Mr. Lincoln ; I have none to make on Mr. Trumbull ; I have none to make on any other political opponent. If I cannot stand on my own public record, on my own private and public character as history will record it, I will not attempt to rise by traducing the characters of other men. I will not make a blackguard of myself by imitating the course they have pursued against me. I have no charges to make against them.

This is a singular statement, taken altogether. After indulging in language which would disgrace a loafer in the filthiest purlieus of a fish-market, he winds up by saying that he will not make a blackguard of himself, that he has no charges to make against me. So I sup- pose he considers that to say of another that he knew a thing to be false when he uttered it, that he was a "miserable craven-hearted wretch," does not amount to a personal assault, and does not make a man a black- guard. A discriminating public will judge of that for themselves; but as he says he has "no charges to make on Mr. Trumbull," I suppose politeness requires I should believe him. At the risk of again offending this mighty man of war, and losing something more than my ears, I shall have the audacity to again read the record upon him, and prove and pin upon him, so that he cannot escape it, the truth of every word I uttered

1858] AT CHARLESTON 309

at Chicago. You, fellow-citizens, are the judges to determine whether I do this. My colleague says he is willing to stand on his public record. By that he shall be tried, and if he had. been able to discriminate be- tween the exposure of a public act by the record, and a personal attack upon the individual, he would have dis- covered that there was nothing personal in my Chicago remarks, unless the condemnation of himself by his own public record is personal, and then you must judge who is most to blame for the torture his public record inflicts upon him, he for making, or I for reading it after it was made. As an individual I care very little about Judge Douglas one way or the other. It is his public acts with which I have to do, and if they con- demn, disgrace, and consign him to oblivion, he has only himself, not me, to blame.

Now, the charge is that there was a plot entered into to have a constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the people an opportunity to pass upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot. This is as susceptible of proof by the record as is the fact that the State of Minnesota was admitted into the Union at the last session of Congress.

On the 25th of June, 1856, a bill was pending in the United States Senate to authorize the people of Kansas to form a constitution and come into the Union. On that day Mr. Toombs offered an amendment which he intended to propose to the bill, which was ordered to be printed, and, with the original bill and other amend- ments, recommended to the Committee on Territories, of which Mr. Douglas was chairman. This amendment of Mr. Toombs, printed by order of the Senate, and a copy of which I have here present, provided for the appointment of commissioners, who were to take a cen- sus of Kansas, divide the Territory into election dis- tricts, and superintend the election of delegates to form a constitution, and contains a clause in the 18th section which I will read to you, requiring the constitution which should be formed to be submitted to the people for adoption. It reads as follows :

That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejec- tion ; which, if accepted by the convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the con-

3io DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

stitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States, and upon the said State of Kansas, etc.

It has been contended by some of the newspaper press that this section did not require the constitution which should be formed to be submitted to the people for ap- proval, and that it was only the land propositions which were to be submitted. You will observe the language is that the propositions are to be "ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution." Would it have been possible to ratify the land propo- sitions "at the election for the adoption of the constitu- tion," unless such an election was to be held?

When one thing is required by a contract or law to be done, the doing of which is made dependent upon, and cannot be performed without, the doing of some other thing, is not that other thing just as much required by the contract or law as the first? It matters not in what part of the act, nor in what phraseology, the intention of the legislature is expressed, so you can clearly ascer- tain what it is ; and whenever that intention is ascer- tained from an examination of the language used, such intention is part of and a requirement of the law. Can any candid, fair-minded man read the section I have quoted, and say that the intention to have the constitu- tion which should be formed submitted to the people for their adoption is not clearly expressed? In my judgment there can be no controversy among honest men upon a proposition so plain as. this. Mr. Douglas has never pretended to deny, so far as I am aware, that the Toombs amendment, as originally introduced, did require a submission of the constitution to the peo- ple. This amendment of Mr. Toombs was referred to the committee of which Mr. Douglas was chairman, and reported back by him on the 30th of June, with the words "and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution" stricken out. I have here a copy of the bill as reported back by Mr. Douglas to substantiate the statement I make. Various other alter- ations were also made in the bill to which I shall pres- ently have occasion to call attention. There was no other clause in the original Toombs bill requiring a sub- mission of the constitution to the people than the one I have read, and there was no clause whatever, after that was struck out, in the bill, as reported back by Judge

i8s8] AT CHARLESTON

3ii

Douglas, requiring a submission. I will now introduce a witness whose testimony cannot be impeached, he ac- knowledging himself to have been one of the conspira- tors, and privy to the fact about which he testifies.

Senator Bigler, alluding to the Toombs bill, as it was called, and which, after sundry amendments, passed the Senate, and to the propriety of submitting the constitu- tion which should be formed to a vote of the people, made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December 9, 1897. I read from Part I, Congressional Globe of last session, paragraph 21 :

I was present when that subject was discussed by sen- ators, before the bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was held by the most intelligent on the subject that in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, land] the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better that there should be no such provision in the Toombs bill ; and it is my under- standing, in all the intercourse I had, that the convention would make a constitution and send it here without sub- mitting it to the popular vote.

In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st of De- cember, 1857 (Congressional Globe, same volume, page 113), Senator Bigler said:

Nothing was farther from my mind than to allude to any social or confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollection was clear that I left the conference under the impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to the convention. This impression was the stronger because I thought the spirit of the bill in- fringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great aversion ; but with the hope of accomplishing great good, and as no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their submission I shall be content. I have be- fore me the bill reported by the senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows :

312 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

"That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejec- tion ; which, if accepted by the convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the consti- tution, shall be obligatory upon the United States, and upon the said State of Kansas."

The bill read in place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same section, word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the confer- ence referred to ; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate, with amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the convention that the constitution should be approved by the people. The words "and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution" had been stricken out.

I am not now seeking to prove that Douglas was in the plot to force a constitution upon Kansas without allowing the people to vote directly upon it. I shall at- tend to that branch of the subject by and by. My ob- ject now is to prove the existence of the plot, what the design was, and I ask if I have not already done so. Here are the facts :

The introduction of a bill on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the calling of a convention in Kansas to form a State constitution, and providing that the con- stitution should be submitted to the people for adoption ; an amendment to this bill, proposed by Mr. Toombs, containing the same requirement ; a reference of these various bills to the Committee on Territories; a con- sultation of senators to determine whether it was ad- visable to have the constitution submitted for ratifica- tion ; the determination that it was not advisable ; and a report of the bill back to the Senate next morning, with the clause providing for the submission stricken out — could evidence be more complete to establish the first part of the charge I have made of a plot having been entered into by somebody to have a constitution adopted without submitting it to the people?

Now, for the other part of the charge. That Judge Douglas was in this plot, whether knowingly or igno- rantly, is not material to my purpose. The charge is that he was an instrument cooperating in the project to have a constitution formed and put into operation with-

i8s8] AT CHARLESTON 313

out affording the people an opportunity to pass upon it. The first evidence to sustain the charge is the fact that he reported back the Toombs amendment with the clause providing for the submission stricken out : this, in connection with his speech in the Senate on the 9th of December, 1857 (Congressional Globe, Part I, page 14), wherein he stated:

That during the last Congress, I [Mr. Douglas'] re- ported a bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate.

This of itself ought to be sufficient to show that my colleague was an instrument in the plot to have a con- stitution put in force without submitting it to the people, and to forever close his mouth from attempting to deny. No man can reconcile his acts and former declarations with his present denial, and the only charitable conclu- sion would be that he was being used by others with- out knowing it. Whether he is entitled to the benefit of even this excuse, you must judge on a candid hearing of the facts I shall present. When the charge was first made in the United States Senate, by Mr. Bigler, that my colleague had voted for an Enabling Act which put a government in operation without submitting the con- stitution to the people, my colleague (Congressional Globe, last session, Part I, page 24) stated:

I will ask the senator to show me an intimation from any one member of the Senate, in the whole deoate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the people. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so understood at the time. If the oppo- nents of the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on it ; and if they had made it we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done which ought in fairness to have been done.

I knew, at the time this statement was made, that I had urged the very objection to the Toombs bill two years before, that it did not provide for the submission

314 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

of the constitution. You ,will find my remarks, made on the 2d of July, 1856, in the appendix to the Con- gressional Globe of that year, page 179, urging this very objection. Do you ask why I did not expose him at the time? I will tell you. Mr. Douglas was then doing good service against the Lecompton iniquity. The Re- publicans were then engaged in a hand-to-hand fight with the National Democracy, to prevent the bringing of Kansas into the Union as a slave State against the wishes of its inhabitants, and of course I was unwilling to turn our guns from the common enemy to strike down an ally. Judge Douglas, however, on the same day, and in the same debate, probably recollecting, or being reminded of the fact, that I had objected to the Toombs bill, when pending, that it did not provide for the submission of the constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the Congressional Globe, page 22, in which he says:

That the bill was silent 011 the subject is true, and my attention was called to that about the time it was passed ; and I took the fair construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the constitu- tion would be submitted to the people.

Whether this statement is consistent with the state- ment just before made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that it was a new dis- covery, you will determine ; for if the public records do not convict and condemn him, he may go uncondemned, so far as I am concerned. I make no use here of the testimony of Senator Bigler to show that Judge Doug- las must have been privy to the consultation held at his house, when it was determined not to submit the consti- tution to the people, because Judge Douglas denies it, and I wish to use his own acts and declarations, which are abundantly sufficient for my purpose.

I come to a piece of testimony which disposes of all these various pretenses which have been set up for strik- ing out of the original Toombs proposition the clause re- quiring a submission of the constitution to the people, and shows that it was not done either by accident, by inadvertence, or because it was believed that the bill, being silent on the subject, the constitution would necessarily be submitted to the people for approval.

I8s8] AT CHARLESTON 315

What will you think, after listening to the facts already- presented to show that there was a design with those who concocted the Toombs bill, as amended, not to sub- mit the constitution to the people, if I now bring before you the amended bill as Judge Douglas reported it back, and show the clause of the original bill requiring sub- mission was not only struck out, but that other clauses were inserted in the bill putting it absolutely out of the power of the convention to submit the constitution to the people for approval, had they desired to do so? If I can produce such evidence as that, will you not all agree that it clinches and establishes forever all I charged at Chicago, and more too?

I propose now to furnish that evidence. It will be remembered that Mr. Toombs's bill provided for holding an election for delegates to form a constitution under the supervision of commissioners to be appointed by the President, and in the bill, as reported back by Judge Douglas, these words, not to be found in the original bill, are inserted at the close of the nth section, viz.:

And until the complete execution of this act no other election shall be held in said Territory.

This clause put it out of the power of the convention to refer to the people for adoption ; it absolutely pro- hibited the holding of any other election than that for the election of delegates, till that act was completely executed, which would not have been until Kansas was admitted as a State, or, at all events, till her constitution was fully prepared and ready for submission to Con- gress for admission. Other amendments reported by Judge Douglas to the original Toombs bill clearly show that the intention was to enable Kansas to become a State without any further action than simply a resolu- tion of admission. The amendment reported by Mr. Douglas, that "until the next congressional apportion- ment the said State shall have one representative," clearly shows this, no such provision being contained in the original Toombs bill. For what other earthly pur- pose could the clause to prevent any other election in Kansas, except that of delegates, till it was admitted as a State, have been inserted except to prevent a submis- sion of the constitution, when formed, to the people?

The Toombs bill did. not pass in the exact shape in which Judge Douglas reported it. Several amendments

316 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

were made to it in the Senate. I am now dealing with the action of Judge Douglas as connected with that bill, and speak of the bill as he recommended it. The facts I have stated in regard to this matter appear upon the records, which I have here present to show to any man who wishes to look at them. They establish, beyond the power of controversy, all the charges I have made, and show that Judge Douglas was made use of as an instru- ment by others, or else knowingly was a party to the scheme to have a government put in force over the people of Kansas, without giving them an opportunity to pass upon it. That others high in position in the so- called Democratic party were parties to such a scheme is confessed by Governor Bigler ; and the only reason why the scheme was not carried, and Kansas long ago forced into the Union as a slave State, is the fact that the Re- publicans were sufficiently strong in the House of Rep- resentatives to defeat the measure.

Extract from Mr. Douglas's Speech Made at Jacksonville, and Referred to by Mr. Lincoln in His Opening at Charleston.

I have been reminded by a friend behind me that there is another topic upon which there has been a desire expressed that I should speak. I am told that Mr. Lyman Trumbull, who has the good fortune to hold a seat in the United States Senate, in violation of the bargain between him and Lincoln, was here the other day and occupied his time in making certain charges against me, involving, if they be true, moral turpitude. I am also informed that the charges he made here were substantially the same as those made by him in the city of Chicago, which were printed in the newspapers of that city. I now propose to answer those charges and to annihilate every pretext that an honest man has ever had for repeating them.

In order that I may meet these charges fairly, I will read them, as made by Mr. Trumbull in his Chicago speech, in his own language. He says:

Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that there was a preconcerted arrangement and plot entered into by the very men who now claim credit for opposing a constitution not submitted to the people, to have a con-

1858] AT CHARLESTON 317

stitution formed and put in force without giving the people an opportunity to pass upon it. This, my friends, is a serious charge, but I charge it to-night, that the very men who traverse the country under banners, proclaiming pop- ular sovereignty, by design concocted a bill on purpose to force a constitution upon that people.

Again, speaking to some one in the crowd, he says :

And you want to satisfy yourself that he was in the plot to force a constitution upon that people? I will sat- isfy you. I will cram the truth down any honest man's throat, until he cannot deny it. and to the man who does deny it, I will cram the lie down his throat till he shall cry enough ! It is preposterous — it is the most damnable effrontery that man ever put on to conceal a scheme to defraud and cheat the people out of their rights, and then claim credit for it.

That is polite and decent language for a senator of the United States. Remember that that language was used without any provocation whatever from me. I had not alluded to him in any manner in any speech that I had made ; hence it was without provocation. As soon as he sets his foot within the State, he makes the direct charge that I was a party to a plot to force a constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, and knowing that it would be denied, he talks about cramming the lie down the throat of any man who shall deny it, until he cries enough.

Why did he take it for granted that it would be denied, unless he knew it to be false? Why did he deem it necessary to make a threat in advance that he would "cram the lie" down the throat of any man that should deny it? I have no doubt that the entire Aboli- tion party consider it very polite for Mr. Trumbull to go round uttering calumnies of that kind, bullying and talking of cramming lies down men's throats ; but if I deny any of his lies by calling him a liar, they are shocked at the indecency of the language; hence, to- day, instead of calling him a liar, I intend to prove that he is one.

I wish, in the first place, to refer to the evidence adduced by Trumbull, at Chicago, to sustain his charge. He there declared that Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, introduced a bill into Congress authorizing the people of Kansas to form a constitution and come

3i8 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

into the Union, . that, when introduced, it contained a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted to the people, and that I struck out the words of that clause.

Suppose it were true that there was such a clause in the bill, and that I struck it out, is that proof of a plot to force a constitution upon a people against their will? Bear in mind that, from the days of George Washing- ton to the administration of Franklin Pierce, there has never been passed by Congress a bill requiring the submission of a constitution to the people. If Trum- bull's charge, that I struck out that clause, were true, it would only prove that I had reported the bill in the exact shape of every bill of like character that passed under Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jack- son, or any other president, to the time of the then present administration. I ask you would that be evidence of a design to force a constitution on a people against their will? If it were so, it would be evidence against Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Van Buren, and every other president.

But upon examination, it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain a clause requiring the constitu- tion to be submitted. Hence no such clause was ever stricken out by me or anybody else. It is true, how- ever, that the Toombs bill and its authors all took it for granted that the constitution would be submitted. There had never been in the history of this government any attempt made to force a constitution upon an un- willing people, and nobody dreamed that any such at- tempt would be made, or deemed it necessary to pro- vide for such a contingency. If such a clause was neces- sary in Mr. Trumbull's opinion, why did he not offer an amendment to that effect?

In order to give more pertinency to that question, I will read an extract from Trumbull's speech in the Senate, on the Toombs bill, made on the 2d day of July, 1856. He said:

We are asked to amend this bill, and make it perfect, and a liberal spirit seems to be manifested on the part of spme senators to have a fair bill. It is difficult, I admit, to frame a bill that will give satisfaction to all ; but to approach it, or come near it, I think two things must be done.

i858] AT CHARLESTON 319

The first, then, he goes on to say, was the application of the Wilmot proviso to the Territories, and the second the repeal of all the laws passed by the ter- ritorial legislature. He did not then say that it was necessary to put in a clause requiring the submission of the constitution. Why, if he thought such a pro- vision necessary, did he not introduce it? He says in his speech that he was invited to offer amendments. Why did he not do so? He cannot pretend that he had no chance to do this, for he did offer some amend- ments, but none requiring submission.

I now proceed to show that Mr. Trumbull knew at the time that the bill was silent as to the subject of submission, and also that he, and everybody else, took it for granted that the constitution would be sub- mitted. Now for the evidence. In the second speech he says : "The bill in many of its features meets my appro- bation." So he did not think it so very bad.

Further on he says:

In regard to the measure introduced by the senator from Georgia \_Mr. Toombs'], and recommended by the committee, I regard it, in many respects, as a most excel- lent bill ; but we must look at it in the light of surrounding circumstances. In the condition of things now existing in the country, I do not consider it as a safe measure, nor one which will give peace, and I will give my reasons. First, it affords no immediate relief. It provides for taking a census of the voters in the Territory, for an election in November, and the assembling of a convention in December, to form, if it thinks proper, a constitution for Kansas, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State. It is not until December that the convention is to meet. It would take some time to form a constitution. I suppose that constitution would have to be ratified by the people before it becomes valid.

He there expressly declared that he supposed, under the bill, the constitution would have to be submitted to- the people before it became valid. He went on to say:

No provision is made in this bill for such a ratification. This is objectionable to my mind. I do not think the people should be bound by a constitution, without passing upon it directly, themselves.

Why did he not offer an amendment providing for such a submission, if. he thought it necessary? Not- v/jth standing the absence of such a clause, he took it

320 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

for granted that the constitution would have to be ratified by the people, under the bill.

In another part of the same speech, he says :

There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have dis- covered, about submitting the constitution which is to be framed to the people, for their sanction or rejection. Perhaps the convention would have the right to submit it, if it should think proper ; but it is certainly not com- pelled to do so, according to the provisions of the bill. If it is to be submitted to the people, it will take time, and it will not be until some time next year that this new constitution, affirmed and ratified by the people, would be submitted here to Congress for its acceptance, and what is to be the condition of that people in the mean time?

You see that his argument then was that the Toombs bill would not get Kansas into the Union quick enough, and was objectionable on that account. He had no fears about this submission, or why did he not introduce an amendment to meet the case? [A voice: "Why didn't you? You were chairman of the committee."] I will answer that question for you.

In the first place, no such provision had ever before been put in any similar act passed by Congress. I did not suppose that there was an honest man who would pretend that the omission of such a clause furnished evidence of a conspiracy or attempt to impose on the people. It could not be expected that such of us as did not think that omission was evidence of such a scheme would offer such an amendment; but if Trum- bull then believed what he now says, why did he not offer the amendment, and try to prevent it, when he was, as he says, invited to do so?

In this connection I will tell you what the main point of discussion was. There was a bill pending to admit Kansas whenever she should have a population of 93,420, that being the ratio required for a member of Congress. Under that bill Kansas could not have be- come a State for some years, because she could not have had the requisite population. Mr. Toombs took it into his head to bring in a bill to admit Kansas then, with only twenty-five or thirty thousand people, and the question was whether we would allow Kansas to come in under this bill, or keep her out under mine until she had 93,420 people. The committee considered

1858] AT CHARLESTON 321

that question, and overruled me by deciding in favor of the immediate admission of Kansas and I reported accordingly. I hold in my hand a copy of the report which I made at that time. I will read from it:

The point upon which your committee have entertained the most serious and grave doubts in regard to the pro- priety of indorsing the proposition relates to the fact that, in the absence of any census of the inhabitants, there is reason to apprehend that the Territory does not contain sufficient population to entitle them to demand admission under the treaty with France, if we take the ratio of rep- resentation for a member of Congress as the rule.

Thus you see that in the written report accompany- ing the bill, I said that the great difficulty with the committee was the question of population. In the same report I happened to refer to the question of submission. Now, listen to what I said about that:

In the opinion of your committee, whenever a consti- tution shall be formed in any Territory, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State, justice, the genius of our institutions, the whole theory of our republican system, imperatively demand that the voice of the people shall be fairly expressed, and their will em- bodied in that fundamental law without fraud or violence, or intimidation, or any other improper or unlawful influ- ence, and subject to no other restrictions than those im- posed by the Constitution of the United States.

I read this from the report I made at the time on the Toombs bill. I will read yet another passage from the same report. After setting out the features of the Toombs bill, I contrast it with the proposition of Senator Seward, saying:

The revisal proposition of the senator from Georgia refers all matters in dispute to the decision of the present population, with guarantees of fairness and safeguards against frauds and violence, to which no reasonable man can find just grounds of exception, while the senator from New York, if his proposition is designed to recognize and impart vitality to the Topeka constitution, proposes to disfranchise not only all the emigrants who have arrived in the Territory this year, but all the law-abiding men who refused to join in the act of open rebellion against the constituted authorities of the Territory last year, by making the unauthorized and unlawful action of a political party the fundamental law of the whole people.

322 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS [Sept. 18

Then, again, I repeat that under that bill the ques- tion is to be referred to the present population to decide for or against coming into the Union under the constitution they may adopt.

Mr. Trumbull, when at Chicago, rested his charge upon the allegation that the clause requiring submis- sion was originally in the bill, and was stricken out by me. When that falsehood was exposed by a publica- tion of the record, he went tc Alton and made another speech, repeating the charge, and referring to other and different evidence to sustain it. He saw that he was caught in his first falsehood, so he changed the issue, and instead of resting upon the allegation of striking out, he made it rest upon the declaration that I had introduced a clause into the bill prohibiting the people from voting upon the constitution. I am told that he made the same charge here that he made at Alton, that I had actually introduced and incorporated into the bill a clause which prohibited the people from voting upon their constitution. I hold his Alton speech in my hand, and will read the amendment which he alleges that I offered. It is in these words :

And until the complete execution of this act no other election shall be held in said Territory.

Trumbull says the object of that amendment was to prevent the convention from submitting the constitu- tion to a vote of the people. I will read what he said at Alton on that subject:

This clause put it out of the power of the convention, had it been so disposed, to submit the constitution to the people for adoption ; for it absolutely prohibited the hold- ing of any other election, than that for the election of delegates, till that act was completely executed, which would not have been till Kansas was admitted as a State, or, at all events, till her constitution was fully prepared and ready for submission to Congress for admission.

Now, do you suppose that Mr. Trumbull supposed that that clause prohibited the convention from sub- mitting the constitution to the people, when, in his speech in the Senate, he declared that the convention had a right to submit it? In his Alton speech, as will be seen by the extract which I have read, he declared that the clause put it out of the power of the conven-

1858] AT CHARLESTON 323

tion to submit the constitution, and in his speech in the Senate he said:

There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have dis- covered, about submitting the constitution which is to be formed to the people, for their sanction or rejection. Perhaps the convention could have the right to submit it, if it should think proper, but it is certainly not com- pelled to do so according to the provisions of the bill.

Thus you see that, in Congress, he declared the bill to be silent on the subject, and a few days since, at Alton, he made a speech, and said that there was a provision in the bill prohibiting submission.

I have two answers to make to that. In the first place, the amendment which he quotes as depriving the people of an opportunity to vote upon the constitution was stricken out on my motion — absolutely stricken out and not voted on at all! In the second place, in lieu of it, a provision was voted in authorizing the convention to order an election whenever it pleased. I will read. After Trumbull had made his speech in the Senate, declaring that the constitution would probably be submitted to the people, although the bill was silent upon that subject, I made a few remarks, and offered two amendments, which you may find in the appendix to the Congressional Globe, Volume XXXIII, first session of the thirty-fourth Congress, page 795.

I quote:

Mr. Douglas : I have an amendment to offer from the Committee on Territories. On page 8. section 11, strike out the words "until the complete execution of this act no other election shall be held in said Territory," and insert the amendment which I hold in my hand.

The amendment was as follows:

That all persons who shall possess the other qualifica- tions prescribed for voters under this act, and who shall have been bona -fide inhabitants of said Territory since its organization, and who shall have absented themselves therefrom in consequence of the disturbances therein, and who shall return before the first day of October next, and become bona fide inhabitants of the Territory, with the intent of making it their permanent home, and shall present satisfactory evidence of these facts to the Board of Commissioners, shall be entitled to vote at said election,

324 DEBATE WITH DOUGLAS

and shall have their names placed on said corrected list of voters for that purpose.'

That amendment was adopted unanimously. After its adoption, the record shows the following:

Mr. Douglas : I have another amendment to offer from the committee to follow the amendment which has been adopted. The bill reads now : "And until the complete exe- cution of this act, no other election shall be held in said Territory." It has been suggested that it should be modi- fied in this way : "And to avoid all conflict in the complete execution of this act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby postponed until such time as said convention shall appoint" ; so that they can appoint the day in the event that there should be a failure to come into the Union.

This amendment was also agreed to without dissent.

Thus you see that the amendment quoted by Trum- bull at Alton as evidence against me, instead of being put to the bill by me, was stricken out on my mo- tion and never became a part thereof at all. You also see that the substituted clause expressly author- ized the convention to appoint such day of election as it should deem proper.

Mr. Trumbull, when he made that speech, knew these facts. He forged his evidence from beginning to end, and by falsifying the record he endeavors to bolster up his false charge. I ask you what you think of Trumbull thus going around the country, falsifying and garbling the public records? I ask you whether you will sustain a man who will descend to the in- famy of such conduct?

Mr. Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln] responsible for the slanders.

7/ £003. flJV.