lEnfllieb 1Rca^^nflo
THE LINCOLN AND
DOUGLAS DEBATES
Kmnnn^Mni
LINCOLN ROOM
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
LIBRARY
^
/- 7- '^r.
THE LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS
DEBATES
/// the Senatorial Campaign of 18^8 in Illinois, between
Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Arnohi Douglas;
contaiiiinor also Lincoln's Address at
Cooper Institute
WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
BY
ARCHIBALD LEWIS ROUTON, M.A.
Assistant Professor of English in New York University
NEW YORK
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
1905
Copyright, 1905
BY
HENRY HOLT AXD COMPANY
L>
PREFACE
In his " Twenty Years of Conp^ress," James G.
Blaine characterizes the Lincohi-Douglas debates
of 1858 as " a discussion which at the time was so
interesting as to enchain the attention of a nation,
in its immediate effect so striking as to effect the
organization of parties, in its subsequent effect so
powerful as to change the fate of milHons." But
both as historical documents and as masterpieces of
the art of debate they are little known by the present
generation. The editor of these selections has pre-
pared them for the sake of their indisputable value
in both respects. As a teacher of argumentation
he has felt the lack of available material illustrative
of the thrust-and-parry of actual debate, and de-
signs this volume to supply what is almost a total
deficiency among edited specimens of argument.
Of the seven joint debates of the campaign the
speeches in three are printed entire — those in the
debates at Freeport, at Galesburgh, and at Alton ;
being the second, fifth, and seventh of the series.
They took place before audiences ranging in politi-
cal sympathy from a strongly preponderant aboli-
tion sentiment at Freeport, to an equally preponder-
ant pro-slavery sentiment at Alton. Their subject
matter includes all the essential issues of the cam-
iii
iv PREFACE
paign. But though the subject matter of one debate
is broadly similar to that of the others, their very
repetitions before audiences of widely differing tem-
perament afford a rare opportunity for the study of
persuasive adaptation, as well as for observing the
development of the central issue, and the growth of
Lincoln's power in debate under the stress of the
campaign. The debate at Ottawa, the first of the
series, and one of those most frequently quoted,
the editor has chosen to omit, as being in his opinion
one of the least definite in its presentation of the
essential issues. The debates selected are prefaced
by Lincoln's speech of June i6, 1858, at Spring-
field, Illinois, with which he opened the campaign ;
and supplemented by the famous Cooper Institute
address of February 25, i860, as Lincoln's ulti-
mate and perfected statement of the anti-slavery
argument.
The annotation seeks to make clear, without the
necessity of further historical reference, the mean-
ing and significance of the political and the personal
elements in the debates; it also correlates recurring
discussions of identical topics, and is suggestive
upon matters of logical process, and upon methods
of persuasion.
The text of this selection is substantially that of
the campaign edition of i860, published by Follett,
Foster & Co., of Columbus, Ohio. This edition,
published with Lincoln's consent, without annota-
tion, as a Republican campaign document, was
based on the reports of Lincoln's speeches in the
PREFACE V
Chicap:o Tribune and of Doug!:las's speeches in the
Chicago Times. A few obvious grammatical
errors, indicative of a hasty revision of the speeches
for printing, the editor has taken the Hberty to
correct.
The editor records with especial pleasure the
cordial encouragement in the preparation of this
volume reccnved from Mr. Horace White, of the
New York Ez'enitii^ Post, who, as a reporter for
the Chicago Tribune, accompanied Mr. Lincoln
throughout the campaign of 1858. He is also under
obligation to his colleague. Prof. Marshall S. Brown
of- the Department of History, for a critical reading
of the proof of the introduction.
A. L. B.
New York University,
August I, 1^0^.
The following publishers hazfe kindly permitted the use
of quotations from zvorks published tinder their respective
copyrights: D. Appleton & Company, The Century Com-
pany, Houghton, Mifflin & Company, and The Macmillan
Company.
CONTENTS
Introduction ix
Lincoln's Springfield Speech 1
Second Joint Debate at Freeport 14
Fifth Joint Debate at Galesburgh 79
The Seventh Joint Debate at Alton .... 142
Lincoln's Address at Cooper Institute .... 215
Notes 247
▼u
INTRODUCTION
The senatorial campaign of 1858 in Illinois de-
rives its historical importance from the fact that
its influence was decisive in determining the political
crisis of i860. Before the great series of debates
with Stephen A. Douglas in that campaign, Abra-
ham Lincoln was a figure of local significance. As a
result of what was essentially his forensic victory
in the struggle with Douglas, he came to share with
William H. Seward the leadership of the national
Republican party, and entered naturally upon the
path that led to the presidency in i860. Before
that campaign, Douglas, whose equal as a par-
liamentary debater and party organizer Amer-
ican history has hardly produced, had been for
eight years the most forceful leader of the Demo-
cratic party, and the most conspicuous figure in
national politics. As a result of the debates
with Lincoln, the support of the South, upon which
he had need to depend for furtherance of his
ambition to become president, was irreparably
lost, and the great national party whose candidate
he hoped to be was broken in twain. Beginning
with this campaign the long struggle against
slavery entered, tliereforc, upon its final phase. The
X INTRODUCTION
ultimate leader In the struggle of a century to over-
throw slavery had appeared.
The speeches comprising the body of this volume
contain a full statement — perhaps the best state-
ment— of the slavery question as it appeared at
that time to two classes of people: those who in
varying degrees favored the institution of slavery,
and those who, though they did not yet aim to
exterminate slavery from the states in which it was
rooted, were seeking to prevent its extension to
soil upon which it was not yet established.
The fundamental issue of 1858 — the right or
wrong of slavery — in its broad and universal
statement of moral principle needs little elucida-
tion for the student of to-day. But the political
aspects under which it presented itself at that time
are less familiar, and along with the party politics
and the personalities of the hour deserve explana-
tion. It is the purpose of this introduction briefly
to set forth the origin of the three kinds of issues
which appear in the debates — questions of principle,
questions of party politics, questions arising from
attacks made by either candidate upon the political
acts of the other; also to supplement this account
with some portraiture of the debaters themselves
as they appeared to those who listened, and to give
a general description of the great contest which
they waged.
The invention of the cotton-gin by Eli Whitney
in 1793 multiplied by fifty the amount of cotton
which a single laborer could separate from the
INTRODUCTION xi
cotton seed in a day's work. This sincfle invention
made possible an increase of one thousand fold in
the annual production of cotton in the South be-
tween 1791 and i860. Upon this economic basis the
institution of slavery which, it had been confidently
supposed by all statesmen, South as well as North,
was in process of extinction, reared a more sig-
nificant growth, and became a social and political
factor of the most formidable magnitude. But for
the cotton-gin Maryland, \'irginia, and Kentucky
would have been reclaimed from slavery, and Mis-
souri would never have had it. After 1793 the pros-
perity of the South was founded upon cotton, and
cotton fostered slavery. '' That slavery is a blessing
and cotton is king were associated ideas, with which
the Southern mind was imbued in the decade be-
before the war." ^
The moral sense of the evil of slavery awakened
but slowly in the North, and the people of that
section were little inclined to attack the institution
except when the extension of slavery to new terri-
tory was involved. The early Abolitionists of the
Garrisonian type — radicals who denounced the Con-
stitution as " an agreement with Hell " because it
temporized with slavery — were nearly as hateful to
the average Northern mind as to the Southern ;
nor did they ever become numerically representa-
tive of Northern opinion. The aggressive acts of
practical Northern statesmen in opposition to
* James Ford Rhodes' History of the United States,
Vol. i. p. 27.
xii INTRODUCTION
slavery were limited to thwarting its growth. Be-
fore 1861 no Free-Soiler, no Republican ever, with
the sanction of his party, maintained that under
the Constitution of the United States there could
be any interference from an external source with
slavery in any state where it already existed. The
aspect in which the slavery problem presented itself
to the American people, therefore, throughout the
long period from the admission of Missouri until
the outbreak of the Civil War, was, whether slavery
should be permitted to extend its sw^ay into terri-
tory where it was not already a recognized institu-
tion. Chiefly the question was : Shall slavery be
sanctioned in the National Territory and in the
new states from, time to time to be formed out of
ity
Whether the admission of Missouri in 1820
was at stake, or the Wilmot Proviso of 1846, or
the admission of California in 1850, or the passage
of the Fugitive Slave Law in the same year, or
the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, or the Dred
Scott decision, or the Lecompton Constitution pro-
posed for Kansas in 1857; the broad outlines of
the general problem remained the same.
Thoughtful men in the years before the great
crisis grouped themselves upon this general ques-
tion in ways which the party lines of any given
time only imperfectly represented. First, there
were the extreme radicals : on the side of the South
they were the " Fire-eaters," who were willing to
use any means to extend slavery ; on the side of the
INTRODUCTION xiil
North they were the Abohtionists, who, with Gar-
rison, beheved slavery " a damning crime " with
which no compromise was possible, and who pro-
posed the immediate freedom and enfranchisement
of the nesj^roes. To g^ain their amX they would,
like the "Fire-eaters," sacrifice the Constitution
and the Union itself. Then there were those of
more moderate views, embracing the great bulk of
people of all parties who lay between these two
extremes. The mass of people in the South deemed
slavery the real source of their prosperity, and be-
came ultimately convinced of its soundness in
principle. They further believed that its existence
was sanctioned by the Constitution throughout the
Union wherever people chose to have it. Yet until
late in the decade preceding the War of Secession
they continued for the most part to subordinate
their interpretation of the rights of slavery to the
maintenance of the Union. The mass of people in
the North deemed slavery wTong, but they believed
there was no constitutional sanction for interfering
with it in states where it already existed, and they
deprecated any action respecting it which might
endanger the Union. In addition to these four
classes, " there w^ere men so constituted that thev
could decline to take any thought whether slavery
were right or wrong, and could deal with every
question that arose concerning it as a question of
expediency, or of law and precedent."^
J William G. Brown : Stephen Arnold Douglas, p. 65.
(Riverside Biographical Series.) An admirable summary.
xiv INTRODUCTION
Except for the radicals^ the people of all parties
and sections were in a mood, whatever their specific
political creed, which did not preclude the possi-
bility of compromise. Until the actual dawn of
Secession, the history of the slavery question in
America is a history of compromises between the
effort of the slave states to extend their influence
into new territory, and the gradually awakening
moral opposition of the free states. Contributing
to the tendency to compromise was a strong feeling
that the slavery question was not a proper political
issue. The greater parties were accordingly slow
to formulate a definite policy respecting it. Until
the formation of the Republican party in 1856,
both of the great parties of the country, the Whigs
and the Democrats, drew support from Northern
and Southern states alike. The Whigs, Northern
and Southern, and the Democrats, Southern and
Northern, differed within their own ranks upon
the Fugitive Slave Law, upon the extension of
slavery to the territories, upon its suppression in
the District of Columbia, and upon other questions
of policy respecting slavery ; but they tried to keep
these differences, however intense, out of their
party platforms, and, so long as it remained possi-
ble, deprecated the division of national parties
upon sectional lines. The Liberty party in the
North, the party of the Abolitionists, did, it is true,
from 1840 to 1850 antagonize slavery in the main
plank of its platform, just as the Prohibition party
to-day antagonizes liquor selling; but the party
INTRODUCTION xv
drew small electoral support and exerted only a
moral influence. Not until after 1854 did the
slavery question dominate all party platforms.
In 1848, the year when the WMiigs elected Gen-
eral Taylor to the presidency, the slavery issue had
advanced to a new and threatening aspect. Political
power in Congress stood evenly poised between
fifteen slave and fifteen free states. Slavery and
the slave trade prevailed in the District of Colum-
l)ia. An obsolete law compelling the return of
fugitive slaves who escaped into free territory en-
cumbered the statute books. By the terms of the
famous Missouri Compromise of 1820, in all of the
territory of the Louisiana Purchase lying north of
latitude 36° 30', slavery had been forever forbidden,
except in the Territory of Missouri, then promised
admission to the Union, and formally admitted
in 182 1 with a state constitution which for-
bade the legislature to make any restrictions
upon slavery. In the territory south of 36° 30',
slavery was permitted. Tliis Act of Congress,
though capable of repeal like any other act,
had been enacted with such assurance by all parties
that it was to be a permanent settlement of the
whole controversy over slavery, and had so long
stood the test of time, that it seemed to have the
stability and authority of an article of the Constitu-
tion. All these features of the situation as it
existed in 1848 seemed not inconsistent with con-
tinued quiet. But the fruits of the Mexican war —
the territory out of which California, New Mexico,
xvi INTRODUCTION
and Utah were afterward formed — had been ceded
by Mexico in a treaty signed in the February pre-
ceding General Taylor's election. The Southern
element in Congress, already accused of plotting
to secure the admission of Texas and of fomenting
the Mexican war as a means of adding new slave
territory to the United States, now manifested a
definite design to open this territory to slavery.
But no legislation had been so far enacted.
The Wilmot Proviso, introduced in Congress in
1846 by David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, propos-
ing to prohibit slavery in all territory to be ac-
quired from ^lexico, after uniting Northern sen-
timent against slavery as it had never been
united before, had failed to pass after arousing
extraordinary debate.
The disposition of this new territory in the
Southwest, respecting slavery, was the nucleus of
a growing and ominous unrest. In 1850 CaHfornia,
of her own motion^ applied for admission to the
Union w^ith a state constitution prohibiting slavery.
Since 1792-3 Congress had followed the general
policy of admitting states to the Union in pairs,
one slave and one free, so as to preserve the balance
of powxr between the slave and the free states.
But to pair with California no slave territory stood
ready for statehood. The South opposed the ad-
mission of California except upon the principle of
compensation. Thus was constituted a complex
problem of many aspects : the South wished to
open the territories of New Mexico and Utah to
INTROnrCTION xvii
slavery ; she desired the enactment of a more effi-
cient law for the recovery of fu^c^itive slaves ; from
some quarters of the South came the demand that
Texas be divided into four states, accordin^: to a
privilejT^e reserved by the national government when
Texas was admitted to the Union. Texas herself
presented for settlement certain monetary claims
and a troublesome boundary dispute with New
Mexico. From the North, on the other hand,
came demands for the prohibition of the interstate
slave trade ; for the suppression of both slavery and
the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and
for the passage of the Wilmot Proviso.
After a long struggle out of the flux of contend-
ing interests emerged at last, under the leadership
of Henry Clay and Stephen A. Douglas, the great
Compromise of 1850. By the terms of this agree-
ment California was admitted as a free state ; the
remainder of the area ceded by Mexico was formed
into territories with no restriction as to slavery ;
a new law for the recovery of fugitive slaves was
enacted: Texas received $10,000,000 in lieu of all
her claims, including those in the boundary dis-
pute with New Mexico ; and the slave trade, but
not slavery, was i)rohibitcd in the District of
Columbia. No mention in the final settlement
was made of the interstate slave trade, or of the
proposition to divide Texas into four states. The
debates in Congress ui)on these measures furnisli
much of the most splendid oratory in our legisla-
tive history. In the galaxy of speakers were
xviii INTRODUCTION
Clay, Webster, Calhoun, Cass, Benton — veteran
leaders all — and the bold and youthful Douglas.
All of them save Calhoun believed, or hoped, that
now an ultimate settlement of the problem of
slavery was reached. When Douglas returned
from Washington to his home in Illinois it was
with the declaration that he never expected to ad-
dress Congress again upon any aspect of the
slavery problem.
Douglas's share in the legislation of 1850 made
him a national leader of the Democratic party.
Born in Vermont in 181 3, and emigrating first to
New York and afterward to Illinois, he had made
himself leader of the Jacksonian Democracy in his
neighborhood before he was twenty-one years of
age. Great personal magnetism, extraordinary
energy of character and strength of intellect, and
remarkable skill in debate, joined to a comprehen-
sive knowledge of the political history of his
country, prognosticated a rise in political station,
almost unexampled in its swiftness and its au-
dacity. By his discomfiture of a local orator of
some repute, Douglas, who, though somewhat less
than five feet in stature,^ possessed a great voice,
a deep chest and a massive head, gained with his
first political address the nickname of " The Little
Giant," an epithet which clung to him throughout
his career. Beginning as district-attorney, he was
next elected to the state legislature in 1836, where
* Henry Villard, in his Memoirs (Vol. i. p. 55), says
that Douglas was "not over four and a half feet high."
INTROniTTfOM xix
he was fcllow-momber with tlic Whi_<^ rci)resenta-
tive from Sani^aniDii County, Al)rahani Lincohi,
a quaint, unq-ainly person nearly two feet taller
than Douglas, noted at that time for his rugged
honesty and his knack at story-telling. Rivals the
two men shortly became, but strangely enough, not
in politics, but for the hand of Mary Todd, a young
woman whom Lincoln subsequently married.
Otherwise the race was for long to the swifter
Douglas. In 1841, after serving a brief appoint-
ment as Secretary of State in Illinois, he was
elected by the legislature, when he was twenty-
eight years old, a justice of the Supreme Court.
Two years later, when he was already leader of
his party in the state, he entered Congress as a
representative.
In the House his aggressive energy made an im-
mediate impression. How he appeared as an orator
to a contemporary^ of elegant and classical taste is
revealed in a passage in the diary of John Quincy
Adams : " His face was convulsed, his gesticula-
tion frantic, and he lashed himself into such a heat
that if his body had been of combustible matter it
would have burnt out. In the midst of his roaring,
to save himself from choking, he stripped and cast
away his cravat^ unbuttoned his waistcoat, and had
the air and aspect of a half-naked pugilist. And
this man comes from a judicial bench and passes
for an eloquent orator ! " But to other observers
he seemed the personification of the virility, the
constructive force, and the simplicity of the new
XX INTRODVCTIOM
and great West.^ And before he entered the Senate
in 1846 he had taken on all the external refinement
of Washington life without loss of native strength.
From the first he was the exponent of a vigorous
foreign policy, and the advocate of internal im-
provements upon a comprehensive scale. Upon
the moral aspect of slavery Douglas was indiflfer-
ent. He was one of those " who could deal with
every question concerning it as a question of ex-
pediency or of law and precedent." Never in his
public career did he admit that slavery was wrong.
His opponents asserted, and historians believe, that,
while Douglas was animated by a genuine desire
for the development of the material resources, and
the expansion of the national territory and power
of America, he was nevertheless an unsafe guide
in the moral issues of politics, either because he
was controlled by an overmastering ambition for
political power, or because he was incapable of
acute moral discernment.
Thus appeared Stephen A. Douglas to his con-
temporaries in 1850. Already he was, at thirty-seven,
the guiding spirit of his party in Congress ; and for
ten years to come he was to be the boldest and most
skillful leader, the readiest debater and the most
superb fighter in American politics. Throughout
that fateful decade he was destined to be the cen-
tral actor in the mighty national drama.
1 See quotation from J. J. Ampere's Promenade en
Ameriqiie, in J. F. Rhodes' History of the United States,
Vol. i. p. 245,
INTRODUCTION xxi
For four years the country dwelt in comparative
freedom from the slavery agitation. Forty-four
leading" members of Congress from free and slave
States alike signed an agreement that they would
not support for any office whatever any man " who
was not known to oppose the renewal, in any form,
of agitation upon the subject of slaver}'." ^ Pro-
foundly unpojmlar was Sunmer's early attempt to
revive in Congress the discussion of the Fugitive
Slave Law. With the laurels of the achieved com-
promise bright upon his head, Douglas was a
prominent candidate of the younger Democracy for
the presidential nomination of 1852. But he, like
Cass, his chief rival, lacked Southern support, and
the nomination passed to Franklin Pierce.
For two years longer quiet prevailed. Suddenly
with hardlv the shadow of a warning, and accordincf
to his subsequent statement, entirely upon his own
initative, Douglas on January 4, 1854, reported from
the Committee on- Territories a bill to organize the
terj-itory of Nebraska out of the great area, north
and west of Missouri, which lay wholly north of
latitude 36° 30'. The startling feature of the pro-
posal was a clause authorizing the people of the
proposed territory to decide for themselves whether
they would have slavery or not. On January 21,,
Douglas substituted for this measure the famous
Kansas-Nebraska bill, which differed from its pre-
decessor only in two particulars. In its final form
'J. F. Rhodes' History of the United States, Vol. i. p.
207.
xxii INTRODUCTION
it affirmed that the slavery restriction of the Mis-
souri Compromise was inconsistent with the prin-
ciples of the legislation of 1850, and was therefore
inoperative and void; and it further divided the
territory described in the former bill into two
parts, the northern to be called Nebraska, and the
southern, Kansas.
Throughout the country the measure produced
the most violent sensation. To the South it was
an enormous concession, for it meant the repeal of
the rock-ribbed Missouri Compromise. By infer-
ence it opened the whole of the national territory
to slavery, subject only to the will of the territorial
inhabitants. It meant the abdication by Congress
of the right, hitherto never seriously questioned,
to exercise absolute authority over the affairs of
the territories. In the North no Southern aggres-
sion ever provoked such stupendous and unanimous
wrath. In mass meetings, in the press and the
pulpit, in petitions to Congress, and the protests of
legislatures, popular indignation gave a vast and
weighty utterance. Except in Illinois, the Demo-
cratic party throughout the North at first neither
desired nor dared to support Douglas. No politi-
cal leader was ever more execrated. By his own
declaration he '' could have travelled from Boston
to Chicago by the light of his own burning
effigies." ^
The principle embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska
bill was called the principle of " popular sove-
1 W. G. Brown : Stephen A, Douglas, p. 86,
INTROnrCTION xxiii
rcignty." It was not a new one. In 1847 Lewis
Cass had written a letter to one Nicholson in Nash-
ville, Tenn.. in which he proposed to settle the
slavery qnestion in the territories in a very simple
way. It was to permit the people of each territory
to determine for themselves whether they should
have slavery or not. This plan seemed to accord
with the democratic principle of individual liherty
which has at all times lain at the foundation of
our government. Cass favored it because he did
not believe Congress had the right to legislate upon
the domestic institutions of the territories, and be-
cause the slavery question was exactly of the sort
which the people of a territory should determine
for themselves. As a solution of the slavery prob-
lem ** popular sovereignty " evaded all responsi-
bility on the part of the national government for
the conduct of domestic affairs in the territories.
Douglas early seized upon the principle, made it
his own, and to the outbreak of war continued to
maintain it in debate, and sought to embody it in
legislation. As applied to the state of the slavery
question in 1854, "popular sovereignty'' was
inconsistent with the provisions of the ]\Iis-
souri Compromise, which excluded slavery from
all territory north of latitude 30° 30', excei)t in
Missouri. It was in conflict also with an ex-
treme Southern doctrine, which maintained that
the right to hold slaves as property was one
with which neither Congress nor any territorial
legislature had the right to interfere. It was
xxiv INTRODUCTION
contrary, finally, to the doctrine that human bond-
age was a moral wrong, for the existence of w^hich
the national government was responsible wherever
its authority was supreme. Such was the principle
of popular, or " squatter " sovereignty, which
aroused so profoundly the antagonism of the
North.
In Congress the bill was bitterly assailed. In
the Senate, Chase of Ohio, and Seward of New
York, and Sumner of Massachusetts, with others,
denounced it as a betrayal of the North by its re-
peal of the Compromise of 1820, and as part of a
plot to nationalize slavery ; and they accused Doug-
las of bidding, by the bill, for Southern support
for the presidential nomination of 1856. But in the
face of the storm Douglas did not quail. One by
one he met in debate and overcame the ablest
leaders of the opposition. The severe logic of
Chase, the lofty moral indignation of Sumner, the
polished periods of Everett, the adroitness of
Seward with his clear vision of high moral law
were no match in hand-to-hand debate for the
astute resourcefulness of the bold and masterful
Douglas.
Little by little he brought into line behind him the
amazed and partially disaffected elements of his
party in Congress. In spite of the feeling which
convulsed the North there was no revolt against
the powerful party organization in the upper and
lower houses of legislation, of which Douglas was
the undisputed head. To thwart the attempt of
IXTRODUCTION xxv
Chase to divide llic Xorthern and Southern win^^s
of liis party by shrewd ameiuhnents to the bill,
and to calm the Northern Democracy, who feared
the measure was the bep^innin^^ of a conspiracy to
nationalize slavery, he inserted this amendinj;]^
clause : " It beinp^ the true intent and meanini^ of
this bill not to legislate slavery into any territory
or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave
the inhabitants thereof perfectly free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their own
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United
States." Against the accusation that he was guilty
of political unfaith in moving the appeal of the
Missouri Compromise, he ingeniously contended
that the repeal had in effect been accomplished by
the legislation of the Compromise of 1850, wherein
Utah and New Mexico were allowed to determine
for themselves whether or not they should admit
slavery.^ Thus, declared Douglas, the principle of
popular sovereignty, or congressional non-inter-
vention, was made to supersede the principle of
1820, the congressional prohibition of slavery north
of latitude 36° 30'.
Step by step the bill was driven to its passage.
On March 3. 1854, it passed the Senate by a vote
of 27 to 14. One month later it i)assed the House,
and in May, President Pierce made it a law by his
"^ It was of some significance that part of Utah lay north
of latitude 36° 30', though that area was not a portion of
the territory of the Louisiana Purchase, originally affected
by the Missouri Compromise.
xxvi INTRODUCTION
signature. No more amazing personal triumph
than this of Douglas has occurred in our history;
nor so great and fateful a sacrifice of national
peace to individual ambition. Yet, from the point
of view of those who believed in slavery and of
those also who were indifferent to its moral wrong,
it can, now as then, be maintained that the policy
of Douglas, while great with ambition, was neither
inconsistent, dishonest, nor insincere.
Anger and turmoil throughout the North greeted
the passage of the bill. Upon his return to Chicago
Douglas stood for four consecutive hours before a
huge mass meeting attempting to make his great
voice heard in his defense ; but in vain. That night
Douglas was set upon and was in danger of his life.
Throughout the country party lines were broken up,
and all party organizations were either in dissolu-
tion, or in a state which seemed to forbode it. The
Democratic party itself, the party of Douglas, was
shaken to its foundation. The old Whig party had
been crushed in 1852 in the victory of Pierce, be-
cause of its incapacity to meet the rising issues of
the time, and no organization had yet filled its
place. The Free-Soilers, the successors of the
Liberty party, the heirs to its opposition to the ex-
tension of slavery, had been, though yet a minor
party, of growing significance. The " Know-
Nothings," embracing a small proportion of the
Whigs and some Democrats, stood upon a curious
platform of opposition to foreigners and Roman
Catholics; but this party had no promise of per-
INTRODUCTION xxvH
manence. The wrong of slavery, its aggressive
purpose, its threatened domination of the country
broke upon the aroused moral vision of the North
in all their naked enormity. To all people and
parties alike, it was apparent that slavery was the
inevitable problem of the hour ; that compromise
would be extremely difficult if not henceforward
impossible. Upon the general platform of opposi-
tion to the Kansas-Nebraska Act gradually as-
sembled a body of voters who first called themselves
the Anti-Nebraska men. They ultimately included
most of the old Northern Whigs, many Democrats,
and all of the Free-Soilers. These men organized
conventions in 1854 for the first time under the
name of the Republican party.
The presidential election of 1856 loomed ahead.
By extraordinary eflforts Douglas had partially
overcome the opposition to his policy in Illinois.
In the fall of 1854 his party elected one state
officer, the only Democratic candidate for a state
office elected that year in any Northern state. But
in 1855 the Illinois Legislature chose, as his col-
league in the United States Senate, Lyman Trum-
bull, an Anti-Nebraska Democrat. Trumbull's
chief rival was a Whig, Abraham Lincoln, by this
time widely known in his state as a lawyer, a politi-
cal leader, and a campaign orator of great effective-
ness in direct and homely methods of presenting
truth. But the center of the national drama was now
Kansas, where Freedom and Slavery were grap-
pling in actual warfare for the control of the ter-
xx%4ii IXTRODUCTION
riton'. Nebraska by common consent was a free
territon-, but desperate efforts were making to win
its southern neighbor for slaver}-. Immigration
bureaus, Xonh and South, were sending colonists
thither. The pro-slaver\- immigrants formed a
legislature first, and sanctioned slaver\-. The Free-
Soil men, in a numerical majorit)% ignored the pro-
ceeding, chose Topeka as their capital, and. after
framing a constitution which excluded slaver}^
they applied to Congress for admission as a state.
In December, 1855. Us'O rival governments existed
in the territor}-, and brawls and bloodshed were of
frequent occurrence. President Pierce favored the
pro-slaver\' government Douglas, in the Senate,
proposed that Kansas be admitted when her popu-
lation should reach 93.420, a population sufficient to
entitle her to one representative in Congress.
Meanwhile matters grew worse and a state of civil
war prevailed. Under these conditions the presi-
dential campaign of 1856 dawned. The first
fruits of the Kansas-Xebraska Act were ready to
pluck.
On June 2d, the Democratic national convention
met at Cincinnati. The leading candidates were
President Pierce, Douglas, and James Buchanan.
The time was unpropitious for Douglas. Ten days
earlier the warfare in Kansas had reached a climax
in the sacking of Lawrence, the leading Free-Soil
town. There vras a tendency to lay the Kansas dis-
turbance at the door of the author of the Kansas-
Xebraska bill. In addition, the disorganized and
1 XT ROD VCTIOM xxix
Ueakened state of the party made it necessary to
conserve every strategic advantage. Buchanan
lived in Pennsylvania, then the pivotal state. Be-
sides this the South, though favorable to Douglas,
preferred a weaker man in the White House, a
servant, not a leader. On the fifteenth ballot
Buchanan was nominated over Douglas, Pierce
having withdrawn. The goal of his ambition, to
attain which Douglas had paid so heavy a price,
receded four years further into the future.
Before the election the Administration suc-
ceeded in restoring order in Kansas. A sobering
concern for the safety of the Union succeeded the
indignation over the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The
South stood solid for Buchanan. The National Re-
publican party, headed by Fremont, was not entirely
organized from its heterogeneous elements. In the
election Buchanan received 174 electoral votes, to
114 for Fremont, and 8 for Fillmore, who was the
candidate of the ** Know-Nothings " and the rem-
nant of the Whigs. Buchanan won the title of
President, but Douglas had dictated the platform
and retained the reality of power.
The issue of statehood for Kansas remained
prominent, but in 1857 it was overshadowed for a
time by a decision of the United States Supreme
Court, upon the power of Congress over slavery' in
the territories, and the status of negroes under the
Constitution. In the debates upon the Kansas-
Nebraska bill, Douglas in reply to a question
whether in his opinion the people of a territory
XXX INTRODUCTION
could, under the Constitution of the United States,
exclude slavery from its limits, had answered :
" That is a question for the courts." Now the de-
cision upon that question was forthcoming. On
jMarch 6, 1857, two days after Buchanan's inaugu-
ration, an opinion was handed down, touching the
right to freedom of a negro, Dred Scott, who, while
a slave, had been brought by his master into Illinois,
where slavery was illegal, and then into the Louisi-
ana territory, north of latitude 36° 30'. With two
important dissenting opinions the court, with Chief
Justice Taney presiding, decided the following
essential points : first, that negroes were not in-
cluded in the statement of the Declaration of In-
dependence that all men are created equal; second,
that no negro could become a citizen of the United
States ; third, that the right to hold slaves as prop-
erty was affirmed in the Constitution ; fourth, that
neither Congress nor any territorial legislature
could exclude slavery from any territory. The de-
cision had been anticipated. But it was the greatest
victor}^ yet won by the South. Hereafter slavery
was free to go into the national territories as it
pleased. Again the North was stirred to its foun-
dations, and a readjustment of party lines w^as
necessary. The charge that there was a conspiracy
to nationalize slavery was renewed. It w-as charged
that Buchanan and the Supreme Court were in
collusion, and with anxious hearts the opponents
of slavery predicted a further decision which should
open the states to slavery, and thus accomplish the
INTRODUCTION xxxi
full design of the conspirators. To Douglas, how-
ever, the decision was a source of confusion.
At once he declared the decision was right and
must be maintained. lUit what of "popular sover-
eignty," the principle upon which he had built his
statesmanship? If under the Constitution slaves
were lawful property in any territory, what became
of the doctrine that the people of a territory could
admit slavery or not as they chose? The problem
was serious. It remained to be fought out in the
campaign of 1858.
The decision had also the peculiar effect of
making essentially the whole platform of the new
Republican party, in its opposition to the extension
of slavery, unconstitutional. While the position of
the party was morally right, it was difficult to de-
fend it in argument, when every point urged
involved a criticism of the highest judicial tribunal
in the land.
Emboldened by continued successes the Southern
leaders became more audacious and overbearing
than they had ever been. The North was thor-
oughly awake to the desperate character of the
conflict. Feeling ran so high in Congress that
personal combats were daily feared. By the Dred
Scott decision slavery was now legalized in Kansas.
But the problem of her statehood remained open.
Since 1856 three out of every four immigrants had
come from the free states. At this juncture a
brazen conspiracy was formed to bring Kansas
into the Union under a pro-slavery constitution.
xxxii INT ROD UCTION
Sanctioned by the territorial legislature, a conven-
tion met near the close of 1857 at Lecompton to
frame a constitution for the new state. The free-
state men, dissatisfied with the mode of its organiza-
tion, refused to attend, and its pro-slaverv' members,
after drawing up an instrument favoring slavery,
fell in with the scheme, devised by a Southern junto
at Washington, of submitting it to the people in
such a way that they had no chance to vote against
the constitution as a whole, but only " for the Con-
stitution with slavery " or '' for the Constitution
without slaver}'." And if the " Constitution with-
out slaver}^ " were chosen, it was provided that
there should be no interference with slavery wher-
ever in the Territorv it alreadv existed. At the
election on December 21, 1857, the free-state men
refused to vote, and the " Constitution with
slaverv' " was chosen by a vote of 6143 to 589. In
reaction against this proceeding the free-state men
called a special election on January 4, 1858, to vote
simply for or against the Lecompton Constitution.
But this time the pro-slaver\- men, deeming the
matter already settled, refused to vote, and the poll
showed 10,266 votes against the Constitution to 138
for it with slaver\', and 24 for it without slavery.
Now the contest was brought before Congress.
With the Constitution as adopted on December 21,
1857, the Lecompton plotters formally applied for
the admission of Kansas to the L'nion. President
Buchanan, utterly subservient, gave the influence of
the Administration to the iniquitous scheme.
IXTRODCCTION xxxiii
For Douglas it was a critical moment. If as
leader of his party he lent his powerful aid to the
plot, it meant a total and humiliating surrender to
the pro-slavery propaganda. It meant the sacrifice
of the spirit, if not the letter of popular sovereignty,
for the Lecompton Constitution in no sense ex-
pressed the voice of the people. It meant the loss
of enough of his Northern following to imperil his
re-election to the Senate in the state campaign in
Illinois about to begin. On the other hand if he
opposed the measure he would sacrifice the political
support of the South for which he had paid so
heavily. To the surprise of the country Doug-
las met the issue by a formal revolt from the policy
of his party, and a refusal to support the Lecompton
scheme. \'igorously attacking the measure, he pro-
cured its defeat in the House of Representatives.
A modified form of the scheme, called the Ens^lish
Bill, next proposed, offered the people of Kansas a
large land grant if they would accept the Lecomp-
ton Constitution with slaver}', at a new election to
be held in August of 1858. But if they refused
thus to accept the constitution they were to be de-
nied admission until their population reached
93.420. Douglas opposed this bill as vigorously
as the other, but he was unable to defeat it. The
people of Kansas, however, at the appointed election
refused the bribe of land, and rejected statehood as
thus offered by a vote of five to one.
Save for Douglas the original Lecompton plot
would have succeeded. Among the Southern
xxxiv INTRODUCTION
leaders wrath at his procedure succeeded amaze-
ment. The Washington Union, the organ of the
Administration, called him '' traitor," " renegade,"
" deserter." " I have very little doubt," wrote a
journalist at Washington, '' that if compelled to
choose between Douglas and Seward for Presi-
dent, the whole band of pro-slavery fire-eaters, with
Toombs at their head, would vote for the latter."
But among the Northern leaders amazement gave
way to perplexity. The Liberator, the organ of the
New England Abolitionists, began to commend
Douglas. The Republicans viewed him with
curious speculation. He was now fighting their
battle. He had broken from his own party. Could
he be planning to join them, place himself at their
head, and with them fight the growing power of
slavery? It was a profoundly interesting possi-
bility. It appealed to many prominent Republicans,
like Horace Greeley and Anson G. Burlingame,
who began to manifest unwonted friendliness. But
Douglas, whatever dreams he may for a time have
had, had fought the Lecompton conspiracy because
it was a dishonorable betrayal of popular sov-
ereignty. That principle, in spite of the Dred
Scott decision, he still maintained as affording the
best solution of the slavery problem. He did not
care, any more than in 1854, " whether slavery were
voted down or voted up." Though he was now
thwarting the advance of the slave power, he could
not become a Republican. The Northern wing of
his party comprehended his attitude and endorsed
INTRODUCTION xxxv
his policy. Nevertheless, this uncertainty about his
position, the p^littering possibility of his conversion
to the Reimblican party, was a factor of vital im-
portance in adjustinp;- the delicate political balance
in the canipaip^n of 1858.
When Douglas returned to Illinois to enter upon
the contest for re-election to the Senate, the out-
look in the state indicated a severe campaign.
There was a powerful and growing anti-slavery
party, though it was composed of heterogeneous
elements that had been, not without difficulty, fused
into agreement upon a specific policy. There was
also a body of Buchanan Democrats who voiced
the bitter antagonism of the Washington Adminis-
tration against the destroyer of the Lecompton plot.
On the other hand Douglas was now in enthusiastic
favor with the mass of his party in Illinois, who sus-
tained him in his revolt and applauded his con-
tinued maintenance of " popular sovereignty " and
the Dred Scott decision, in the faith that the two
were not irreconcilable. Besides this body of sup-
port, many national leaders of the Republican party
openly advocated his return to the Senate, and out
of admiration or gratitude for what he had done
and hope for what he might become, deprecated
opposition to him on the part of the Republicans of
Illinois.
In this peculiar state of affairs the Republican
state convention, on June 16, at Springfield, under
circumstances of great enthusiasm tendered a
unanimous nomination for the senatorial vacancy to
xxxvi INT ROD UCTION
Abraham Lincoln. On the evening of that day *
]\Ir. Lincoln opened the campaign with the speech
which begins the series in this volume.
The candidate thus honored, one whose fame was
only just beginning to creep beyond the confines of
his state, was a man of lowly origin and of singu-
lar power. Educated in the constant companion-
ship of the Bible, Shakespeare, and Euclid, he had
no better opportunities for social or further mental
culture than what came to him as a local surveyor
or as a clerk in a country grocery. Grotesque in
appearance, he was in character strangely com-
pounded. He was lanky in body, abnormally tall,
awkward in movement, physically indolent, and
attired habitually in ill-fitting garments. In his
mentality he conjoined the coarse thought and
speech of the frontier tavern with absolute purity
of personal morals, and inflexible honesty. In him
dwelt also the extremes of melancholy and humor ;
the one bringing him in desperate wrestling at
times to the verge of madness, the other leading
him by beneficent reaction even to the length of
buffoonery. He possessed a profoundly intuitive
ijime i6 is given as the date of this speech by Nicolay
and Hay in their history; by J. F. Rhodes (History of
U. S., Vol. ii. p. 314); by J. T. Morse, in his life of
Lincoln in the American Statesmen series ; by Douglas him-
self in the Alton debate, and by other authorities. June
17 is given as the date in the edition of the speeches of
1858, revised by Lincoln for the campaign of i860. Hern-
don, in his life of Lincoln, is not clear upon the matter,
but seems also to indicate the latter date.
INTRODUCTION xxxvii
and sympathetic comprehension of the i)lain pco-
I)le, and throuc^h moral and ])hilosophic insii^ht
perhaps more than any other man he knew and re-
vered the Truth for its own sake. To these traits
were added ,c:reat power of concentration and an
intense personal ambition.
Admitted to the bar as soon as his opportunities
permitted, he came to be considered the best jury
lawyer in Illinois ; but in distinction from Doui^las
he was deemed a poor advocate in a bad cause. As
a lawyer he was keen in analysis, and eminently
fair in his statement of a case ; so that his opponents
could take no exception to his presentation of their
position. Quaint parables and illustrations, and an
inexhaustible fund of wit and humorous stories gave
a strong- popular appeal to logical argument that
was habitually sound in its process.
His transition to political life was gradual, but
natural. From 1834 to 1837 he served in the state
legislature, and made at that time a public asser-
tion that slavery was " founded on injustice and
bad policy." In 1846 he began his service of a
single term in Congress, and during the two years
voted for the Wilmot Proviso forty-two times.
The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854
recalled Lincoln from the practice of law to which
he had returned at the end of his term in Congress,
and he began to deliver speeches in opposition to
Douglas, who quickly recognized in him an unusual
opponent. In 1855 Lincoln was a strong Anti-Xe-
braska candidate for United States Senator, but
xxxviii INT ROD UCTION
under circumstances of rare magnanimity threw his
support to Judge Lyman Trumbull, whose election
was thereby assured. By 1856 his leadership of
the new Republican Party in his state was assured,
and he even received considerable support for the
presidential nomination.
Such was the man, strangely in contrast with
Douglas, who was now his opponent in the critical
campaign about to begin. Douglas did not under-
rate his antagonist. " I shall have my hands full,"
he said. " He is the strong man of his party — full
of wit, facts, dates — and the best stump speaker,
with his droll ways and dry jokes, in the West. He
is as honest as he is shrewd ; and if I beat him my
victory will be hardly won."
Conditions at the beginning of the campaign fa-
vored Douglas. His incomparable prestige as the
foremost American statesman made a handicap
against which Lincoln struggled without success.
As an attempt to offset the prestige of Douglas,
Lincoln determined upon the bold plan of meeting
him face to face in a series of joint debates. After
some hesitation Douglas accepted the challenge, and
seven meetings were agreed upon. The places set-
tled upon for the debates were, in order: Ottawa
and Freeport, in the Republican strongholds of
Northern Illinois ; Charleston, Galesburg, and
Ouincy, localities in Central Illinois, where the two
parties were nearly of equal strength ; and Jonesboro
and Alton, in the strongly Democratic region of
southern Illinois. The conditions of the first debate
INTRODUCTION xxxix
at Ottawa were that Doui^las should open with a
speech of an hour, with Lincohi to reply for an hour
and a half, and Doug^las to close with a rejoinder
of thirty minutes. In the remaining debates the
conditions were the same, except that the speakers
alternated in the privilege of opening and closing.
The resulting forensic struggle is comparable
but to one other in American history — that between
Webster and llayne. The two men presented a
picturesque contrast as they faced one another : —
Lincoln, with yellow, wrinkled face, and lean, un-
gainly figure, much over six feet in height ; Doug-
las, with massy figure, wonderful leonine head,
black flowing hair, swarthy complexion, brilliant,
dark, magnetic eyes, yet with less than five feet of
stature. As speakers they were not less in striking
contrast. *' The Democratic spokesman," writes
Mr. Henry \'illard in his Memoirs,^ '* commanded
a strong, sonorous voice, a rapid, vigorous utter-
ance, a telling play of countenance, impressive ges-
tures, and all the other art of the practiced speaker.
As far as external conditions were concerned, there
was nothing in favor of Lincoln. He had an . . .
indescribably gawky figure, an odd-featured, inex-
pressive, and altogether uncomely face. He used
singularly awkward, almost absurd, up-and-down
and sidewise movements of his body to cfive em-
phasis to his arguments. His voice was naturally
good, but he frequently raised it to an unnatural
pitch." Yet as he became moved 1)y the fervor of
1 Vol. i., pp. cjj-j.
xl INTRODUCTION
speaking, much of his harsh, awkward manner gave
place to a sort of natural freedom and dignity, and
even grace, his face became mobile and expressive,
and his voice, too, softened and became flexible and
melodious.
In their methods of debate they were equally un-
like. '' In the whole field of American politics," ^
say Nicolay and Hay, '' no man has equaled Douglas
in the expedients and strateg}^ of debate. Lacking
originality and constructive logic, he had great
facility in appropriating by ingenious restatement
the thoughts and formulas of others. He was tire-
less, ubiquitous, unseizable. It would have been as
easy to hold a globule of mercury under the finger's
tip as to fasten him to a point he wished to evade.
He could almost invert a proposition by a plausible
paraphrase. He delighted in enlarging an op-
ponent's proposition to a forced inference, ridicu-
lous in form and monstrous in dimensions. In
spirit he was alert, combative, aggressive; in man-
ner patronizing and aggressive by turns.
" Lincoln's mental equipment was of an entirely
different order. His principal weapon was direct
unswerving logic. His fairness of statement and
generosity of admission had long been proverbial.
For these intellectual duels with Douglas he pos-
sessed a power of analysis that easily outran and
circumvented the ' Little Giant's ' most extraordi-
nary gymnastics of argument. But disdaining
mere quibbles, he pursued lines of concise reason-
i Abraham Lincoln : A History. Vol. ii. p. 147.
INTRODUCTION xli
ing to maxims of constitutional law and political
morals. Douj^^las was also forcible in statement and
bold in assertion ; Lincoln was his superior in quaint
originality, aptness of phrase and subtlety of defini-
tion ; and oftentimes Lincoln's philosophic vision
and poetical fervor raised him to flights of eloquence
which were not possible to the fiber and temper of
his opponent."
To be victorious in the campaign Lincoln had
need to win the radical Abolition vote, the moderate
Republicans, and the conservative old-line Whigs
for whose support Douglas also strove, and the
Americans or " Know-nothings." The split be-
tween the Buchanan and the Douglas Democrats
favored him ; but on his own part he had to contend
against the lukewarm or hostile attitude of in-
fluential Republicans outside of Illinois.
The interest in the series of forensic encounters
rapidly grew. Vast audiences assembled from far
and near ; coming by train, journeying in slow
wagons over the dusty prairie roads even from ad-
joining states to hear the rival leaders, mounted in
the open air upon elevated platforms of rough-hewn
timbers, wrestle with each other's convictions of
policy and of duty. Newspapers throughout the
country published the speeches entire, and the at-
tention of the national public, drawn at first by Lin-
coln's unexpected survival of the earlier debates,
became fixed with unprecedented interest upon the
xuifolding drama of a local contest.
I'ersonally, Lincoln and Douglas were friends.
xHi INTRODUCTION
The intention of each was plainly to conduct the de-
bates upon a plane of courtesy and good-feeling.
Douglas was characteristically brimful of good
nature. He had called his opponent, maybe with
a patronizing accent, a '' kind, amiable, and in-
telligent gentleman, a good citizen and art honor-
able opponent/* Lincoln quizzically replied to the
compliments, declaring at Ottawa that he in
respect of praise was like the Hoosier with his
gingerbread : " He reckoned he liked it better than
any other man, and got less of it." And yet once
when Douglas spoke of Lincoln with too much as-
sumption of superiority ; and again, when he reiter-
ated without respectable evidence that Lincoln and
Trumbull had conspired, in 1855, to join the Whigs
and Anti-Nebraska Democrats into a new party,
and capture for themselves the spoils ; the amenities
of debate were sorely strained, and either candidate
gave way to acrimonious comment. Even sharper
interchanges were drawn forth when Lincoln
charged that Douglas was a leading member of a
formidable conspiracy to nationalize slavery; and
particularly when Lincoln asserted with evidence
that certain strongly Abolition resolutions persist-
ently employed by Douglas as if Lincoln were re-
sponsible for the doctrines which they contained,
were essentially forgeries and known by Douglas
to be such. Besides these personalities, one serious
charge was continually reiterated by Douglas : that
Lincoln shifted his ground, as he passed from one
section of the state to another^ that he made his
INTRODUCTION xliii
principles suit the political complexion of his
audience.^
Besides personal questions, there were ques-
tions having their origin in the search for political
advantage. Douglas's aim was to separate the
Whicrs from Lincoln's following. To this end he
propounded seven questions to Lincoln at Ottawa,
with a view of showing that Lincoln agreed with
the Abolitionists in their entire policy regarding the
great questions of 1850 and 1854. Lincoln answered
the questions at Freeport, and avoided falling into
the trap ; and he at once put four questions to
Douglas, and later a fifth, concerning certain phases
of his slavery policy ; one of them of so much sig-
nificance that Douglas's answer destroyed his pres-
idential prospects in i860.
But far above questions of personalities, and ques-
tions of politics, loomed the larger questions of
political and moral principle. Did Lincoln at
Springfield incite to sectionalism and revolution?
Yes, and further urged interference, declared Doug-
las, with the sacred right of people to determine
their domestic institutions for themselves. Not so,
replied Lincoln ; the Republican party seeks only to
prevent the extension of slavery and to place it
where it will disappear of itself. Why cannot the
Union continue half slave and half free as our
1 For more detailed description of the debates, and for
explanation and discussion of the issues of the campaign,
see the supplementary notes. The Introduction miiToly
states the issues and correlates them.
xliv INTRODUCTION
fathers made it? rejoined Douglas; and what speci-
fic plan have you for the extinction of this economic
institution? Then came the great questions of the
place of the negro in the Declaration of Indepen-
dence, and of the constitutionality of slavery. Here
Lincoln was hampered by the Dred Scott decision,
against which he protested in the name of truth and
justice, though it was the verdict of the highest
judicial tribunal. Douglas declared that Lincoln
was not only seeking to divide the nation, and to
undermine our highest constitutional authority, but
was seeking to make the negro the social and the
political equal of the white man. In rising at length
above questions of state and constitution to view
slavery in the light of moral law — of absolute right
and wrong — Lincoln placed the argument on a plane
where Douglas could not follow him; but Lincoln
was no longer responding merely to the arguments
of a personal opponent, he had become the voice of
the aroused conscience of a nation.^ " That is the
real issue," he said at Alton. " That is the issue
which will continue in this country when these poor
tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be
silent. It is the eternal struggle between these
two principles — right and wrong — throughout the
world."
1 " I asked him one day,'* says Mr. Horace White, " why
he did not oftener turn the laugh on Douglas. He rephed
that he was too much in earnest, and that is was doubtful
whether turning the laugh on anybody really gained any
votes." — Herndon's Life of Lincoln, ii. loj.
INTRODUCTION xlv
After a desperately severe campaip^n in which
Douglas dcHvercd a total of 130 speeches, and ex-
pended $80,000 for campai^i expenses, as against
$1000 by Lincoln, the election revealed an ex-
ceedini^ly close resnlt. In the pojHilar vote Lincoln
received in the state 126,084 ballots, Doui^las
121.940, and the Buchanan D^cmocrat, 5,091. lUit
an unfair apportionment brought it about that the
legislature contained a majority of eight for Doug-
las. Lincoln was bitterly disappointed. To a friend
he said that he felt *' like the boy that stumped his
toe, — ' it hurt too much to laugh, and he was too big
to cry.' "
Viewed from the present day, Douglas's victory
was a remarkable one. His task had been her-
culean. " There is, on the whole," says Mr. L
N. Arnold, 1 " hardly any greater triumph in the
history of American politics than his re-election."
He had won support from the friends and the ene-
mies of slavery alike. But of Lincoln himself Douglas
said : 2 "I have been in Congress sixteen years, and
th'cre is not a man whom I would not rather meet in
debate." And the nation recognized in him the com-
ing of a new leader. For though defeated, Lincoln
iiad organized his own party, and rendered inevitable
the fatal division of that of his opponent ; had won a
moral victory ; had, in speeches which rank among
the masterpieces of oratory in all time, determined
the ultimate form of the slavery issue, and com-
J Life of Lincoln, p. 149.
2 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, ii. 577.
xlvi IXTRODUCTION
posed the essential gospel of the anti-slavery move-
ment. Before him the pathway lay clear to the
stern and sad realization of his high ambition.
Bibliographical Note. — The best accounts of the
debates are contained in general histories of the period
and in biographies of the participants. Some of the
most available are: J. F. Rhodes' History of the United
States, Vol. ii. ; J. G. Blaine's Twenty Years of Con-
gress; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln: A History;
The Life of Lincoln by Herndon and Weik, (Ed. 1892)
containing the description by Horace White ; L N.
Arnold's Life of Lincoln; J. T. Morse's Abraham Lin-
coln; J. G. Holland's Life of Lincoln; W. Lamon's Life of
Lincoln. Of extended biographies of Douglas there are
only those by J. W. Sheehan, Flint, and Forney, all of them
partisan and none of them now readily accessible ; but an
excellent sketch and analysis of his career is easily
available in William Garrott Brown's Stephen A. Doug-
las (Riverside Biographical Series). Special articles con-
cerning Douglas occur in the North American Review,
Vol. ciii, and the Atlantic Monthly, Vol. viii, and Har-
per's Monthly, Vol. Ixxxvii.
THE LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS
DEBATES
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
DEBATES
Xtncoln'0 SprtngticlD Spcccb
Speech of Hon. Abraham Lincoln, deHvered at Spring-
field, 111., June 36. 1858 at the close of the Republican S
State Convention, by which Mr. Lincoln had been named
as candidate for United States Senator.
Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention : If we could first know where we are,
and whither we are tendinp^, we could better jud<:^e 10
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, ^5
but has constantly augmented. 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 20
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 pub- 25
lie mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course
2 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH
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?
5 Let anyone 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 decision.
Let him consider, not only what work the machinery
lo 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.
15 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 by
Congressional prohibition. Four days later, com-
menced the struggle which ended in repealing that
20 Congressional prohibition. This opened all the
National territory to slaver^', and was the first point
gained.
But, so far. Congress only had acted, and an
indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was
25 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
30 called " sacred right of self-government," which lat-
ter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful
LIXCOLX'S SPRIXGFIELD SPEECH 3
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 enslave another, no third
man shall be allowed to object. That argument was
incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the 5
language which follows : ** It being the true intent
and meaning of this Act not to 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 10
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 15
declare that the people of the Territory may exclude
slaver)'." ** Not we," said the friends of the meas-
ure ; and down they voted the amendment.
While the Nebraska bill was passing through
Congress, a laiu case, involving the question of a 20
negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having vol-
untarily taken him first into a free State, and then
into a territory covered by the Congressional pro-
hibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in
each, was passing through the United States Circuit 25
Court for the District of 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 30
next Presidential election, the law case came to, and
4 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH
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, Senator
Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the
5 leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his
opinion whether the people of a Territory can con-
stitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and
the latter answers : " That is a question for the
Supreme Court."
i^ The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected,
and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That
was the second point gained. The indorsement,
however, fell short of a clear popular majority by
nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, per-
15 haps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satis-
factory. 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
20 not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argu-
ment. The Presidential inauguration came, and
still no decision of the court; but the incoming
President, in his inaugural address, fervently
exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming
25 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 in-
dorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently
30 denouncing all opposition to it. The new President,
too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to
LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH s
indorse and stronc^ly construe that decision, and to
express his astonishment that any different view
had ever been entertained !
At len,c:th a squabble springs up between the Presi-
dent and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the 5
mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton Con-
stitution 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 dozen lo
or voted up. I do not understand his declaration,
that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or
up, to be intended by him other than as an apt
definition of the policy he would impress upon the
public mind — the principle for which he declares 15
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 20
decision " squatter sovereignty " squatted out of
existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding ;
like the mould 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 25
late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the
Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the
original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was
made on a point — the right of a people to make their
own constitution — ui)on which he and the Repub- 30
licans have never differed.
6 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH
The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in
connection with Senator Douglas's " care not "
policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its
present state of advancement. This was the third
5 point gained. The working points of that
machinery are : —
First, 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
lo 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
15 entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens
in the several States."
Secondly, That, " subject to the Constitution of
the United States," neither Congress nor a Terri-
torial Legislature can exclude slavery from any
20 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 prop-
erty, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency
to the institution through all the future.
25 Thirdly, 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
decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of
any slave State, the negro may be forced into by the
30 master. This point is made, not to be pressed imme-
diately; but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and appa-
LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH' 7
rcntly indorsed by the people at an election, 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, or one thousand slaves, in 5
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 mould 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 historical 15
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 '' per-
fectly free," " subject only to the Constitution."
What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders 20
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 amendment, expressly de- 25
daring 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 Sen-
ator's individual opinion withheld, till after the
Presidential election? Plainly enough now: the ^^
8 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH
speaking out then would have damag-ed the perfectly
free argument upon which the election was to be
carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation
on the indorsement? Why the delay of a re-argu-
5 ment? W^hy the incoming President's advance
exhortation in favor of the decision ? These things
look like the cautious patting and petting of a
spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it
is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And
lo why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by
the President and others?
We cannot absolutely know that all these adapta-
tions are the result of preconcert. But when we
see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of
15 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
20 house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly
fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the
dift'erent 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
25 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 beheve that
Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all
understood one another from the beginning, and
30 all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up
before the first blow was struck.
LINCOLN'S SPRINCi-lLiLD SPEECH 9
It should not be overlooked that by the Nebraska
bill the people of a State as well as Territory were
to be left " perfectly free," " subject only to the Con-
stitution." Why mention a State? They were
legislating- for Territories, and not for or about 5
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 10
together, and their relation to the Constitution
therein treated as being precisely the same ? While
the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in
the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of
all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the 15
Constitution of the United States neither permits
Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to exclude
slaver}' 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 exclude 20
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 unlimited power in
the people of a State to exclude slavery from their
limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get sucii 25
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 jxnvcr of a 3<j
State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson, lie
10 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH
approaches it more than once, using the precise idea,
and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska Act.
On one occasion, his exact language is, " Except in
cases where the power is restrained by the Constitu-
5 tion of the United States, the law of the State is
supreme 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
JO 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 Constitu-
15 tion of the United States does not permit a State to
exclude slavery from its 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 public mind sujfficiently to give prom-
20 ise 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
^5 will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present
political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. 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
30 Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To
rneet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the
LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH ii
work iiuw before all those who would prevent that
consummation. 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 5
Doui^las is the aptest instrument there is with which
to effect that object. They wish us to ijifcr all,
from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with
the i)resent head of the dynasty, and that he has rep^-
ularly voted with us on a sinc^le point, upon which ^o
he and we have never differed. They remind us
that he is a g^reat man, and that the largest of us
arc 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 15
a caged and toothless 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
Democratic newspaper thinks that Douglas's 20
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? P>ut if it is,
how can he resist it? For years he has labored to 25
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 uncpiestionably
they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in \'ir- 3°
ginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the
12 LINCOLN'S SPRINGFIELD SPEECH
whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of
property ; and, as such, how can he oppose the for-
eign slave trade, — how can he refuse that trade in
that " property " shall be " perfectly free," — unless
5 he does it as a protection to the home production?
And as the home producers will probably not ask
the protection, he will be wholly without a ground
of opposition.
Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may
lo rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday ;
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 particular change, of
which he himself has given no intimation ? Can we
15 safely base our action upon any such vague infer-
ence? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent
Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or
do aught that can be personally offensive to him.
•Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on
20 principle so that our cause may have assistance from
his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adven-
titious obstacle. But clearly he is not now with us ;
he does not pretend to be, — he does not promise
ever to be.
25 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 Repub-
licans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred
30 thousand strong. We did this under the single
impulse of resistance to a common danger, with
LIXCOLX'S SPRIXGPIELD SPEECH 13
every external circumstance against us. Of strange,
discordant, and even hostile elements 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 5
brave all then, to falter now, — now, when that same
enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent?
The result is not doubtful. Wc shall not fail; if we
stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may
accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, ^^
the victory is sure to come.
Second 5oint Debate, at ftecpovt
[August 27, 1858]
MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH
Ladies and Gentlemen : On Saturday last,
5 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 pro-
^^ pose to devote myself during the first hour to the
scope of what was brought within the range of his
half-hour speech at Ottawa. Of course there was
brought within the scope in that half-hour's speech
something of his own opening speech. In the
^5 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.
^° 1 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 proposi-
tion, nor did he in his reply allude at all to that sug-
^5 gestion of mine. I do him no injustice in saying
14
MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 15
that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing
with me as though I had refused to answer his inter-
rogatories. I now propose that I will answer any
of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will
answer questions from me not exceeding the same 5
number. I give him an opportunity to respond.
The Judge remains silent. I now say that I will
answer his interrogatories, whether he answers mine
or not; and that after I have done so, I shall pro-
pound mine to him. ^°
I have supposed myself, since the organization of
the Republican party at Bloomnigton, in May, 1856,
bound as a party man by the platforms of the party,
then and since. If in any interrogatories which I
shall answer I go beyond the scope of what is 15
within these platforms, it will be perceived that no
one is responsible but myself.
Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge's
interrogatories as I find them printed in the Chicago
'' Times," and answer them seriatim. In order that 20
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 interrogatories is in
these words : —
Question 1. — " I desire to know whether Lincoln 25
to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the
unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law ? "
Auszver. — 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
i6 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
pledged to-day, as he did in 1854. against the admis-
sion of any more Slave States into the Union, even
if the people want them ? "
A. I do not noWj nor ever did, stand pledged
5 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 admission
of a new State into the Union, with such a Con-
stitution as the people of that State may see fit to
make.
15 Q. 4. " I want to know whether he stands
to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the Dis-
trict of Columbia ? "
A. I do not stand to-day pledged to the aboli-
tion of slavery in the District of Columbia.
^° Q' 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.
25 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
30 belief in the right and duty of Congress to prohibit
slavery in all the United States Territories.
MR. LIXCOLN'S SPEECH 17
Q. 7. " I desire him to answer whether he is
opposed to the acquisition of any new territory un-
less slavery is first prohibited therein ? "
A. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisi-
tion of territory ; and, in any given case, I would or 5
would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly 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 10
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 have answered truly, that 15
I am not pledged at all upon any of the points to
which I have answered. lUit I am not disposed to
hang upon the exact form of his interrogatory. I
am rather disposed to take up at least some of these
questions, and state what I really think upon them. 20
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 Constitu-
tion of the United States, the people of the Southern
States arc entitled to a Congressional Fugitive 25
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 30
inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in re-
i8 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
gard to an alteration or modification of that law, I
would not be the man to introduce it as a new sub-
ject of agitation upon the general question of
slavery.
5 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
w^ould be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a posi-
tion of having to pass upon that question. I should be
lo 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 Ter-
ritories during the territorial existence of any one
given Territory, and then the people shall, having
15 a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to
adopt the constitution, do such an extraordinary
thing as to 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
20 admit them into the Union.
The third interrogatory is answered by the an-
swer to the second, it being, as I conceive, the same
as the second.
The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of
25 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 abolished
in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress
possesses the constitutional power to abolish it.
30 Yet as a member of Congress, I should not, with
my present views, be in favor of endeavoring to
MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 19
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless
it would be upon these conditions: First, that the
abolition should be gradual; second, that it should
be on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in
the District; and third, that comi:)cnsation should be 5
made to unwilling owners. With these three condi-
tions, I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see
Congress 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 15
that mature consideration that would make me feel
authorized to state a position so as to hold myself en-
tirely bound by it. In other words, that question
has never been prominently enough before me to
induce me to investigate whether we really have the 20
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 25
Congress does possess the constitutional power to
abolish the slave-trade among the different States,
I should still not be in favor of the exercise of that
power, unless upon some conservative principle as I
conceive it, akin to what I have said in relation to 30
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.
20 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
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.
5 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 nothing by way of illustra-
tion, or making myself better understood, than the
lo 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;
15 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 tending to Abolition-
ism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I
believe I am saying that which, if it would be offen-
20 sive to any persons and render them enemies to my-
self, would be offensive to persons in this audience.
I now proceed to propound to the Judge the inter-
rogatories, so far as I have framed them. I will
bring forward a new instalment when I get them
25 ready. I will bring them forward now, only reach-
ing to number four.
The first one is : —
Question i. If the people of Kansas shall, by
means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects,
30 adopt a State constitution, and ask admission into
the Union under it, before they have the requisite
MR. LIXCOLN'S SPEECH 21
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 Terri-
tory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any 5
citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from
its limits prior to the fomiation of a State consti-
tution ?
Q. 3. If the Supreme Court of the United States
shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from 10
their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in,
adopting, and following such decision as a rule of
political action?
Q. 4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional
territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may 15
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 adopting, in the first 20
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 doctrines contained in the
set of resolutions which he read, and I understand 25
that it was from that set of resolutions that he de-
duced the interrogatories which he propounded to
me, using these resolutions as a sort of authority for
propounding those questions to me. Now, I say here
to-day that I do not answer his interrogatories be- 30
cause of their springing at all from that set of resolu-
22 JOIXT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
tions which he read. I answered them because Judge
Douglas thought fit to ask them. I do not now, nor
ever did, recognize any responsibiHty upon myself
in that set of resolutions. When I replied to him on
5 that occasion, I assured him that I never had any-
thing 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 in any conven-
^° tion held in Springfield. It turns out that they were
never passed at any convention or any public meet-
ing that I had any part in. I believe it turns out, in
addition to all this, that there was not, in the fall of
1854, any convention holding a session in Spring-
^5 field, calling itself a Republican State Convention;
yet it is true there was a convention, or assemblage of
men calling themselves a convention, at Springfield,
that did pass some resolutions. But so little did I
really know of the proceedings of that convention,
20 or what set of resolutions they had passed, though
having a general knowledge that there had been an
assemblage of men there, that when Judge Douglas
read the resolutions, I really did not know but they
had been the resolutions passed then and there. I
^5 did not question that they were the resolutions
adopted. For I could not bring myself to suppose
that Judge Douglas could say what he did upon this
subject without knounng that it was true. I con-
tented myself, on that occasion, with denying, as I
30 truly could, all connection with them, not denying
or affirming whether they were passed at Springfield.
MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 23
Now, it turns out that lie had got hold of some reso-
lutions 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 dis-
covery relieves me at all. I had just as much to do 5
with the convention in Kane County as that at
Springfield. I am just as much responsible for the
resolutions at Kane County as those at Springfield,
— the amount of the responsibility being exactly
nothing in either case ; no more than there would 10
be in regard to a set of resolutions passed in the
moon.
I allude to this extraordinary matter in this can-
vass for some further purpose than anything yet
advanced. Judge Douglas did not make his state- 15
ment 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 veracity for their truth.
When the whole matter turns out as it does, and
when we consider who Judge Douglas is, — that he 20
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 Diost 25
extraordinary that he should so far forget all
the suggestions of justice to an adversary, or of pru-
dence to himself, as to venture upon the assertion of
that which the slightest investigation would have
shown hini to be wholly false. I can only account 3^*
for his having done so upon the supposition that
24 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
that evil genius which has attended him through
his hfe, giving to him an apparent astonishing pros-
perity, such as to lead very many good men to doubt
there being any advantage in virtue over vice, — I
5 say I can only account for it on the supposition that
that evil genius has at last made up its mind to for-
sake him.
And I may add that another extraordinary feature
of the Judge's conduct in this canvass — made more
lo extraordinary by this incident — is, that he is in the
habit, in almost all the speeches he makes, of charg-
ing falsehood upon his adversaries, myself and
others. I now ask whether he is able to find in any-
thing that Judge Trumbull, for instance, has said,
15 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 matter
of belief on my part that, in the introduction of the
20 Nebraska bill into Congress, there was a conspiracy
to make slavery perpetual and national. I have ar-
ranged from time to time the evidence which estab-
lishes and proves the truth of this charge. I re-
curred to this charge at Ottawa. I shall not now
25 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 noticing a few of them.
The Judge insists that, in the first speech I made,
30 in w^hich I very distinctly made that charge, he
thought for a good w^hile I was in fun! that I was
MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 25
playful ; that I was not sincere about it ; and that
he only grew angry and somewhat excited when he
found that I insisted upon it as a matter of earnest-
ness. He says he characterized it as a falsehood so
far as I implicated his moral character in that trans- 5
action. 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 10
very cosily 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 " con-
scientious " in that matter. I can conceive it pos-
sible for men to conspire to do a good thing, and I 15
really find nothing in Judge Douglas's course or
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 understand that I do not at all ques- 20
tion but that in all this matter he is entirely " con-
scientious."
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 25
time afterward, by an amendment, I believe, 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 30
form and regulate their own domestic institutions in
their own way, subject only to the Constitution of
26 JOIXT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
the United States." I have called his attention to
the fact 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
5 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, introduced an amendment, in which
lo he made the law — if the amendment were adopted —
expressly declare that the people of the Territory-
should have the power to exclude slaver>^ if they
saw fit. I have asked attention also to the fact that
Judge Douglas and those who acted with him voted
15 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 Su-
preme Court has been made, in which it has been
20 declared that a Territorial Legislature has no con-
stitutional 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
25 voting down of Chase's amendment is wholly inex-
plicable. It is a puzzle, a riddle. But I have said,
that with men who did look forward to such a de-
cision, or who had it in contemplation that such a
decision of the Supreme Court would or might be
30 made, the voting down of that amendment would be
perfectly rational and intelligible. It would keep
MR. LIXCOLK'S SPEECH 27
Con.s^ress from comings in collision with the 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 desir-
able party attitude to get into for the Supreme Court 5
— all or nearly all its members belonging to the same
party — to decide one way, when the party in Con-
gress had decided the other way. Hence it would
be ven- rational for men expecting such a decision
to keep the niche in that law clear for it. After 10
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 rca- 15
son zcas, and can tell us what it zcas. I tell him, also,
it will be vastly more satisfactory to the country for
him to give some other plausible, intelligible reason
zi'hy it was voted down than to stand upon his dig-
nity and call pecple liars. Well, on Saturday he did 20
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 necessary on his part —
or words to that effect. Now, I say here that I am 25
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 30
when Chase came forward with his amendment ex-
ag JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
pressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery
from the limits of everv* Territory, General Cass pro-
posed to Chase, if he (Chase) would add to his
amendment that the people should have the power
5 to introduce or exclude, they would let it go. This
is substantially all of his reply. And because 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 rtmning
lo debate upon that amendment, and then ran away ayid
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
15 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
20 h-ere. But I ask attention to a few more \'iews bear-
ing on the question of whether it amounts to a satis-
factory 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
25 to come in, sought an excuse to get rid of it some-
where. One of these ways — one of these excuses —
was to ask Chase to add to his proposed amendm.ent
a provision that the people might introduce slavery
if they wanted to. They very well knew Chase would
30 do no such thing, that Mr. Chase was one of the
men differing from them on the broad principle of
MR, LIXCOUrS SPEECH ^
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 recog-
nize slavery- on the one hand, and liberty on the
other, as precisely equal; and when they insisted on ;
his doing this, they ver\- well knew they insisted on
that which he would not for a moment think of
doing, and that they were only bluffing him. I be-
lieve (I have not. since he made his answer, had a
chance to examine the journals or " Congressional lo
Globe " and therefore speak from memor\-) — I be-
lieve 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 amend-
ment- I rather think this is the truth, — the Judge 15
shakes his head- Very welL I would like to know,
then, if they Tvanted Chase's amendment fixed over,
why somebody else could not hofve ottered to do itf
If they wanted it amended, why did they not offer
the amendment? Why did they stand there taunt- 20
ing and quibbling at Chase? Why did they not put
it in themselves f But to put it on the other ground :
suppose that there was such an amendment offered.
and Chase's was an amendment to an amendment ;
until one is disposed of by parliamentary- law, you 25
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 amendment to it, if they wanted to put it in
that shape. This was all they were obliged to do, 30
and the ayes and noes show that there were thirt>--
30 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
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
5 was a rule preventing their amending it at the time,
they could pass that, and then, Chase's 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
lo would not add, and because he would not, they stand
upon the 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 decision,
which goes very far to make slavery national
15 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,
20 — an insignificant individual like Lincoln, — upon his
ipse dixit charging a conspiracy upon a large num-
ber of members of Congress, the Supreme Court,
and two Presidents, to nationalize slavery. I want
to say that, in the first place, I have made no charge
25 of this sort upon ipse dixit. I have only arrayed
the evidence tending to prove it, and presented it to
the understanding 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
30 done. I have not placed it upon my ipse dixit at
all. On this occasion, I wish to recall his attention
MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH 31
to a piece of evidence which I brought forward at
Ottawa on Saturday, showing that he had made
substantially the saiiic charge against substantially
the same persons, excluding his dear self from the
category. I ask him to give some attention to the 5
evidence which I brought forward that he himself
had discovered a " fatal blow being struck " against
the right of the people to exclude slavery from their
limits, which fatal blow he assumed as in evidence
in an article in the Washington *' Union " published 10
*' by authority." I ask by whose authority ? He dis-
covers a similar or identical provision in the Lecomp-
ton Constitution. Made by whom ? The f ramers of
that Constitution. Advocated by whom ? By all the
members of the party in the nation, who advocated 15
the introduction of Kansas into the Union under the
Lecompton 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 20
in support of that charge, — being identical with the
one which he thinks so villainous in me. He pointed
it, not at a newspaper editor merely, but at the Pres-
ident and his Cabinet and the members of Congress
advocating the Lecompton Constitution and those 25
framing that instrument. 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. 30
Go on, Judge Douglas.
32 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY
Ladies and Gentlemen : The silence with which
you have listened to Mr. Lincoln during his hour is
5 creditable to this vast audience, composed of men
of various political parties. Nothing is more honor-
able to any large mass of people assembled for the
purpose of a fair discussion than that kind and re-
spectful attention that is yielded, not only to your
lo political friends, but to those who are opposed to
you in politics.
I am glad that at last I have brought Mr. Lincoln
to the conclusion that he had better define his posi-
tion on certain political questions to which I called
15 his attention at Ottawa. He there showed no dispo-
sition, no inclination, to answer them. I did not
present idle questions for him to answer, merely for
my gratification. I laid the foundation for those in-
terrogatories by showing that they constituted the
20 platform of the party whose nominee 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 plat-
form and were in favor of the propositions upon
25 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 w^hich that party had
adopted for its government. In a few minutes I
30 will proceed to review the answers which he has
given to these interrogatories; but, in order to re-
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 33
lieve his anxiety, I will first respond to these which
he has presented to nie. Mark you, he has not pre-
sented 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 5
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 10
population for a member of Congress, whether I
will vote for that admission. Well, now, I regret
exceedingly that he did not answer that interroga-
tory himself before he put it to me, in order that
we might understand, and not be left to infer, on 15
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 popula-
tion for a member of Congress. Mr. Trumbull 20
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 25
tell me whether he is fighting Trumbull on that
issue or not. But I will answer 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 l^Vee State. I will not 3°
make Kansas an exceptional case to the other States
34 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
of the Union. I hold it to be a sound rule, of univer-
sal 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
5 that proposition in the Senate in 1856, and I re-
newed it during the last session, in a bill providing
that no Territory of the United States should form a
constitution and apply for admission until it had
the requisite population. On another occasion I
10 proposed that neither Kansas nor any other Terri-
tory should be admitted until it had the requisite
population. Congress did not adopt any of my prop-
ositions containing this general rule, but did make
an exception of Kansas. I v^^ill stand by that excep-
ts tion. 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 Territories alike. I
therefore answer at once, that, it having been decided
that Kansas has people enough for a Slave State, I
20 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 interroga-
tory,— whether or not he will vote to admit Kansas
before she has the requisite population. I want to
25 know whether he will vote to admit Oregon before
that Territory has the requisite population. Mr.
Trumbull will not, and the same reason that com-
mits Mr. Trumbull against the admission of Oregon
commits him against Kansas, even if she should
3o apply for admission as a Free State. If there is any
sincerity, any truth, in the argument of Mr. Trum-
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 35
bull in the Senate, against the admission of Oregon
because she had not 93,420 people, although her
population was larger than that of Kansas, he stands
pledged against the admission of both Oregon and
Kansas until they have 93,420 inhabitants. I would 5
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. 10
The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lin-
coln 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 i5
emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer
a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in
my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful
means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to
the formation of a State constitution. Mr. Lincoln 20
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 25
matters not what way the Supreme Court may here-
after decide as to the abstract question whether
slavery may or may not go into a Territory under
the Constitution, the people have the lawful means
to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the 30
reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour
36 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regu-
lations. Those police regulations can only be estab-
lished by the local legislature ; and if the people are
opposed to slavery, they will elect representatives to
5 that body who will by unfriendly legislation effect-
ually 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 ab-
lo stract question, still the right of the people to make
a Slave Territory or a Free Territory is perfect and
complete under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lin-
coln deems my answer satisfactory on that point.
In this connection, I wdll notice the charge which
15 he has introduced in relation to Mr. Chase's amend-
ment. I thought that I had chased that amendment
out of Mr. Lincoln's brain at Ottawa ; but it seems
that it still haunts his imagination, and he is not yet
satisfied. I had supposed that he would be ashamed
20 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 par-
liamentary proceedings. He ought to have known
better than to try to palm off his miserable imposi-
25 tions upon this intelligent audience. The Nebraska
bill provided that the legislative power and authority
of the said Territory should extend to all rightful
subjects of legislation consistent with the organic
act and the Constitution of the United States. I did
30 not make any exception as to slavery, but gave all
the power that it was possible for Congress to give,
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 37
without violating- the Constitution, to the Territorial
legislature, with no exception or limitation on the
subject 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, affimia- 5
lively and negatively, to introduce 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 ^o
using it, — to enable demagogues in the country 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 ^5
give the power to introduce as well as exclude?"
The answer 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 proposi-
tion, and so make it fair both ways, but would not 20
yield. He offered it for the purpose of having it re-
jected. 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 25
would make an effort to deceive the people with it;
and he was not mistaken, for Lincoln 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. 30
Could Congress confer any more? Could Congress
38 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
go beyond the Constitution of the country ? We gave
all a full grant, with no exception in regard to slav-
ery one way or the other. We left that question as
we left all others, to be decided by the people for
5 themselves, just as they please. 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
lo sentiments and the same principles. I have not been
afraid to avow my sentiments up here for fear I
would be trotted down Into Egypt.
The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented
is. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall
15 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
20 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
25 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. Lin-
coln now pretends was against the President. The
" Union " had claimed that slavery had a right to
30 go into the Free States, and that any provision in
the Constitution or laws of the Free States to the
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 39
contrary were 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 5
to denounce it. And what w^as 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 worthy of
notice, and ought not to have replied to it; that 10
there was not one man, woman, or child south of
the Potomac, in any Slave State, who did not repu-
diate any such pretension. Mr. Lincoln knows that
that reply was made on the spot, and yet now he
asks this question. He might as well ask me, Sup- ^5
pose Mr. Lincoln should steal a horse, would I sanc-
tion 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 Su-
preme Court of the United States, by supposing that 20
they would violate the Constitution 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 him-
self would never in his partisan feelings so far for- 25
get what was right as to be guilty of such an act.
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 ingen- 30
iously and cunningly put.
40 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
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
5 favor of that proposition. Are you [addressing Mr.
Lincoln] opposed to the acquisition of any more ter-
ritory, under any circumstances, unless slavery is
prohibited in it? That he does not like to answer.
When I ask him whether he stands up to that article
lo in the platform of his party, he turns, Yankee-fash-
ion, 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
15 growth and progress, to acquire more territory, that
I am in favor of it, without reference to the question
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
20 is idle to tell me or you that we have territory
enough. Our fathers supposed that we had enough
when our territory extended to the Mississippi
River ; but a few years' growth and expansion satis-
fied them that we needed more, and the Louisiana
25 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 growing nation. It swarms as often as
30 a hive of bees ; and as new swarms are turned out
each year, there must be hives in which they can
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 41
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 between this and the Pacific
Ocean, owned by the United States, will be occupied. 5
Will you not continue to increase at the end of fif-
teen years as well as now ? I tell you, increase, and
multiply, and expand, is the law of this nation's ex-
istence. You cannot limit this great Republic by
mere boundary lines, saying, " Thus far shalt thou 10
go, and no further." Any one of you gentlemen
might as well say to a son twelve years old that he
is 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 15
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, grow-
ing with a rapidity unknown in any part of the
globe, with the tide of emigration that is fleeing 20
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 25
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. 2>o
I trust now that Mr. Lincoln will deem himself
42 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT ■
answered on his four points. He racked his brain
so much in devising these four questions that he ex-
hausted himself, and had not strength enough to
invent the others. As soon as he is able to hold a
5 council with his advisers, Love joy, Farnsworth, and
Fred Douglass, he will frame and propound others.
[" Good, good."] You Black Republicans who say
good, I have no doubt think that they are all good
men. I have reason to recollect that some people in
lo this country 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 Free-
port, as I am doing to-day, I saw a carriage — and a
magnificent one it was — drive up and take a position
15 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 it? "] All I have to say of it is
20 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 per-
fect right to do so. I am told that one of Fred
25 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 it? "]
All I have to say on that subject is, that those of
30 you who believe that the negro is your equal and
ought to be on an equality with you socially, politi-
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 43
cally, 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 answers to
the interrogatories contained in my speech at Ot-
tawa, and which he has pretended to reply to here 5
to-day. Mr. Lincoln makes a great parade of the
fact that I quoted a platform as having been adopted
by the I Mack 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 10
ecstasies over the mistake 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 15
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 de-
termination to apply the W'ilmot Proviso, not only
to all the territory we now have, but all that we may 20
hereafter acquire, — he refused to answer; and his
followers say^ in excuse, that the resolutions upon
which I based my interrogatories were not adopted
at the '' right spot." Lincoln and his political friends
are great on " spots." In Congress, as a representa- 25
tive 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 con-
test, because he said that American blood was not 30
shed on American soil in the '' right spot." And now
he cannot answer the questions I put to him at Ot-
44 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
tawa 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
5 not, in error as to the fact of their forming the basis
of the creed of the Republican party when that party
w^as 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 Spring-
1° field on the 5th of October, 1854. 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
^5 convention. In 1856, a debate arose in Congress
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-
20 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
accuracy, that he was a very conscientious and sin-
cere man, and I also noticed that Norton did not
25 question the accuracy of this statement. I therefore
took it for granted that it was so ; and the other day
when I concluded to use the resolutions at Ottawa,
I wrote to Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the " State
Register," at Springfield, calling his attention to
30 them, telling him that I had been informed that
Major Harris was lying sick at Springfield, and de-
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 45
siring" him to call upon him and ascertain all the
facts conccrnini^ the rcsc^Iiitions, the time and the
place where they were adopted. In reply. Mr. Lan-
phicr sent me two copies of his paper, which I have
here. The first is a copy of the '' State Register," 5
imblished at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's own town,
on the i6th 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 10
made a speech, to which Judge Douglas replied. In
Lincoln's speech he took the broad ground that, accord-
ing to the Declaration of Lidcpcndencc, the whites and
blacks are equal. From this he drew the conclusion,
which he several times repeated, that the white man had ^5
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 Abolition-
ists assembled in Springfield. So soon as Mr. Lincoln
was done speaking, Mr. Codding arose, and requested 20
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 platform on which they
stood. We call the particular attention of all our read- 25
ers to it."
Then follows the identical platform, word for
word, which I read at Ottawa. Now, that was pub-
lished in Mr. Lincoln's own town, eleven days after
the Convention was held, and it has remained on 30
record up to this day never contradicted.
46 JOINT DEBATE AT FREE PORT
WTien I quoted the resolutions at Ottawa and
questioned 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
5 served, because he was, or thought he w*as, in Taze-
well County at the time the Convention was in ses-
sion. He did not deny that the resolutions were
passed by the Springfield Convention. He did not
know better, and evidently thought that they were;
lo 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 evidence for believing
that the resolutions had been passed at Springfield.
15 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 forger}*.
Now, I will show you that if I have miade a mis-
20 take as to the place where these resolutions were
adopted, — and when I get dow^n to Springfield I will
investigate the matter, and see whether or not I
have, — that the principles they enunciate were
adopted as the Black Republican platform [" white,
25 w^hite"], 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 Republican majority for
the Legislature in that year, and here is a man
30 [pointing to Mr. Denio, who sat on the stand near
Deacon Bross] w^ho knows as well as any living man
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY ^
that it was the creed of the Black Republican party
at that time. I would be willing to call Denio as a
witness, or any other honest man belongmg to that
part}'. I will now read the resolutions adopted at
the Rockford Convention on the 30th of Au- 5
gust, 1854, which nominated Washbume for Con-
gress. You elected him on the following plat-
form:
"Resolved, That the continned and increasing ag-
gressions of slavery in our country are destructive of ic
the best rights of a free people, and that such aggres-
sions [cannot] be successfully resisted without the
united political action of all good men.
'* Resolved, That the citizens of the United States
hold in their hands, a peaceful, constitutional, and efi- ^5
cient 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 20
us by the slave power, and, in defence of freedom, will
co-operate and be known as RepubUcans, pledged to the
accomplishment of the following purposes : —
" To bring the Administration of the Govemr-er.:
back to the control of first principles: to restore Kg^- 25
sas 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 admisswn of any more Slave States into the
Union ; to exclude slavery from all the Territories over 30
which the General Government has exclusive jurisdic-
tioo; and to resist the acquisition of any more Terri-
48 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
tories, unless the introduction of slavery therein for-
ever shall have been prohibited.
''Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles
we will use such constitutional and lawful means as
5 shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and
that we will support no man for office under the Gen-
eral or State Government who is not positively com-
mitted to the support of these principles, and whose
personal character and conduct is not a guarantee that
he is reliable, and shall abjure all party allegiance and
lo 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 I libel you by calling these your principles,
2o will you? Now, Mr. Lincoln complains; Mr. Lin-
coln charges that I did you and him an 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 bring-
25 ing to light this platform, on which he was elected
to Congress. He thought that you had forgotten
it, as he and Mr. Lincoln desired to. He did not
deny that you had adopted it, and that he had sub-
scribed to and was pledged by it, but he did not
30 think it was fair to call it up and remind the people
that it was their platform.
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 49
But, I am glad to find that you are more honest in
your Abohtionism than your leaders, by avowing
that it is your platform, and right, in your opinion.
In the adoption of that platform, you not only
declared that you would resist the admission of any 5
more Slave States, and work for the repeal of the
Fugitive Slave law, but you pledged yourselves not
to vote for any man for State or Federal offices who
was not committed to these principles. You were
thus committed. Similar resolutions to those were 10
adopted in your county Convention here, and now
with your admissions that they are your platform
and embody your sentiments now as they did then,
what do you think of Mr. Lincoln, your candidate
for the United States Senate, who is attempting to 15
dodge the responsibility of this platform, because
it was not adopted in the right spot ? I thought that
it was adopted in Springfield ; but it turns out it
was not, that it was adopted at Rockford, and in
the various counties which comprise this Congres- 20
sional 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 Black Republican party
throughout the State. 25
A voice: Couldn't you modify, and call it
brown ?
Mr. Douglas: Not a bit. I thought that you
were becoming a little brown when your members
in Congress voted for the Crittenden- Montgomery 3°
bill; but since you have backed out from that posi-
50 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
tion 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
5 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 representatives in the Legislature
when they assembled together at Springfield. In
10 the first place, you must remember that this was the
organization of a new party. It is so declared in
the resolutions themselves, which say that you are
going to dissolve all old party ties and call the new
party Republican. The old \\^hig party was to have
15 its throat cut from ear to ear, and the Democratic
party was to be annihilated and blotted out of
existence, whilst in lieu of these parties the Black
Republican party was to be organized on this Aboli-
tion platform. You know who the chief leaders
20 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 obscurity by an outraged
constituency because of their political sins, formed
25 a scheme to Abolitionize the tw^o parties, and lead
the old line Whigs and old line Democrats captive,
bound hand and foot, into the Abolition camp.
Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Love joy were
here to christen them whenever they were brought
30 in. Lincoln went to work to dissolve the old line
Whig party. Clay was dead ; and although the sod
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 51
was not yet green on his p^rave, this man undertook
to hrinp: into disrepute those great Compromise
measures of 1850, with which Clay and Wehster
were identified. Up to 1854 the old Whig party and
the Democratic party had stood on a common plat- 5
form so far as this slavery question was concerned.
You Whigs and we Democrats differed about the
bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and
the sub-treasury, but we agreed on this slavery ques-
tion, and the true mode of preserving the peace and 10
harmony of the Union. The Compromise measures
of 1850 were introduced by Clay, were defended 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 15
upon which both Whigs and Democrats stood. In
1852 the Whig party, in its last National Convention
at Baltimore, indorsed and approved these measures
of Clay, and so did the National Convention of the
Democratic party held that same year. Thus the 20
old line Whigs and the old line Democrats stood
pledged to the great princij^le of self-government,
which guarantees to the people of each Territory
the right to decide the slavery question for them-
selves. In 1854, after the death of Clay and Web- 25
ster, 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 30
Abolition leaders. Trumbull undertook to dissolve
52 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
the Democratic party by taking old Democrats into
the AboHtion camp. Mr. Lincoln was aided in his
efforts by many leading Whigs throughout the State,
your member of Congress, Mr. Washburne, being
5 one of the most active. Trumbull 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, wdio was one of the moderators,
lo here interposed, and said that he had drawn the res-
olutions which Senator Douglas had read.]
Mr. Douglas : Yes, and Turner says that he drew
these resolutions. [*' Hurrah for Turner," "Hur-
rah for Douglas."] That is right; give Turner
15 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.
20 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
25 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 an
embarrassing position as to be obliged to vote on
the admission of any more Slave States ; I propose,
30 out of mere kindness, to relieve him from any such
necessity.
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 53
When the barp^ain between Lincoln and Trum-
bull was completed for Abolitionizing- 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 pre- 5
tending to be as good a Democrat as he ever was,
in order to coax the Democrats over into the Aboli-
tion 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 10
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 Democrats to elect a Black 15
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 Air. Turner 20
whether 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 25
platform, and is satisfied with it now. I admire and
acknowledge Turner's honesty. Every man of you
knows that 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 30
who are shuffling and trying to deny it is only try-
54 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
ing 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 fur-
ther, in order that you can see what additional evi-
5 dence there is to fasten this revolutionary platform
upon the Black Republican party. When the Legis-
lature assembled, there was a United States Senator
to elect in the place of General Shields, and before
they proceeded to ballot, Love joy insisted on laying
lo down certain principles by which to govern the
party. It has been published to the world and satis-
factorily proven that there was, at the time the
alliance was made between Trumbull and Lincoln to
Abolitionize the two parties, an agreement that Lin-
15 coin should take Shields's place in the United States
Senate, and Trumbull should have mine so soon as
they could conveniently get rid of me. When Lin-
coln was beaten for Shields's place, in a manner I
will refer to in a few minutes, he felt very sore and
20 restive; his friends grumbled, and some of them
came out and charged that the most infamous
treachery had been practiced against him; that the
bargain was that Lincoln was to have had Shields's
place, and Trumbull was to have waited for mine,
25 but that Trumbull, having the control of a few
Abolitionized Democrats, he 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,
30 Trumbull having cheated Lincoln, his friends made
a fuss, and in order to keep them and Lincoln quiet,
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 55
the party was oblii^^cd to come forward, in advance,
at the last State election, and make a pledge that
they would go for Lincoln and nobody else. Lin-
coln could not be silenced in any other way.
Now, there are a great many Black Republicans 5
of you who do not know this thing was done.
["White, white," and great clamor.] I wish to
remind you that while Mr. Lincoln was speaking
there was not a Democrat vulgar and blackguard
enough to interrupt him. But I know that the shoe lo
is pinching you. I am clinching Lincoln now, and
you are scared to death for the result. I have seen
this thing before. I have seen men make appoint-
ments for joint discussions, and the moment their
man has been heard, try to interrupt and prevent a 15
fair hearing of the other side. I have seen your
mobs before, and defy your 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 20
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 25
L^nited States Senator. He offered the following
preamble and resolutions which I hold in my
hand :
" Whereas, Human slavery is a violation of the prin-
ciples of natural and revealed rights; and whereas the 30
56 JOIXT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
fathers of the Revolution, fully imbued with the spirit
of these principles, declared freedom to be the inalien-
able birthright of all men; and whereas the preamble
to the Constitution of the United States avers that that
5 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
lo 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 im-
plied compact long deemed sacred by the citizens of the
15 United States and a wide departure from the uniform
action of the General Government in relation to the
extension of slavery; therefore,
*' Resoh'ed, by the House of Representatives^ the Sen-
ate concurring therein, That our Senators in Congress
20 be instructed, and our Representatives requested to
introduce, if not otherwise introduced, and to vote for
a bill to restore such prohibition to the aforesaid Ter-
ritories, and also to extend a similar prohibition to all
territory which now belongs to the United States, or
25 which may hereafter come under their jurisdiction.
"Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be in-
structed, and our Representatives requested, to vote
against the admission of any State into the Union, the
Constitution of which does not prohibit slavery, whether
30 the territory out of which such State may have been
formed shall have been acquired by conquest, treaty,
purchase, or from original territory of the United
States.
"Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 57
instructed, and our Representatives requested, to intro-
duce and vote for a bill to repeal an Act entitled ' an
Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escap-
ing from the service of their masters;' and, failing in
that, for such a modification of it as shall secure the 5
right of habeas corpus and trial by jury before the reg-
ularly constituted authorities of the State, to all persons
claimed as owing service or labor."
Those resolutions were introduced by Mr. Love-
joy immediately preceding the election of Senator. 10
They declared, first, that the Wilmot Proviso must
be applied to all territory north of 36 deg. 30 min. ;
secondly, that it must be applied to all territory
south of 36 deg. 30 min. ; thirdly, that it must be
applied to all the territory now owned by the United 15
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 circumstances whatever, no matter 20
whether they are formed out of territory now owned
by us or that we may hereafter acquire, by treaty,
by Congress, or in any manner whatever. The next
resolution demands the unconditional repeal of the
Fugitive Slave law, although its unconditional 25
repeal would leave no provision for carrying 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
demanded that that law should be so modified as to 30
make it as nearly useless as possible. Now, I want
58 JOIXT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
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 2i-- ^o^
will find that this is a strict part>' vote, between the
5 Democrats on the one hand, and the Black Repub-
licans 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 resolutions were
10 adopted on the 7th day of Februan.-, and that on the
8th they went into an election for a United States
Senator, and that day everv' man who voted for these
resolutions, with but two exceptions, voted for Lin-
cohi for the United States Senate. [" Give us their
15 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
20 47. I wish to impress it upon you that every man
who voted for those resolutions, with but two excep-
tions, voted on the next day for Lincoln for United
States Senator. Bear in mind that the m-embers
who thus voted for Lincoln were elected to the Leg-
25 islature pledged to vote for no man for office under
the State or Federal Government who was not com-
mitted to this Black Republican platform. They
were all so pledged. Mr. Turner, who stands by
me, and who then represented you, and who says
30 that he wrote those resolutions, voted for Lincoln,
when he was pledged not to do so unless Lincoln
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 59
was in favor of those resolutions. I no^v ask Mr.
Turner [turning to Mr. Turner], did you violate
your pledge in voting for Mr. Lincoln, or did he
commit himself to your platform before you cast
your vote for him? 5
I could go through the whole list of names here,
and show you that all the Black Republicans in the
Legislature, who voted for Mr. Lincoln, had voted
on tlie day previous for these resolutions. For
instance, here are the names of Sargent and Little, 10
of Jo Daviess and Carroll, Thomas J. Turner of
Stephenson, Lawrence of Boone and McHenr}-,
Swan of Lake, Pinckney of Ogle County, and
Lyman of Winnebago. Thus you see every member
from your Congressional District voted for Mr. 15
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 Ter-
ritories, and the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law.
Mr. Lincoln tells you to-day that he is not pledged 20
to any such doctrine. Either Mr. Lincoln was then
committed 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 ever\- Black Republican Repre- 25
sentative from this Congressional 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 up to the plat-
form of his party, or will you accuse even,- Repre- 30
sentative you had in the Legislature of violating his
6o JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
pledge of honor to his constituents? There is no
escape for you. Either ]\Ir. Lincoln was committed
to "those propositions, or your members violated their
faith. Take either horn of the dilemma you choose.
5 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 introduce a law to repeal it, but
thinks there ought to be some law ; he does not tell
lo what it ought to be; upon the whole, he is alto-
gether 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
15 the Black Republican platformi 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
20 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
25 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 then which way
will he vote ?
30 A Voice : How will you vote ?
Mr. Douglas: I will vote for the admission of
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 6i
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; 5
and I, for one, stand ready to receive them into the
Union. Why cannot your Black Republican can-
didates talk out as plain as that when they are
questioned ?
I do not want to cheat any man out of his vote. 10
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 nomi-
nated for the United States Senate which covers 15
all these Abolition platforms. He there lays down
a proposition so broad in its Abolitionism as to cover
the whole ground.
" In my opinion it [the slavery agitation] will not 20
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 25
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 advo-
cates will push it forward till it shall become alike 30
lawful in all the States, — old as well as new, North as
well as South."
62 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
There you find that Mr. Lincoln lays down the
doctrine 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
5 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 con-
tinue to divide the Union into Free and Slave States,
will dissolve it. I want to know of Mr. Lincoln
lo w^hether he will vote for the admission 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
15 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? Tha true intent and
20 inevitable conclusion to be drawn from his first
Springfield speech is, that he is opposed to the admis-
sion of any more Slave States under any circum-
stance. If he is so opposed, why not say so? If
he believes this Union cannot endure divided into
25 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 par-
30 ticular act, and I will do it, if the Constitution does
not prohibit it. I am not for the dissolution of the
MR. DOUGLAS'S RIIPLY 6^
Union under any circumstances. I will pursue no
course of conduct that will ^ive just cause for the
dissolution of the Union. The hope of the friends
of freedom throui^hout the world rests upon the
perpetuity of this Union. The down-trodden and 5
oppressed people who are suffering under European
despotism all look with hope and anxiety to the
American Union as the only resting place and per-
manent home of freedom and self-government.
Mr. Lincoln says that he believes that this Union 10
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 15
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 retire in shame from the Senate of the
United States when I am not willing to be put to 20
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 25
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 3°
knew that the people would see in the end that I had
64
JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
done right, and I knew that the God of heaven would
smile upon me if I was faithful in the performance
of my duty.
Mr. Lincoln makes a charge of corruption against
5 the Supreme Court of the United States, and
two Presidents of the United States, and attempts
to bolster it up by saying that I did the same against
the Washington " Union." Suppose I did make
that charge of corruption against the Washington
lo " 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
^5 Judges of the Supreme Court, President Pierce,
President Buchanan, and myself, by that bill and
the decision of the court to break down the barrier
and establish slavery all over the Union. Does he
not know that that charge is historically false as
2o 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.
25 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 ;
3° it was not upon the docket of the Supreme Court;
it had not been brought there ; and the Judges in all
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY 65
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 intecfritv and honor is enouirh
to vindicate him from such a charge ; and as to 5
myself, I pronounce the charge an infamous lie,
whenever and wherever made, and by whomsoever
made. I am willing that Air. Lincoln should go and
rake up every public act of mine, every measure I
have introduced, report I have made, speech deliv- 10
crcd, and criticise them ; but when he charges upon
me a corrupt conspiracy for the purpose of pervert-
ing 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 15
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 Washington " Union " was made because
it advocated a revolutionary doctrine, by declaring 20
that the Free States had not the right to prohibit
slavery within their own limits. Because I made
that charge against the Washington " Union," Mr.
Lincoln says it was a charge against Mr. Buchanan.
Suppose it was : is Mr. Lincoln the peculiar defender 25
of Mr. Buchanan? Is he so interested in the Fed-
eral 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 understand the
whole thing. The Washington " Union," under 30
that most corrupt of all men, Cornelius Wendell, is
(^ JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
advocating Mr. Lincoln's claim to the Senate.
Wendell was the printer of the last Black Republican
House of Representatives ; he was a candidate before
the present Democratic House, but was ignomini-
5 ously 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
lo election to the Senate. Mr. Lincoln therefore con-
siders an attack upon Wendell 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 supporters, and the Federal
15 office-holders of this State, and the 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 delivered in answer to the Washington " Union,"
20 I made it distinctly against the '' Union," and
against the " Union " alone. I did not choose to
go beyond that. Lf I have reason to attack the
President's conduct, I will do it in language that
will not be misunderstood. When I differed with the
25 President, I spoke out so that you all heard me.
That question passed away ; it resulted in the tri-
umph of my principle, by allowing the people to do
as they please ; and there is an end of the contro-
versy. Whenever the great principle of self-gov-
30 ernment, — the right of the people to make their own
Constitution, and come into the Union with slavery
MR. LIXCOLN'S REJOINDER fy
or without it, as they see proper, — shall ap;"ain rise,
you will find me standing firm in defence 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 here- 5
after all State constitutions ought to be submitted
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 Demo- lo
cratic party, in order that he may defeat me and get
to the Senate.
[Mr. Douglas's time here expired, and he
stopped on the moment.]
MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER ^5
My Friends: It will readily occur to you that
I cannot, in half an hour, notice all the things that
so able a man as Judge Douglas can say in an hour
and a half; and I hope, therefore, if there be any-
thing that he said upon which you would like to hear 20
something from me, but which I omit to comment
upon, you will bear in mind that it would be expect-
ing 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 spe- 25
cially on them.
The first thing I have to say to you is a word in
68 JOIST DEBATE AT FREEPORT
regard to Judge Douglas's declaration about the
** ^-lllgarit\- and blackguardism " in the audience, —
that no such thing as he says, was shown by anv
Danocrat while I was speaking. Xow, I onlv wish,
5 by way of reply on this subject, to say that while /
was speaking, / used no " ^*ulgarit^^ or black-
guardism " toward any Democrat.
Xow, my friends, I come to all this long portion
of the Judge's speech, — ^perhaps half of it, — which
lo he has devoted to the various resolutions and plat-
forms that have been adopted in the different
counties in the different Congressional Districts, and
in the Illinois Legislature, which he supposes are
at variance with the positions I have assimied before
^5 you to-day. It is true that many of these resolu-
tions are at variance with the positions I have here
assimied. All I have to ask is that we talk reason-
ably and rationally about it. I happen to know, the
Judge's opinion to the contrary- notAvithstanding,
^ that I have never tried to conceal my opinions, nor
tried to deceive anyone in reference to them. He
may go and examine all the mxcmbers who voted for
me for United States Senator in 1855, ^^^^i" ^^^ elec-
tion of 1854. They were pledged to certain things
25 here at home, and were determined to have pledges
from me; and if he \s-ill find any of these persons
who will tell him an}-thing inconsistent with what I
say now, I will resign, or rather retire from the
race, and give him no more trouble. The plain
30 truth is this :
At the introduction of the Nebraska policy, we
MR. LIXCOLX'S REJOIXDER 69
believed there was a new era being introduced in
the history of the Repubhc which tended to the
spread and perpetuation of slaver\-. But in our
opposition to that measure we did not agree with
one another in everything. The people in the north 5
end of the State were for stronger measures of
opposition than we of the central and southern por-
tions 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 10
end met in your Conventions and passed your reso-
lutions. W'e in the middle of the State and further
south did not hold such Conventions and pass the
same resolutions, although we had in general a com-
mon view and a common sentiment. So that these 15
meetings which the Judge has alluded to, and the
resolutions he has read from, were local, and did
not spread over the whole State. We at last met
together in 1856, from all parts of the State, and we
agreed upon a common platform. You, who held 20
more extreme notions, either yielded those notions,
or, if not wholly yielding them, agreed to yield them
practically, for the sake of embodying the opposition
to the measures which the opposite party were push-
ing forward at that time. We met you then, and if 25
there was anything yielded, it was for practical pur-
poses. We agreed then upon a platfomi for the
party throughout the entire State of Illinois, and
now we are all bound, as a party, to that platform.
And I say here to you. if any one expects of me — in 3°
the case of my election — that I will do anything not
70 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
signified by our Republican platform and my an-
swers here to-day, I tell you very frankly that per-
son will be deceived. I do not ask for the vote of
any one who supposes that I have secret purposes
5 or pledges that I dare not speak out. Cannot the
Judge be satisfied? If he fears, in the unfortunate
case of my election, that my going to Washington
will enable me to advocate sentiments contrary to
those which I expressed when you voted for and
lo 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,
15 I do hope that all of us, entertaining a common sen-
timent in opposition to what appears to us a design
to nationalize and perpetuate slavery, will waive
minor differences on questions which either belong
to the dead past or the distant future, and all pull
20 together in this strug'gle. 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 per-
25 fectly 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
30 any office, I trust I may go down with no stain of
falsehood upon my reputation, notwithstanding the
MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER 71
hard opinions Judge Douglas chooses to entertain of
me. 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 melancholy 5
theme that I almost turn with disgust from the dis-
cussion,— from the repetition of an answer to it. I
trust that nearly all of this intelligent audience have
read that speech. If you have, I may venture to
leave it to you to inspect it closely, and see whether 10
it contains any of those " bugaboos " which frighten
Judge Douglas.
The Judge complains that I did not fully answer
his questions. If I have the sense to comprehend
and answer those questions, I have done so fairly. 15
If it can be pointed out to me how I can more fully
and fairly answer him, I aver I have not the sense
to see how it is to be done. He says, I do not de-
clare I would in any event vote for the admission of
a Slave State into the Union. If I have been fairly 20
reported, 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 Territor}'
from which slavery had been excluded should pre- 25
sent 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 refuses to under-
stand that I said so, and he wants this audience to 3^
understand that I did not say so. Yet it will be so
^2 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
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
5 the Union, because I hold that the Union cannot
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 all follow, that the admission of
lo a single Slave State will permanently fix the char-
acter 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, I aver as my confident belief, when you
15 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 ven-
20 ture to leave it to impartial judges whether his ques-
tions have not been more directly and circumstan-
tially answered than mine.
Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon the
editor of the Washington " Union," alone, of enter-
25 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
30 that he made that charge against more and higher
dignitaries than the editor of the Washington
MR. LIXCOLX'S REJOIXDER 73
" 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 5
trying to defend Mr. Buchanan against the charge?
Not at all. Am I not making the same charge my-
self ? I am trying to show that you, Judge Douglas,
are a witness on my side. I am not defending Bu-
chanan, and I will tell Judge Douglas that in my 10
opinion, when he made that charge, he had an eye
farther north than he was to-day. He was then
fighting against people who called him a Black Re-
publican and an Abolitionist. It is mixed all through
his speech, and it is tolerably manifest that his eye 15
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 20
article. And thereupon I understand that the Judge
withdrew the charge. Although he had taken ex-
tracts from the newspaper, and then from the Le-
compton Constitution, to show the existence of a
conspiracy to bring about a " fatal blow," by which 25
the States were to be deprived of the right of ex-
cluding 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 rail-
road surveyor, tells. He says they started out from 30
the Plaza to the Mission of Dolores. They had two
74 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
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
5 series of triangles between the points. At night he
turned to the chainman to ascertain what distance
they had come, and found that by some mistake he
had merely dragged the chain over the ground,
without keeping any record. By the " go-it-ometer "
lo he found he had made ten miles. Being skeptical
about this, he asked a drayman 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,
15 after he had made his calculations and computa-
tions, 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 sur-
veyor was of the drayman's statement of the dis-
20 tance 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 Douglas's
25 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
30 read it, but I will give it to the reporters. Judge
Douglas said ;
MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER 75
" Mr. President, you here find several distinct propo-
sitions 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 propositions 5
are, first, that the primary object of all government 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 immunities of citizens in lo
the several States; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State
laws, wdiether 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- 15
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 i8th
appeared the first article, giving the adhesion of the
* Union ' to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in
these words: ^5
" * 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, 30
when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitu-
tion, you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which
was put forth editorially in the 'Union.' What is it?
*** Article 7, Section i. The right of property is
'j^ JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
before 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.'
5 " Then in the schedule is a provision that the Con-
stitution 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.'
10 " It wnll 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
15 of November, followed by the glorification of the Le-
compton Constitution on the i8th 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
20 at the sovereignty of the States of this Union."
Here he says, " Mr. President, you here find sev-
eral distinct propositions advanced boldly, and ap-
parently authoritatively." 'By whose authority,
Judge Douglas? Again, he says in another place,
25 " It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton
Constitution that they are identical in spirit with
this authoritative article." By whose authority?
\^'ho do you mean to say authorized the publica-
tion of these articles ? He knows that the AVashing-
-^o ton " Union " is considered the organ of the
Administration. / demand of Judge Douglas hy
whose authority he meant to say those articles were
MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER 77
published, if not by the authority of the President
of the United States and his Cabinet? 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 5
provisions of the Lecompton Constitution are " iden-
tical," and, being identical, he argues that the
authors are co-operating and conspiring together.
He does not use the word " conspiring," but what
other construction can you put upon it? He winds lo
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 iSth of November, and this
clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a 15
State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits,
I saw that there was a fatal blozu being struck at the
sovereignty of the States of the Union."
I ask him if all this fuss was made over the
editor of this newspaper. It would be a terribly 20
'* fatal blow " indeed which a single man could
strike, when no President, no Cabinet officer, no
member of Congress, was giving strength and effi-
ciency to the moment. Out of respect to Judge
Douglas's good sense I must believe he didn't man- ^5
ufacture his idea of the "fatal " character of that
blow out of such a miserable scapegrace as he
represents that editor to be. But the Judge's eye
is farther south now. Then, it was very peculiarly
and decidedly north. His hope rested on the idea ^°
^8 JOINT DEBATE AT FREEPORT
of visiting 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 Re-
publican, and place himself at the head of our
5 organization. He has found that these despised
" Black Republicans " estimate him by a standard
which he has taught them none too well. Hence he
is crawling back into his old camp, and you will
find him eventually installed in full fellowship
lo among those whom he was then battling, and with
whom he now pretends to be at such fearful va-
riance. [Loud applause, and cries of " Go on, go
on."J I cannot, gentlemen ; my time has expired.
gittb 5oint Debate, at Galesburab
[October 7, 1858]
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH
Ladies and Gentlemen : Four years ago I
appeared before the people of Knox County for the 5
purpose of defending my poHtical action upon the
Compromise Measures of 1850 and the passage of
the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Those of you before me
who were present then will remember that I vindi-
cated myself for supporting those two measures by 10
the fact that they rested upon the great fundamental
principle that the people of each State and Territory
of this Union have the right, and ought to be per-
mitted to exercise the right, of regulating their own
domestic concerns in their own way, subject to 15
no other limitation or restriction than that which
the Constitution of the United States imposes upon
them. I then called upon the people of Illinois to
decide whether that principle of self-government
was right or wrong. If it was and is right, then 20
the Compromise Measures of 1850 were right, and
consequently, the Kansas and Nebraska bill, based
upon the same principle, must necessarily have been
right.
The Kansas and Nebraska bill declared, in so 25
79
8o FIFTH JOIXT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
many words, that it was the true intent and meaning
of the Act not to legislate slaven' into any State or
Territor}-, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu-
5 late their domestic institutions in their own way,
subject only to the Constitution of the United
States. For the last four years I have devoted all
my energies, in private and public, to commend that
principle to the American people. Whatever else
^° may be said in condemnation or support of my polit-
ical course, I apprehend that no honest man will
doubt the fidelity with which, under all circum-
stances, I have stood by it.
During the last year a question arose in the Con-
15 gress of the United States whether or not that prin-
ciple would be violated by the admission of Kansas
into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution.
In my opinion, the attempt to force Kansas in under
that constitution was a gross violation of the prin-
20 ciple enunciated in the Compromise Measures of
1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854, and
therefore I led off in the fight against the Lecomp-
ton Constitution, and conducted it until the effort
to carry that constitution through Congress was
25 abandoned. And I can appeal to all men, friends
and foes, Democrats and Republicans, Northern
men and Southern men, that during the whole of
that fight I carried the banner of Popular Sover-
eignty^ aloft, and never allowed it to trail in the
30 dust, nor lowered my flag until victor}' perched upon
our arms. When the Lecompton Constitution was
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 8l
defeated, the question arose in the minds of those
who had advocated it what they should next resort
to in order to carn»- out their views. They devised
a measure known as the EngHsh bill, and granted" a
general amnesty and political pardon to all men who 5
had fought against the Lecompton Constitution, pro-
vided they would support that bill. I for one did
not choose to accept the pardon, or to avail myself
of the amnesty granted on that condition. The fact
that the supporters of Lecompton were willing to lo
forgive all diflFerences of opinion at that time in the
event those who opposed it favored the English
bill, was an admission they did not think that oppo-
sition to Lecompton impaired a man's standing in
the Democratic party. Xow, the question arises, 15
what was that English bill which certain men are
now attempting to make a test of political orthodoxy
in this country ? It provided, in substance, that the
Lecompton Constitution should be sent back to the
people of Kansas for their adoption or rejection, at 20
an election which was held in August last, and in
case they refused admission under it, that Kansas
should be kept out of the L'nion until she had 93420
inhabitants. I was in favor of sending the consti-
tution back in order to enable the people to say 25
whether or not it was their act and deed, and em-
bodied their will; but the other proposition, that if
they refused to come into the L'nion under it, they
should be kept out until they had double or treble
the population they then had, I never would sane- 3©
tion by my vote. The reason why I could not
82 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH .
sanction It is to be found in the fact that by the
Enghsh bill, if the people of Kansas had only agreed
to become a slaveholding State under the Lecomp-
ton Constitution, they could have done so with
5 35,000 people, but if they insisted on being a Free
State, as they had a right to do, then they were to
be punished by being kept out of the Union until
they had nearly three times that population. I then
said in my place in the Senate, as I now say to you,
lo that whenever Kansas has population enough for a
Slave State she has population enough for a Free
State. I have never yet given a vote, and I never
intend to record one, making an odious and unjust
distinction between the different States of this
15 Union. I hold it to be a fundamental principle in
our republican form of government that all the
States of this Union, old and new, free and slave,
stand on an exact equality. Equality among the
different States is a cardinal principle on which all
20 our institutions rest. Wherever, therefore, you
make a discrimination, saying to a Slave State that
it shall be admitted with 35,000 inhabitants, and a
Free State that it shall not be admitted until it has
93,000 or 100,000 inhabitants, you are throwing the
25 whole weight of the Federal Government into the
scale in favor of one class of States against the other.
Nor would I on the other hand any sooner sanction
the doctrine that a Free State could be admitted
into the Union with 35,000 people, while a Slave
30 State was kept out until it had 93,000. I have
always declared in the Senate my willingness, and
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 83
I am willing- now to adopt the rule, that no Terri-
tory shall ever become a State until it has the
requisite population for a member of Congress,
according to the then existing ratio. But while I
have always been, and am now, willing to adopt 5
that general rule, I was not willing and would not
consent to make an exception of Kansas, as a pun-
ishment for her obstinacy in demanding the right
to do as she pleased in the formation of her consti-
tution. It is proper that I should remark here, that ^°
my opposition to the Lecompton Constitution did
not rest upon the peculiar position taken by Kansas
on the subject of slavery. I held then, and hold
now, that if the people of Kansas want a Slave
State, it is their right to make one, and be received 15
into the Union under it; if, on the contrary, they
want a Free State, it is their right to have it, and
no man should ever oppose their admission because
they ask it under the one or the other. I hold to
that great principle of self-government which as- 20
serts the right of every people to decide for them-
selves the nature and character of the domestic
institutions and fundamental law under which they
are to live.
The effort has been and is now being made in this ^^
State by certain postmasters and other Federal
office-holders to make a test of faith on the support
of the English bill. These men are now making
speeches all over the State against me and in favor
of Lincoln, cither directly or indirectly, because I ^^
would not sanction a discrimination between Slave
84 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
and Free States by voting for the English bill. But
while that bill is made a test in Illinois for the pur-
pose of breaking up the Democratic organization-
in this State, how is it in the other States ? Go to
5 Indiana, and there you find English himself, the
author of the English bill, who is a candidate for
re-election to Congress, has been forced by public
opinion to abandon his own darling project, and to
give a promise that he will vote for the admission
lo of Kansas at once, whenever she forms a constitu-
tion in pursuance of law, and ratifies it by a ma-
jority vote of her people. Not only is this the case
with English himself^ but I am informed that every
Democratic candidate for Congress in Indiana takes
15 the same ground. Pass to Ohio, and there you find
that Groesbeck, and Pendleton, and Cox, and all the
other anti-Lecompton men who stood shoulder to
shoulder with me against the Lecompton Constitu-
tion, but voted for the English bill, now repudiate
20 it and take the same ground that I do on that ques-
tion. So it is with the Joneses and others of Penn-
sylvania, and so it is with every other Lecompton
Democrat in the Free States. They now abandon
even the English bill, and come back to th€ true
25 platform which I proclaimed at the tin>e in the
Senate, and upon which the Democracy of Illinois
now stand. And yet, notwithstanding the fact that
every Lecompton and anti-Lecompton Democrat
in the Free States has abandoned the English bill,
30 you are told that it is to be made a test upon me,
while the power and patronage of the Government
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 85
are all exerted to elect men to Con.c^ress In the other
States who occupy the same position with reference
to it that I do. It seems that my political offence
consists in the fact that I first did not vote for the
Enp;-lish bill, and thus pledge myself to keep Kansas 5
out of the Union until she has a population of
93,420, and then return home, violate that pledge,
repudiate the bill, and take the opposite ground. If
I had done this, perhaps the Administration would
now be advocating my re-election, as it is that of the 10
others who have pursued this course. I did not
choose to give that pledge, for the reason that I
did not intend to carry out that principle. I never
will consent, for the sake of conciliating the frowns
of power, to pledge myself to do that which I do 15
not intend to perform. I now submit the question
to you, as my constituency, whether I was not right,
first, in resisting the adoption of the Lecompton
Constitution, and, secondly, in resisting the English
bill. I repeat that I opposed the Lecompton Consti- 20
tution because it was not the act and deed of the
people of Kansas, and did not embody their will. I
denied the right of any power on earth, under our
system of government, to force a constitution on
an unwilling people. There was a time when some 25
men could pretend to believe that the Lecompton
Constitution embodied the will of the people of
Kansas; but that time has passed. The question
was referred to the people of Kansas under the
English bill last August, and then, at a fair election, 30
they rejected the Lecompton Constitution by a vote
86 FIFTH JOIXT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
of from eight to ten against it to one in its favor.
Since it has been voted down by so overwhelming
a majority, no man can pretend that it was the act
and deed of that people, I submit the question to
5 you whether or not, if it had not been for me, that
constitution would have been crammed down the
throats of the people of Kansas against their con-
sent. \\'hile at least ninety-nine out of every hun-
dred people here present agree that I was right in
ic» defeating that project, yet my enemies use the fact
that I did defeat it by doing right, to break me down
and put another man in the United States Senate in
my place. The very men who acknowledge that I
was right in defeating Lecompton now form an
15 alliance with Federal office-holders, professed Le-
compton men, to defeat me, because I did right,
^ly political opponent, ^Ir. Lincoln, has no hope on
earth, and has never dreamed that he had a chance
of success, were it not for the aid that he is receiv-
20 ing from Federal office-holders, who are using their
influence and the patronage of the Government
against me in revenge for my having defeated the
Lecompton Constitution. A\^hat do you Republi-
cans think of a political organization that wall try
25 to make an unholy and unnatural combination with
its professed foes to beat a man merely because he
has done right? You know such is the fact with
regard to your own party. You know that the axe
of decapitation is suspended over every man in
30 office in Illinois, and the terror of proscription is
threatened every Democrat by the present Adminis-
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 87
tration, unless he supports the Republican ticket in
preference to my Democratic associates and myself.
I could find an instance in the postmaster of the
city of Galesburgh, and in every other postmaster in
this vicinity, all of whom have been stricken down 5
simply because they discharged the duties of their
offices honestly, and supported the regular Demo-
cratic ticket in this State in the right. The Repub-
lican party is availing itself of unworthy means in
the present contest to carry the election, because 10
its leaders know that if they let this chance slip
they will never have another, and their hopes of
making this a Republican State will be blasted
forever.
Now, let me ask you whether the country has 15
any interest in sustaining this organization, known
as the Republican party. That party is unlike all
other political organizations in this country. All
other parties have been national in their character,
— have avowed their principles alike in the Slave 20
and Free States, in Kentucky as well as Illinois, in
Louisiana as well as in Massachusetts. Such was
the case with the old Whig party, and such was and
is the case with the Democratic party. Whigs and
Democrats could proclaim their principles boldly 25
and fearlessly in the North and in the South, in the
East and in the West, wherever the Constitution
ruled, and the American flag waved over American
soil.
But now you have a sectional organization, a 30
party which appeals to the Northern section of the
88 FIFTH JOIXT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
Union against the Southern, a party which appeals
to Northern passion, Northern pride. Northern am-
bition and Northern prejudices, against Southern
people, the Southern States, and Southern institu-
5 tions. The leaders of that party hope that they will
be able to unite the Northern States in one great
sectional party; and inasmuch as the North is the
stronsfer section, that thev will thus be enabled to
out-vote, conquer, govern and control the South.
lo Hence you find that they now make speeches advo-
cating principles and measures which cannot be
defended in any slaveholding State of this Union.
Is there a Republican residing in Galesburgh who
can travel into Kentucky and earn* his principles
15 with him across the Ohio? \\'hat Republican from
^lassachusetts can visit the Old Dominion without
leaving his principles behind him when he crosses
Mason and Dixon's line? Permit me to say to you
in perfect good humor, but in all sincerity, that no
20 political creed is sound which cannot be proclaimed
fearlessly in every State of this Union where the
Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Not only is this Republican party unable to pro-
claim its principles alike in the North and South,
25 in the Free States and in the Slave States, but it
cannot even proclaim them in the same forms and
give them the same strength and meaning in all
parts of the same State. My friend Lincoln finds
it extremely difficult to manage a debate in the
30 central part of the State, where there is a mixture
of men from the North and the South. In the ex-
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 89
treme northern part of Illinois he can proclaim as
bold and radical Abolitionism as ever Giddings,
Lovejoy, or Garrison enunciated ; but when he gets
down a little further south he claims that he is an old
line Whig, a disciple of Henry Clay, and declares 5
that he still adheres to the old line Whig creed, and
has nothing whatever to do with Abolitionism, or
negro equality, or negro citizenship. I once before
hinted this of Mr. Lincoln in a public speech, and
at Charleston he defied me to show that there was 10
any difference between his speeches in the North
and in the South, and that they were not in strict
harmony. I will now call your attention to two of
them, and you can then say whether you would be
apt to believe that the same man ever uttered both. 15
In a speech in reply to me at Chicago in July last,
Mr. Lincoln, in speaking of the equality of the
negro with the white man, used the following lan-
guage:
"I should like to know, if, taking this old Declara- 02
tion of Independence, which declares 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 may not another man say it does not
mean another man? If the Declaration is not the 25
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."
You find that Mr. Lincoln there proposed that if
the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, 30
declaring all men to be bom equal, did not include
90 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
the negro and put him on an equaHty with the
white man, that we should take the statute book and
tear it out. He there took the ground that the
negro race is included in the Declaration of Inde-
5 pendence as the equal of the white race, and that
there could be no such thing as a distinction in the
races, making one superior and the other inferior.
I read now from the same speech:
"My friends [he says], I have detained you about
lo as long as I desire 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, discarding our standard that we have
15 left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as
one people throughout this land, until we shall once
more stand up declaring that all men are created
equal."
[" That's right," etc.]
^° Yes, I have no doubt that you think it is right;
but the Lincoln men down in Coles, Tazewell, and
Sangamon counties do not think it is right. In the
conclusion of the same speech, talking to the
Chicago Abolitionists, he said : " I leave you, hop-
25 ing 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." [" Good, good."]
Well, you say good to that, and you are going to
vote for Lincoln because he holds that doctrine. I
30 will not blame you for supporting him on that
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 91
jxroiind. but I will show yon. in immediate contrast
with that doctrine, what Mr. I.incoln said down in
Es^ypt in order to get votes in that locality, where
they do not hold to such a doctrine. In a joint dis-
cussion between Mr. Lincoln and myself, at Charles- 5
ton, I think, on the i8th of last month, Mr. Lincoln,
referring to this subject, used the following lan-
guage :
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been,
in favor of bringing about in any way the social and 10
political equality of the white and black races; that I
am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making
voters of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying
them to hold office, or having them to marry with white
people. I will say, in addition, that there is a physical 15
difference between the white and black races which, I
suppose, will forever forbid the two races living
together upon terms of social and political equality; and
inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do
remain together there must be the position of superior 20
and inferior, that I as much as any other man am
in favor of the superior position being assigned to the
white man."
["Good for Lincoln."]
Fellow-citizens, here you find men hurrahing for 25
Lincoln, and saying that he did right, when in one
part of the State he stood up for negro equality,
and in another part, for political effect, discarded
the doctrine, and declared that there always must
])e a superior and inferior race. Abolitionists up 30
iNorth are expected and required to vote for Lincoln
92 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
because he goes for the equaHty of the races, hold-
ing that by the Declaration of Independence the
white man and the negro were created equal, and
endowed by the divine law with that equality, and
5 down South he tells the old Whigs, the Kentuckians,
Virginians, and Tennesseeans, that there is a phys-
ical difference in the races, making one superior
and the other inferior, and that he is in favor of
maintaining the superiority of the white race over
lo the negro. Now, how can you reconcile those two
positions of Mr. Lincoln? He is to be voted for in
the South as a pro-slavery man, and he is to be
voted for in the North as an Abolitionist. Up here
he thinks it is all nonsense to talk about a difference
15 between the races, and says that we must " discard
all quibbling about this race and that race and the
other race being inferior, and therefore they must
be placed in an inferior position." Down South he
makes this " quibble " about this race and that race
20 and the other race being inferior as the creed of his
party, and declares that the negro can never be
elevated to the position of the white man. You find
that his political meetings are called by different
names in different counties in the State. Here they
25 are called Republican meetings ; but in old Tazewell,
where Lincoln made a speech last Tuesday, he did
not address a Republican meeting, but " a grand
rally of the Lincoln men." There are very few Re-
publicans there, because Tazewell County is filled
30 with old Virginians and Kentuckians, all of whom
are Whigs or Democrats; and if Mr. Lincoln had
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 03
called an Abolition or Republican meeting there,
he would not get many votes. Go down into Egypt,
and you find that he and his party arc operating
under an alias there, which his friend Trumbull
has given them, in order that they may cheat the 5
peoj^le. When I was down in jMonroe County a
few weeks ago, addressing the people, I saw hand-
bills posted announcing that Mr. Trumbull was
going to speak in behalf of Lincoln ; and what do
you think the name of his party was there? Why, lo
the "Free Democracy." Mr. Trumbull and Mr.
Jehu Baker were announced to address the Free
Democracy of Monroe County, and the bill was
signed, " Many Free Democrats." The reason that
Lincoln and his party adopted the name of " Free 15
Democracy " down there was becaus'^ Monroe
County has always been an old-fashioned Demo-
cratic county, and hence it was necessary to make
the people believe that they were Democrats, sym-
pathized with them, and were fighting for Lincoln 20
as Democrats. Come up to Springfield, where Lin-
coln now lives, and always has lived, and you find
that the Convention of his party which assembled
to nominate candidates for Legislature, who are
expected to vote for him if elected, dare not adopt 25
the name of Republican, but assembled under the
title of " all opposed to the Democracy." Thus you
find that Mr. Lincoln's creed cannot travel through
even one-half of the counties of this State, but that it
changes its hues and becomes lighter and lighter as 30
it travels from the extreme north, until it is nearly
94 FIFTH JOIXT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
white when it reaches the extreme south end of the
State.
I ask you, my friends, why cannot RepubHcans
avow their principles ahke everywhere? I would
5 despise myself if I thought that I w^as procuring
your votes by concealing my opinions, and by avow-
ing one set of principles in one part of the State,
and a different set in another part. If I do not
truly and honorably represent your feelings and
lo principles, then I ought not to be your Senatt)r ; and
I will never conceal my opinions, or modify or
change them a hair's breadth, in order to get votes.
I tell you that this Chicago doctrine of Lincoln's —
declaring that the negro and the white man are
15 made equal by the Declaration of Independence and
by Divine Providence — is a monstrous heresy.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence
never dreamed of the negro when they were writ-
ing that document. They referred to white men,
20 to men of European birth, and European descent,
when they declared the equality of all men. I see
a gentleman there in the crowd shaking his head.
Let me remind him that when Thomas Jefferson
wrote that document, he was the owner, and so con-
25 tinned until his death, of a large number of slaves.
Did he intend to say in that Declaration that his
negro slaves, which he held and treated as property,
were created his equals by divine law, and that he
was violating the law of God every day of his life
30 by holding them as slaves? It must be borne in
mind that when that Declaration was put forth.
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 95
all of the thirteen Colonies were slaveholding
Colonies, and every man who signed that in-
strument represented a slaveholding constituency.
Recollect, also, that no one of them emancipated his
slaves, much less put them on an equality with 5
himself, after he signed the Declaration. On the
contrary, they all continued to hold their negroes
as slaves during the Revolutionary War. Now, do
you believe — are you willing to have it said — that
every man who signed the Declaration of Inde- 10
pendence declared the negro his equal, and then w'as
hypocrite enough to continue to hold him as a slave,
in violation of what he believed to be the divine
law? And yet when you say that the Declaration
of Independence includes the negro, you charge the 15
signers of it with hypocrisy.
I say to you, frankly, that in my opinion this
government was made by our fathers on the white
basis. It was made by wdiite men for the benefit
of white men and their posterity forever, and was 20
intended to be administered by white men in all
time to come. But while I hold that under our Con-
stitution and political system the negro is not a
citizen, cannot be a citizen, and ought not to be a
citizen, it does not follow by any means that he 25
should be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow
that the negro, as an inferior race, ought to possess
every right, every privilege, every immunity, which
he can safely exercise, consistent with the safety of
the society in which he lives. Humanity requires, 30
and Christianity commands, that you shall extend
96 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
to every inferior being, and every dependent being,
all the privileges, immunities, and advantages which
can be granted to them, consistent with the safety
of society. If you ask me the nature and extent
5 of these privileges, I answer that that is a question
which the people of each State must decide for
themselves. Illinois has decided that question for
herself. We have said that in this State the negro
shall not be a slave, nor shall he be a citizen. Ken-
lo tucky holds a different doctrine. New York holds
one different from either, and Maine one different
from all. Virginia, in her policy on this question,
differs in many respects from the others, and so on,
until there are hardly two States whose policy is
15 exactly alike in regard to the relation of the white
man and the negro. Nor can you reconcile them
and make them alike. Each State must do as it
pleases. Illinois had as much right to adopt the
policy which we have on that subject as Kentucky
20 had to adopt a different policy. The great principle
of this government is, that each State has the right
to do as it pleases on all these questions, and no
other State or power on earth has the right to in-
terfere with us, or complain of us merely because
25 our system differs from theirs. In the Compromise
Measures of 1850, Mr. Clay declared that this great
principle ought to exist in the Territories as well
as in the States, and I reasserted his doctrine in the
Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854.
30 But Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to understand,
and those who are determined to vote for him, no
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 97
matter whether he is a pro-slavery man in the South
and a ne[:^ro equahty advocate in the North, cannot
be made to understand how it is that in a Territory
the people can do as they please on the slavery ques-
tion under the Dred Scott decision. Let us see ^
whether I cannot explain it to the satisfaction ot
all impartial men. Chief Justice Taney has said,
ill his ()i)inion in the Dred Scott case, that a ncp^ro
slave, beinf^ property, stands on an equal footing
with other property, and that the owner may carry jo
them into the United States territory the same as he
does other property. Suppose any two of you,
neiij^-hbors, should conclude to go to Kansas, one
carrying $100,000 worth of negro slaves, and the
other $100,000 worth of mixed merchandise, includ- 15
ing quantities of liquors. You both agree that under
that decision you may carry your property to Kan-
sas ; but when you get it there, the merchant who is
possessed of the liquors is met by the Maine liquor
law, which prohibits the sale or use of his property, 20
and the owner of the slaves is met by equally un-
friendly legislation, which makes his projx^rty
worthless after he gets it there. What is the right
to carry your property into the Territory worth to
either, when unfriendly legislation in the Territory 25
renders it worthless after you get it there? The
slaveholder when he gets his slaves there finds that
there is no local taw to protect him in holding them,
no slave code, no police regulation maintaining and
supporting him in his right, and he discovers at 2>o
once that the absence of such friendly legislation
98 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
excludes his property from the Territory just as
irresistibly as if there was a positive Constitutional
prohibition excluding it. Thus you find it is with
any kind of property in a Territory: it depends for
5 its protection on the local and municipal law. If the
people of a Territory want slavery, they make
friendly legislation to introduce it; but if they do
not want it, they withhold all protection from it,
and then it cannot exist there. Such was the view
lo taken on the subject by different Southern men
when the Nebraska bill passed. See the speech of
Mr. Orr, of South Carolina, the present Speaker of
the House of Representatives of Congress, made at
that time; and there you will find this whole doc-
15 trine argued out at full length. Read the speeches
of other Southern Congressmen, Senators and Rep-
resentatives, made in 1854, and you will find that
they took the same view of the subject as Mr. Orr,
that slavery could never be forced on a people who
20 did not want it. I hold that in this country there
is no power on the face of the globe that can force
any institution on an unwilling people. The great
fundamental principle of our government is that
the people of each State and each Territory shall
25 be left perfectly free to decide for themselves what
shall be the nature and character of their institu-
tions. When this government was made, it was
based on that principle. At the time of its formation
there were twelve slaveholding States and one free
30 State in this Union. Suppose this doctrine of Mr.
Lincoln and the Republicans, of uniformity of laws
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 99
of all the States on the subject of slavery, had pre-
vailed; suppose Mr. Lincoln himself had been a
member of the Convention which framed the Con-
stitution, and that he had risen in that august body,
and, addressing the father of his country, had said 5
as he did at Springfield : " A house divided against
itself cannot stand. I believe this government can-
not 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 10
to be divided. It will become all one thing or all
the other." What do you think would have been
the result? Suppose he had made that Convention
believe that doctrine, and they had acted upon
it, what do you think would have been the result? 15
Do you believe that the one Free State would have
outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus
abolish slavery? On the contrary, would not the
twelve slaveholding States have outvoted the one
Free State, and under his doctrine have fastened 20
slavery by an irrevocable constitutional provision
upon every inch of the American Republic? Thus
you see that the doctrine he now advocates, if pro-
claimed at the beginning of the government, would
have established slavery everywhere throughout the 25
American continent ; and are you willing, now that
we have the majority section, to exercise a power
which we never would have submitted to when we
were in the minority? If the Southern States had
attempted to control our institutions, and make the 30
States all slave, when they had had the power, I ask
100 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALES BURGH
would you have submitted to it? If you would not,
are you willing, now that we have become the
strongest under that great principle of self-govern-
ment that allows each State to do as it pleases,
5 to attempt to control the Southern institutions?
Then, my friends, I say to you that there is but one
path of peace in this Republic, and that is to ad-
minister this government as our fathers made it,
divided into Free and Slave States, allowing each
lo State to decide for itself whether it wants slavery
or not. If Illinois will settle the slavery question
for herself, and mind her own business and let her
neighbors alone, we will be at peace with Kentucky
and every other Southern State. If every other
^5 State in the Union will do the same, there will be
peace between the North and the South, and in the
whole Union.
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY
My Fellow-Citizens: A very large portion of
2o the speech which Judge Douglas has addressed to
you has previously been delivered and put in print.
I do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all.
If I had not been interrupted, I was going to say
that such an answer as I was able to make to a very
25 large portion of it, had already been more than once
made and published. There has been an oppor-
tunity offered to the public to see our respective
views upon the topics discussed in a large portion
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY loi
of the speech which he has just dcHvered. I make
these remarks for the purpose of excusinp^ myself
for not passing over the entire ground that the
Judge has just traversed. I however desire to take
up some of the points that he has attended to, and 5
ask your attention to them, and I shall follow him
backwards upon some notes which I have taken,
reversing the order, by beginning where he
concluded.
The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of lo
Independence, and insisted that negroes are not
included in that Declaration ; and that it is a slander
upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that
negroes were meant therein ; and he asks you : Is it
possible to believe that Mr. Jefiferson, who penned 15
the immortal paper, could have supposed himself
applying the language of that instrument to the
negro race, and yet hold a portion of that race in
slavery? Would he not at once have freed them?
I only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's 20
speech (and that, too, very briefly, for I shall not
detain myself, or you, upon that point for any great
length of time), that I believe the entire records of
the world, from the date of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence up to within three years ago, may be 25
searched in vain for one single affinnation, from one
single man, that the negro was not included in the
Declaration of Independence ; I think I may defy
Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that
Washington ever said so, that any President ever 30
said so, that any member of Congress ever said so,
102 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALES BURGH
or that any living man upon the whole earth ever said
so, until the necessities of the present policy of the
Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent
that affirmation. And I will remind Judge Douglas
5 and his audience that while Mr. Jefferson was the
owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking
upon this very subject he used the strong language
that " he trembled for his country when he remem-
bered that God was just"; and I will offer the
lo highest premium in my power to Judge Douglas if
he will show me that he in all his life, ever uttered a
sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson.
The next thing to which I will ask your attention
is the Judge's comments upon the fact, as he
15 assumes it to be, that we cannot call our public
meetings as Republican meetings ; and he instances
Tazewell County as one of the places where the
friends of Lincoln have called a public meeting and
have not dared to name it a Republican meeting.
20 He instances Monroe County as another, where
Judge Trumbull and Jehu Baker addressed the per-
sons whom the Judge assumes to be the friends of
Lincoln, calling them the " Free Democracy." I
have the honor to inform Judge Douglas that he
25 spoke in that very county of Tazewell last Saturday,
and I was there on Tuesday last ; and when he spoke
there, he spoke under a call not venturing to use
the word " Democrat." [Turning to Judge Doug-
las.] What think you of this?
30 So, again, there is another thing to which I would
ask the Judge's attention upon this subject. In the
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 103
contest of 1856 his party deli^q-htcd to call themselves
together as the " National Democracy "; but now, if
there should be a notice put up anywhere for a
meeting of the " National Democracy," Judge
Douglas and his friends would not come. They 5
would not suppose themselves invited. They would
understand that it w^as a call for those hateful post-
masters whom he talks about.
Now a few words in regard to these extracts
from speeches of mine which Judge Douglas has 10
read to you, and which he supposes are in very
great contrast to each other. Those speeches have
been before the public for a considerable time, and
if they have any inconsistency in them, if there is
any conflict in them, the public have been able to 15
detect it. When the Judge says, in speaking on this
subject, that I make speeches of one sort for the
people of the northern end of the State, and of a
different sort for the southern people, he assumes
that I do not understand that my speeches will be 20
put in print and read north and south. I knew all
the while that the speech that I made at Chicago
and the one I made at Jonesboro and the one at
Charleston, would all be put in print, and all the
reading and intelligent men in the community would 25
see them and know all about my opinions. And I
have not supposed, and do not now suppose, that
there is any conflict whatever between them. But
the Judge will have it that if we do not confess that
there is a sort of inequality between the white and 30
black races which justifies us in making them slaves,
104 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
we must then insist that there is a degree of equaHty
that Requires us to make them our wives. Now, I
have all the while taken a broad distinction in regard
to that matter; and that is all there is in these dif-
5 ferent speeches which he arrays here ; and the entire
reading of either of the speeches will show that that
distinction was made. Perhaps by taking two parts
of the same speech he could have got up as much of
a conflict as the one he has found. I have all the
lo while maintained that in so far as it should be
insisted that there w^as an equality between the white
and black races that should produce a perfect social
and political equality, it was an impossibility. This
you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it
15 I have said that in their right to " life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness," as proclaimed in that old
Declaration, the inferior races are our equals. And
these declarations I have constantly made in refer-
ence to the abstract moral question, to contemplate
20 and consider when we are legislating about any
new country which is not already cursed with the
actual presence of the evil, — slavery. I have never
manifested any impatience with the necessities that
spring from the actual presence of black people
25 amongst us, and the actual existence of slavery
amongst us where it does already exist ; but I have
insisted that, in legislating for new countries where
it does not exist, there is no just rule other than that
of moral and abstract right ! With reference to
30 those new countries, those maxims as to the right
of a people to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap-
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 105
pincss " were the just rules to be constantly referred
to. There is no misunderstanding- this, except by
men interested to misunderstand it. I take it that
I have to address an intelligent and reading com-
munity, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and 5
then judge whether I advance improper or unsound
views, or whether I advance hypocritical, and decep-
tive, and contrary views in different portions of the
country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such
thing as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim 10
that I am entirely free from all error in the
opinions I advance.
The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard
to the distinction between his party and our party.
His he assumes to be a national party, — ours a sec- 15
tional one. He does this in asking the question
whether this country has any interest in the main-
tenance of the Republican party ? He assumes that
our party is altogether sectional, that the party to
which he adheres is national ; and the argument is, 20
that no party can be a rightful party — can be based
upon rightful princii:)les — unless it can announce
its principles everywhere. I presume that Judge
Douglas could not go into Russia and announce
the doctrine of our national Democracy ; he could 25
not denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors
and monarchies in Russia; and.it may be true of
this country that in some places w-e may not be able
to proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth
of Democracy, because there is a section so directly 30
opposed to it that they will not tolerate us in doing
io6 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
so. Is it the true test of the soundness of a doc-
rine that in some places people won't let you pro-
claim it? Is that the way to test the truth of any
doctrine? Why, I understood that at one time the
5 people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas
preach a certain favorite doctrine of his. I com-
mend to his consideration the question, whether he
takes that as a test of the unsoundness of what he
wanted to preach.
lo There is another thing to which I wish to ask
attention for a Httle while on this occasion. What
has always been the evidence brought forward to
prove that the Republican party is a sectional party ?
The main one was that in the Southern portion of
15 the Union the people did not let the Republicans
proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That has
been the main evidence brought forward, — that they
had no supporters, or substantially none, in the
Slave States. The South have not taken hold of
20 our principles as we announce them ; nor does Judge
Douglas now grapple with those principles. We
have a Republican State Platform, laid down in
Springfield in June last, stating our position all the
way through the questions before the country. We
25 are now far advanced in this canvass. Judge Doug-
las and I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece,
and we have now for the fifth time met face to face
in debate, and up to this day I have not found either
Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of
30 the Republican platform, or laying his finger upon
anything in it that is wrong. I ask you all to
MR. LIKCOLN'S REPLY 107
recollect that. Jiid^c^c Donc^las turns away from the
platform of principles to the fact that he can find
people somewhere who will not allow us to announce
those principles. If he had great confidence that
our principles were wrong, he would take hold of 5
them and demonstrate them to be wrong. P)Ut he
does not do so. The only evidence he has of their
being wrong is in the fact that there are people who
won't allow us to preach them. 1 ask again, is that
the way to test the soundness of a doctrine ? 10
I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule
of nationality he is himself fast becoming sectional.
I ask his attention to the fact that his speeches would
not go as current now south of the Ohio River as
they have formerly gone there. I ask his attention 15
to the fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all
the Democrats of the Free States are agreeing
with him, while he omits to tell us that the Demo-
crats of any Slave State agree with him. If he has
not thought of this, I commend to his consideration 20
the evidence in his own declaration, on this day,
of his becoming sectional too. I see it rapidly
approaching. Whatever may be the result of this
ephemeral contest between Judge Douglas anil
myself, I see the day rapidly approaching when this 25
pill of sectionalism, which he has been thrusting
down the throats of Republicans for years past,
will be crowded down his own throat.
Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in
the beginning of his speech) about the Compromise 30
of 1850 containing the principle of the Nebraska bill,
io8 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
although I have often presented my views upon that
subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I
will, if you please, detain you a little with them. I
have always maintained, so far as I w^as able, that
5 there was nothing of the principle of the Nebraska
bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all, — nothing
whatever. Where can you find the principle of the
Nebraska bill in that Compromise? If anywhere,
in the two pieces of the Compromise organizing the
10 Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was
expressly provided in these two Acts that when
they came to be admitted into the Union, they
should be admitted with or without slavery, as they
should choose, by their own constitutions. Nothing
15 was said in either of those Acts as to what was to
be done in relation to slavery during the Territorial
existence of those Territories, while Henry Clay
constantly made the declaration (Judge Douglas
recognizing him as a leader) that, in his opinion,
20 the old Mexican laws would control that question
during the Territorial existence, and that these old
Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can that be
used as a principle for declaration that during the
Territorial existence as well as at the time of fram-
25 ing the constitution, the people, if you please, might
have slaves if they wanted them? I am not dis-
cussing the question whether it is right or wTong;
but how are the New Mexican and Utah laws pat-
terns for the Nebraska bill? I maintain that the
30 organization of Utah and New Mexico did not
establish a general principle at all. It had no
MR. LIXCOLX'S REPLY log
feature of establishing^ a j::^eneral principle. The
Acts to which I have referred were a part of a gen-
eral system of Compromises. They did not lay
down what was proposed as a regular policy for the
Territories, only an agreement in this particular case 5
to do in that way, because other things were done
that were to be a compensation for it. They were
allowed to come in in that shape, because in another
way it was paid for, — considering that as a part
of that system of measures called the Compromise 10
of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen Acts.
It included the admission of California as a free
State, which was kept out of the Union for half a
year because it had formed a free constitution. It
included the settlement of the boundary of Texas, 15
which had been undefined before, which was in itself
a slavery question ; for if you pushed the line farther
west, you made Texas larger, and made more slave
territory ; while, if you drew the line toward the
east, you narrowed the boundary and diminished 20
the domain of slavery, and by so nuich increased
free territory. It included the abolition of the slave
trade in the District of Columbia. It included the
passage of a new Fugitive Slave law. All these
things were put together, and though passed in sep- 25
arate Acts, were nevertheless in legislation (as the
speeclies at the time will show) made to depend
upon each other. Each got votes, with the under-
standing that the other measures were to ])ass, and
by this system of Compromise, in that series of io
measures, those two bills — the New Mexico and
no FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
Utah bills — were passed : and I say for that reason
they could not be taken as models, framed upon
their own intrinsic principle, for all future Terri-
tories. And I have the evidence of this in the fact
5 that Judge Douglas, a year afterward, or more than
a year afterward, perhaps, when he first introduced
bills for the purpose of framing new Territories,
did not attempt to follow these bills of New Mexico
and Utah; and even when he introduced this
lo Nebraska bill, I think you will discover that he did
not exactly follow them. But I do not wish to
dw^ell at great length upon this branch of the dis-
cussion. My own opinion is, that a thorough inves-
tigation will show most plainly that the New Mexico
15 and Utah bills were part of a system of compromise,
and not designed as patterns for future Territorial
legislation ; and that this Nebraska bill did not fol-
low them as a pattern at all.
The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed
20 to making any odious distinctions between Free and
Slave States. I am altogether unaware that the
Republicans are in favor of making any odious dis-
tinctions between the Free and Slave States. But
there is still a difference, I think, between Judge
25 Douglas and the Republicans in this. I suppose
that the real difference between Judge Douglas and
his friends, and the Republicans, on the contrary, is,
that the Judge is not in favor of making any diff"er-
ence between slavery and liberty ; that he is in favor
3o of eradicating, or pressing out of view, the ques-
tions of preference in this country for free or slave
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY in
institutions ; and consequently every sentiment he
utters discards the idea that there is any wrong in
slavery. Ever\'thing that emanates from him or his
coadjutors in their course of policy carefully ex-
cludes the thought that there is anything wrong in 5
slavery. All their arguments, if you will consider
them, will be seen to exclude the thought that there
is anything whatever wrong in slavery. If you will
take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and
pointed sentences expressed by him, — as his decla- lo
ration that he " don't care whether slavery is voted
up or down," you will see at once that this is per-
fectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is
wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, Judge
Douglas cannot logically say he don't care whether 15
a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Doug-
las declares that if any community wants slavery
they have a right to have it. He can say that log-
ically, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery;
but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he can- 20
not logically say that anybody has a right to do
wrong. He insists that, upon the score of equality,
the owners of slaves and owners of property — of
horses and every other sort of property — should be
alike, and hold them alike in a new Territory. 25
That is perfectly logical if the two species of prop-
erty are alike and are equally founded in right. But
if you admit that one of them is wrong, you cannot
institute any ecpiality between right and wrong.
And from this difference of sentiment, — the belief 30
on the part of one that the institution is wrong, and
112 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT G ALES BURGH '
a policy springing from that belief which looks
to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong ; and
this other sentiment, that it is no wrong, and a
policy sprung from that sentiment, which will tol-
5 erate no idea of preventing the wrong from growing
larger, and looks to there never being an end to it
through all the existence of things, — arises the real
difference between Judge Douglas and his friends
on the one hand, and the Republicans on the other.
lo Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in
the country who contemplate slavery as a moral,
social, and political evil, having due regard for its
actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of
getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all
15 the constitutional obligations which have been
thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a pohcy
that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and
looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may
come to an end.
20 Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth
time, if not the seventh, in my presence, reiterated his
charge of conspiracy or combination between the Na-
tional Democrats and Republicans. What evidence
Judge Douglas has upon this subject I know not, in-
25 asmuch as he never favors us with any. I have said
upon a former occasion, and I do not choose to sup-
press it now, that I have no objection to the division
in the Judge's party. He got it up himself. It was
all his and their work. He had, I think, a great
3° deal more to do with the steps that led to the
Lecompton Constitution than Air. Buchanan had;
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY iij
though at last, when they reached it, they quarreled
over it, and their friends divided upon it. I am
very free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have
no objection to the division; but I defy the Judge
to show any evidence that I have in any way pro- 5
moted that division, unless he insists on being a
witness himself in merely saying so. I can give all
fair friends of Judge Douglas here to untlcrstand
exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to
that division. Don't you remember how two years ^o
ago the opponents of the Democratic party were
divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess
you do. Any Democrat who remembers that divi-
sion will remember also that he was at the time
very glad of it, and then he wdll be able to see all ^5
there is between the National Democrats and the
Republicans. What we now think of the two divi-
sions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fre-
mont and Fillmore divisions. That is all there
is of it. 20
But if the Judge continues to put forward the
declaration that there is an unholy and unnatural
alliance between the Republicans and the National
Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against
receiving him as an entirely competent witness upon 25
that subject. I want to call to the Judge's atten-
tion an attack he made upon me in the first one of
these debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In
order to fix extreme Abolitionism upon me. Judge
Douglas read a set of resolutions which he declared 3^
had been passed by a Republican State Convention,
114 PIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
in October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he
declared I had taken part in that Convention. It
turned out that although a few men calling them-
selves an anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat
5 at Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take
any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or
any such resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So
apparent had it become that the resolutions which
he read had not been passed at Springfield at all,
10 nor by a State Convention in which I had taken part,
that seven days afterward, at Freeport, Judge
Douglas declared that he had been misled by
Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the " State Regis-
ter," and Thomas L. Harris, member of Congress
15 in that District, and he promised in that speech that
when he went to Springfield he would investigate
the matter. Since then Judge Douglas has been to
Springfield, and I presume has made the investiga-
tion ; but a month has passed since he has been there,
20 and, so far as I know, he has made no report of the
result of his investigation. I have waited as I think
sufficient time for the report of that investigation,
and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A
fraud, an absolute forgery was committed, and the
^5 perpetration of it was traced to the three, — Lan-
phier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be
narrowed in any way so as to exonerate any one of
them, is what Judge Douglas's report would prob-
ably show.
^° It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge
Douglas were published in the Illinois " State Reg-
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 115
ister " on the i6th of October, 1854, as being the
resohitions of an anti-Xebraska Convention which
had sat in that same month of October, at Spring-
field. But it is also true that the publication in the
*' Register " was a forgery then, and the question 5
is still behind, which of the three if not all of them,
committed that forgery? The idea that it was done
by mistake, is absurd. The article in the Illinois
" State Register " contains part of the real proceed-
ings of that Springfield Convention, showing that 10
the writer of the article had the real proceedings
before him, and purposely threw out the genuine
resolutions passed by the Convention, and fraudu-
lently substituted the others. Lanphier then, as
now, was the editor of the " Register," so that there 15
seems to be but little room for his escape. But then
it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had less
interest in the object of that forgery than either of
the other two. The main object of that forgery at
that time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to 20
Congress, and that object was known to be exceed-
ingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris
and Douglas were both in Springfield when the
Convention was in session, and although they both
left before the fraud appeared in the " Register," 25
subsequent events show that they have both had
their eyes fixed upon that Convention.
The fraud having been apparently successful upon
the occasion, both Harris and Douglas have more
than once since then been attempting to ])ut it to 30
new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned
ii6 FIFTH JOIXT DEBATE AT GALESBVRGH
husband was brought home with his body full of
eels, said when she was asked, what was to be
done with him, "Take the eels out and set him
again," so Harris and Douglas have shown a dis-
5 position to take the eels out of that stale fraud by
which they gained Harris's election, and set the
fraud again more than once. On the 9th of July,
1856, Douglas attempted a repetition of it upon
Trumbull on the floor of the Senate of the United
10 States, as will appear from the appendix of the
*' Congressional Globe " of that date.
On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again
upon Norton in the House of Representatives, as
will appear by the same documents, — the appendix
15 to the " Congressional Globe " of that date. On the
2 1st of August last, all three — Lanphier, Douglas
and Harris — reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. It
has been clung to and played out again and again
as an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio.
20 And now that it has been discovered publicly to be
a fraud, we find that Judge Douglas manifests no
surprise at it at all. He makes no complaint of
Lanphier, who must have known it to be a fraud
from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and Harris are
25 just as cozy now, and just as active in the con-
coction of new schemes as they were before the
general discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is
very natural if they are all alike guilty in that fraud,
and it is very unnatural if any one of them is inno-
30 cent. Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of
honor among thieves does not quite require him to
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 117
take all upon himself, and consequently niy friend
Judge Douj::^las finds it difficult to make a satisfac-
tory report upon his investigation. lUit meanwhile
the three are agreed that each is ''a most honorable
man." 5
Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his
truth and honor by a re-election to the United States
Senate, and he makes and reports against me and
against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges
which we know to be utterly untrue, without for a 10
moment seeming to think that this one unexplained
fraud, which he promised to investigate, will be the
least drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto.
He asks a re-election to the lower House of Con-
gress without seeming to remember at all that he is 15
involved in this dishonorable fraud! The Illinois
" State Register," edited by Lanphier, then, as now,
the central organ of both Harris and Douglas, con-
tinues to din the public ear with this assertion, with-
out seeming to suspect that these assertions are at 20
all lacking in title to belief.
After all, the question still recurs upon us. How
did that fraud originally get into the " State Reg-
ister"? Lanphier then, as now, w^as the editor of
that paper. Lanphier knows. Lanphier cannot be 25
ignorant of how and by whom it w^as originally con-
cocted. Can he be induced to tell, or, if he has told,
can Judge Douglas be induced to tell how it orig-
inally was concocted? It may be true that Lan-
phier insists that the two men for whose benefit it 30
was originally devised shall at least bear their share
Ii8 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALES BURGH
of it! How that is, I do not know, and while it
remains unexplained, I hope to be pardoned if I
insist that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making
charges against Trumbull and myself is not quite
5 sufficient evidence to establish them !
While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint
discussions, I answered certain interrogatories
which Judge Douglas had propounded to me, and
then in turn propounded some to him, which he in a
lo sort of way answered. The third one of these inter-
rogatories I have with me, and wish now to make
some comments upon it. It was in these words:
*' If the Supreme Court of the United States shall
decide that the States cannot exclude slavery from
^5 their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in,
adhering to, and following such decision as a rule
of political action? "
To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no
answer in any just sense of the word. He con-
20 tented himself with sneering at the thought that
it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make
such a decision. He sneered at me for propound-
ing the interrogatory. I had not propounded it
without some reflection, and I wish now to address
25 to this audience some remarks upon it.
In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe
it is, of the Constitution of the United States, we
find the following language : " This Constitution
and the laws of the United States which shall be
30 made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority of the
MR. LIXCOLN'S REPLY 119
United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ;
and the jiuli2:es in every State diall be bound
thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any
State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed 5
into the sentence which I will now read : " Now, as
we have already said in an earlier part of this opin-
ion, upon a different point, the right of property in
a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
Constitution." I repeat it, '' The right of property 10
in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
Constitution! " What is it to be '' affirmed " in the
Constitution? Made firm in the Constitution, — so
made that it cannot be separated from the Consti-
tution without breaking the Constitution ; durable as 15
the Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now,
remembering the provision of the Constitution which
I have read; affirming that that instrument is the
supreme law of the land; that the Judges of every
State shall be bound by it, any law or constitution 20
of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; that
the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that
Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be
separated from it without breaking it; durable as
the instrument ; part of the instrument ; — what fol- 25
lows as a short and even syllogistic argument from
it? I think it follows, and I submit to the consid-
eration of men capable of arguing, whether as I
state it, in syllogistic form, the argument has any
fault in it? 30
Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State
120 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
can destroy a right distinctly and expressly affirmed
in the Constitution of the United States.
The right of property in a slave is distinctly and
expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United
5 States.
Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of
any State can destroy the right of property in a
slave.
I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that
lo argument; assuming the truth of the premises, the
conclusion, so far as I have capacity at all to
understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault
in it as I think, but the fault is not in the reason-
ing; but the falsehood in fact is a fault of the
15 premises. I believe that the right of property in
a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in
the Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks it is.
I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates
of that decision may search in vain for the place in
20 the Constitution where the right of a slave is dis-
tinctly and expressly affirmed. I say, therefore,
that I think one of the premises is not true in fact.
But it is true with Judge Douglas. It is true with
the Supreme Court who pronounced it. They are
25 estopped from denying it, and being estopped from
denying it, the conclusion follows that, the Consti-
tution of the United States being the supreme law,
no constitution or law can interfere with it. It
being affirmed in the decision that the right of
30 property in a slave is distinctly and expressly
affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion inev-
i
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 121
itably follows that no State law or constitution can
destroy that right. I then say to Judge Douglas and
to all others that I think it will take a better answer
than a sneer to show that those who have said
that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and 5
expressly affirmed in the Constitution, are not pre-
pared to show that no constitution or law can de-
stroy that right. I say I believe it will take a far
better argument than a mere sneer to show to the
minds of intelligent men that whoever has so said, is 10
not prepared, whenever public sentiment is so far
advanced as to justify it, to say the other. This
is but an opinion, and the opinion of one very
humble man ; but it is my opinion that the Dred
Scott decision, as it is, never would have been made 15
in its present form if the party that made it had not
been sustained previously by the elections. My
own opinion is, that the new Dred Scott decision,
deciding against the right of the people of the
States to exclude slavery, will never be made, if 20
that party is not sustained by the elections. I
believe, further, that it is just as sure to be made as
to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sus-
tained. I have said, upon a former occasion, and
I repeat it now, that the course of argument that 25
Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I
charge not his motives in this), is preparing the
public mind for that new Dred Scott decision. I
have asked him again to point out to me the reasons
for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision 3°
as it is. I have turned his attention to the fact
122 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
that General Jackson differed with him in regard
to the poUtical obhgation of a Supreme Court
decision. I have asked his attention to the fact
that Jefferson differed with him in regard to the
5 poHtical obhgation of a Supreme Court decision.
Jefferson said that " Judges are as honest as other
men, and not more so." And he said, substantially,
that " whenever a free people should give up in
absolute submission to any department of govern-
lo ment, retaining for themselves no appeal from it,
their liberties were gone." I have asked his atten-
tion to the fact that the Cincinnati platform upon
which he says he stands, disregards a time-honored
decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the power
15 of Congress to establish a National Bank. I have
asked his attention to the fact that he himself was
one of the most active instruments at one time in
breaking down the Supreme Court of the State of
Illinois, because it had made a decision distasteful
20 to him, — a struggle ending in the remarkable cir-
cumstance of his sitting down as one of the new
Judges who were to overslaugh that decision; get-
ting his title of Judge in that very way.
So far in this controversy I can get no answer
25 at all from Judge Douglas upon these subjects.
Not one can I get from him, except that he swells
himself up and says, " All of us who stand by the
decision of the Supreme Court are the friends of
the Constitution; all you fellows that dare question
30 it in any way, are the enemies of the Constitution."
Now, in this very devoted adherence to this deci-
MR. LIXCOLN'S REPLY 123
sion, in opposition to all the great political leaders
whom he has recognized as leaders, in opposition
to his fonner self and history, there is something
very marked. And the manner in which he adheres
to it, — not as being right upon the merits, as he con- 5
ceives (because he did not discuss that at all),
but as being absolutely obligatory upon everyone,
simply because of the source from whence it
comes, — as that which no man can gainsay, what-
ever it may be; this is another marked feature of 10
his adherence to that decision. It marks it in this
respect that it commits him to the next decision,
whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one,
since he does not investigate it, and won't inquire
whether this opinion is right or wrong. So he takes 15
the next one without inquiring whether it is right
or wrong. He teaches men this doctrine, and in so
doing prepares the public mind to take the next
decision when it comes without any inquiry. In
this I think I argue fairly (without questioning 20
motives at all) that Judge Douglas is most ingeni-
ously and powerfully preparing the public mind to
take that decision when it comes; and not only so,
but he is doing it in various other ways. In these
general maxims about liberty, in his assertions that 25
he " don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted
down " ; that " whoever wants slavery has a right to
have it " ; that '' upon principles of equality it should
be allowed to go everywhere " ; that " there is no
inconsistency between free and slave institutions." 30
In this he is also preparing (whether purposely or
124 FIFTH JOIXT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH '
not) the way for making the institution of slavery
national! I repeat again, for I wish no misunder-
standing, that I do not charge that he means it so ;
but I call upon your minds to inquire, if you were
5 going to get the best instrument you could, and then
set it to work in the most ingenious way, to prepare
the public mind for this movement, operating in
the Free States, where there is now an abhorrence
of the institution of slaver}^ could you find an
lo instrument so capable of doing it as Judge Doug-
las, or one employed in so apt a way to do it ?
I have said once before, and I will repeat it now,
that Mr. Clay, when he was once answering an ob-
jection to the Colonization Society, that it had a
15 tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves,
said that ** those who would repress all tendencies
to liberty and ultimate emancipation must do more
than put down the benevolent efforts of the Coloni-
zation Society, — they must go back to the era of our
20 liberty and independence, and muzzle the cannon
that thunders its annual joyous return ; they must
blot out the moral lights around us ; they must pene-
trate the human soul, and eradicate the light of
reason and the love of liberty ! " And I do think —
25 I repeat, though I said it on a former occasion —
that Judge Douglas and whoever, like him, teaches
that the negro has no share, humble though it may
be, in the Declaration of Independence, is going
back to the era of our liberty and independence, and,
30 so far as in him lies, muzzling the cannon that
thunders its annual joyous return ; that he is blow-
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 125
ing out the moral lights around us, when he con-
tends that whoever wants slaves has a right to hold
them ; that he is penetrating, so far as lies in his
power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of
reason and the love of liberty, when he is in every 5
possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast
influence, for making the institution of slavery per-
petual and national.
There is, my friends, only one other point to
which I will call your attenton for the remaining 10
time that I have left me, and perhaps I shall not
occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point
may not take me clear through it.
Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas
propounded to me at Freeport, there was one in 15
about this language : ** Are you opposed to the ac-
quisition of any further territory to the United
States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited there-
in?" I answered, as I thought, in this way, that I
am not generally opposed to the acquisition of addi- 20
tional territory, and that I would support a proposi-
tion for the acquisition of additional territory ac-
cording as my supporting it was or was not calcu-
lated to aggravate this slavery question amongst
us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another in- 25
terrogatory, which was correlative to that : " Are
you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in dis-
regard of how it may affect us upon the slavery
question?" Judge Douglas answered. — that is, in
his own way he answered it. I believe that, al- 30
though he took a good many words to answer it, it
126 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH •
was a little more fully answered than any other.
The substance of his answer was, that this country
would continue to expand ; that it would need addi-
tional territory ; that it was as absurd to suppose that
5 we could continue upon our present territory, en-
larging in population as we are, as it would be to
hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to
grow to man's size without bursting the hoops. I
believe it was something like that. Consequently,
lo he was in favor of the acquisition of further terri-
tory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how
it might affect the slavery question. I do not say
this as giving his exact language, but he said so
substantially; and he would leave the question of
15 slavery where the territory was acquired, to be set-
tled by the people of the acquired territory. [" That's
the doctrine."] May be it is; let us consider that
for a while. This will probably, in the run of
things, become one of the concrete manifestations of
20 this sL very question. If Judge Douglas's policy
upon this question succeeds, and gets fairly settled
down, until all opposition is crushed out, the next
thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico,
an invasion of the rich lands of South America,
25 then the adjoining islands will follow, each one of
which promises additional slave-fields. And this
question is to be left to the people of those countries
for settlement. When we get ]\Iexico, I don't know
whether the Judge will be in favor of the Mexican
30 people that we get with it settling that question for
themselves and all others; because we know the
MR LINCOLX'S REPLY 127
Judge has a great horror for mongrels, and I under-
stand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly
a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not
more than one person there out of eight who is
pure white, and I suppose from the Judge's previous 5
declaration that when we get Mexico or any con-
siderable portion of it, that he will be in favor of
these mongrels settling the question, which would
bring him somewhat into collision with his horror
of an inferior race. 10
It is to be remembered, though, that this power of
acquiring additional territory is a power confided to
the President and the Senate of the United States.
It is a power not under the control of the representa-
tives of the people any further than they, the Presi- 15
dent and the Senate, can be considered the repre-
sentatives of the people. Let me illustrate that by a
case we have in our history. When we acquired
the territory from Mexico in the Mexican war, the
House of Representatives, composed of the imme- 20
diate representatives of the people, all the time in-
sisted that the territory thus to be acquired should
be brought in upon condition that slavery should
be forever prohibited therein, upon the tenns and
in the language that slavery had been prohibited 25
from coming into this country. That was insisted
upon constantly and never failed to call forth an
assurance that any territory thus acquired should
have that prohibition in it, so far as the House of
Representatives was concerned. lUit at last the 30
President and Senate acquired the territory with-
128 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
out asking the House of Representatives anything
about it, and took it without that prohibition. They
have the power of acquiring territory without the
immediate representatives of the people being called
5 upon to say anything about it, and thus furnishing
a very apt and powerful means of bringing new
territory into the Union, and, when it is once
brought into the country, involving us anew in this
slaver}' agitation. It is, therefore, as I think, a very
lo important question for the consideration of the
American people, whether the policy of bringing in
additional territory, without considering at all how
it will operate upon the safety of the Union in refer-
ence to this one great disturbing element in our na-
15 tional politics, shall be adopted as the policy of the
country. You will bear in mind that it is to be ac-
quired, according to the Judge's view, as fast as it
is needed, and the indefinite part of this proposition
is that we have only Judge Douglas and his class of
20 men to decide how fast it is needed. We have no
clear and certain way of determining or demonstrat-
ing how fast territory' is needed by the necessities
of the country. Whoever wants to go out filibuster-
ing, then, thinks that more territory is needed.
25 Whoever wants wider slave-fields, feels sure that
some additional territory is needed as slave-territory.
Then it is as easy to show the necessity of additional
slave-territory as it is to assert anything that is in-
capable of absolute demonstration. Whatever mo-
30 tive a man or set of men may have for making
annexation of property or territory, it is very easy
AfR. LIXCOLX'S REPLY 129
to assert, but much less easy to disprove, that it is
necessary for the wants of the country.
And now it only remains for me to say that I
think it is a very grave question for the people of
this Union to consider, whether, in view of the fact 5
that this slavery question has been the only one that
has ever endangered our Republican institutions,
the only one that has ever threatened or menaced a
dissolution of the Union, that has ever disturbed us
in such a way as to make us fear for the perpetuity 10
of our liberty, — in view of these facts, I think it is
an exceedingly interesting and important question
for this people to consider whether we shall engage
in the policy of acquiring additional territory, dis-
carding altogether from our consideration, while 15
obtaining new territory, the question how it may
affect us in regard to this, the only endangering ele-
ment to our liberties and national greatness. The
Judge's view has been expressed. I, in my answer
to his question, have expressed mine. I think it 20
will become an important and practical question.
Our views are before the public. I am willing and
anxious that they should consider them fully; that
they should turn it about and consider the impor-
tance of the question, and arrive at a just conclusion 25
as to whether it is or is not wise in the people of
this Union, in the acquisition of new territory, to
consider whether it will add to the disturbance that
is existing amongst us, — whether it will add to the
one only danger that has ever threatened the per- 30
petuity of the Union or our own liberties. I think
130 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
it is extremely important that they shall decide, and
rightly decide, that question before entering upon
that policy.
And now, my friends, having said the little I wish
5 to say upon this head, whether I have occupied the
whole of the remnant of my time or not, I believe
I could not enter upon any new topic so as to treat
it fully, without transcending my time, which I
would not for a moment think of doing. I give way
lo to Judge Douglas.
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER
Gentlemen: The highest compliment you can
pay me during the brief half-hour that I have to
conclude is by observing a strict silence. I desire
^5 to be heard rather than to be applauded.
The first criticism that Mr. Lincoln makes on my
speech was that it was in substance what I have said
everywhere else in the State where I have addressed
the people. I wish I could say the same of his
2o speech. Why, the reason I complain of him is be-
cause he makes one speech north, and another south.
Because he has one set of sentiments for the Aboli-
tion counties, and another set for the counties op-
posed to Abolitionism. My point of complaint
25 against him is that I cannot induce him to hold up
the same standard, to carry the same flag, in all
parts of the State. He does not pretend, and no
other man will, that I have one set of principles for
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 131
Galcsl)ur£;li, and another for Charleston. Ifc docs
not pretend that 1 hold to one doctrine in Chicago,
and an opposite one in Joneshoro. I have proved
that he has a different set of principles for each of
these localities. All I asked of him was that he 5
should deliver the si)eech that he has made here to-
day in Coles County instead of in old Knox. It
would have settled the question between us in that
doubtful county. Here I understand him to reaffirm
the doctrine of neci^ro equalit}-, and to assert that by 10
the Declaration uf Independence the negro is de-
clared equal to the white man. He tells you to-day
that the negro was included in the Declaration of
Independence when it asserted that all men were
created equal. [**We believe it."] \'ery well. 15
Mr. Lincoln asserts to-day, as he did at Chicago,
that the negro was included in that clause of the
Declaration of Independence which says that all
men were created equal and endowed by the Creator
with certain inalienable rights, among which are 20
Hfe, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the
negro was made his equal and mine, if that equality
was established by divine law, and was the negro's
inalienable right how came he to say at Charleston
to the Kentuckians residing in that section of our 25
State that the negro was physically inferior to the
white man, belonged to an inferior race, and he was
for keei)ing him in that inferior condition. There
he gave the j)eople to understand that there was no
moral question involved, because, the inferiority be- 30
ing established, it was only a question of degree, and
132 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALES BURGH
not a question of right ; here, to-day, instead of
making it a question of degree, he makes it a moral
question, says that it is a great crime to hold the
negro in that inferior condition. ['' He's right."]
5 Is he right now, or was he right in Charleston?
[" Both."] He is right, then, sir, in your estimation,
not because he is consistent, but because he can trim
his principles any way, in any section, so as to se-
cure votes. All I desire of him is that he will
lo declare the same principles in the south that he does
in the north.
But did you notice how he answered my position
that a man should hold the same doctrines through-
out the length and breadth of this Republic ? He said,
^5 " Would Judge Douglas go to Russia and proclaim
the same principles he does here ? " I would remind
him that Russia is not under the American Consti-
tution. If Russia was a part of the American Re-
public, under our Federal Constitution, and I was
2o sworn to support the Constitution, I would maintain
the same doctrine in Russia that I do in Illinois.
The slaveholding States are governed by the same
Federal Constitution as ourselves, and hence a
man's principles, in order to be in harmony with the
25 Constitution, must be the same in the South as they
are in the North, the same in the Free States as they
are in the Slave States. Whenever a man advocates
one set of principles in one section, and another set
in another section, his opinions are in violation of
30 the spirit of the Constitution which he has sworn to
support. When Mr. Lincoln went to Congress in
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 133
1847, ^^^^y laying his hand uj)on the Holy Evan-
gcHsts, niade a solemn vow, in the presence of high
Heaven, that he would be faithful to the Constitu-
tion, what did he mean. — the Constitution as he ex-
pounds it in Galesburgh, or the Constitution as he 5
expounds it in Charleston?
Mr. Lincoln has devoted considerable time to the
circumstance that at Ottawa I read a series of reso-
lutions as having been adopted at Springfield, in this
State, on the 4th or 5th of October, 1854, which 10
happened not to have been adopted there. He has
used hard names ; has dared to talk about fraud,
about forgery, and has insinuated that there was a
conspiracy between Mr. Lanphier, Mr. Harris, and
myself to perpetrate a forgery. Now, bear in mind 15
that he does not deny that these resolutions were
adopted in a majority of all the Republican counties
of this State in that year ; he does not deny that they
were declared to be the platform of this Repuljlican
party in the first Congressional District, in the 20
second, in the third, and in many counties of the
fourth, and that they thus became the platform of
his party in a majority of the counties upon which
he now relies for support ; he does not deny the
truthfulness of the resolutions, but takes exception 25
to the spot on which they were adopted. He takes
to himself great merit because he thinks they were
not adopted on the right spot for me to use them
against him, just as he was very severe in Congress
upon the Government of his country when he 30
thought that he had discovered that the Mexican
134 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
war was not begun in the right spot, and was there
fore unjust. He tries very hard to make out that
there is something very extraordinary in the place
where the thing was done, and not in the thing itself.
5 I never believed before that Abraham Lincoln would
be guilty of what he has done this day in regard to
those resolutions. In the first place, the moment it
was intimated to me that they had been adopted at
Aurora and Rockford instead of Springfield, I did
lo not wait for him to call my attention to the fact,
but led off, and explained in my first meeting after
the Ottawa debate what the mistake was, and how it
had been made. I supposed that for an honest man,
conscious of his own rectitude, that explanation
15 would be sufficient. I did not wait for him, after
the mistake was made, to call my attention to it, but
frankly explained it at once as an honest man would.
I also gave the authority on which I had stated that
these resolutions were adopted by the Springfield
20 Republican Convention ; that I had seen them
quoted by Major Harris in a debate in Congress,
as having been adopted by the first Republican State
Convention in Illinois, and that I had written to
him and asked him for the authority as to the time
25 and place of their adoption ; that. Major Harris
being extremely ill, Charles H. Lanphier had writ-
ten to me, for him, that they were adopted at
Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854, and had
sent me a copy of the Springfield paper containing
30 them. I read them from the newspaper just as Mr.
Lincoln reads the proceedings of meetings held
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 135
years ago from the newspapers. After giving that
explanation, I did not think there was an honest
man in the State of IlHnois who doubted that I had
been led into the error, if it was such, innocently,
in the way I detailed ; and I will now say that I do 5
not now believe that there is an honest man on the
face of the globe who will not regard with abhor-
rence and disgust Mr. Lincoln's insinuations of my
complicity in that forgery, if it was a forgery. Does
Mr. Lincoln wish to push these things to the point io
of personal difficulties here? I commenced this
contest by treating him courteously and kindly ; I
always spoke of him in words of respect ; and in
return he has sought, and is now seeking to divert
public attention from the enormity of his revolution- ^5
ary principles by impeaching men's sincerity and
integrity, and inviting personal quarrels.
I desired to conduct this contest with him like a
gentleman ; but I spurn the insinuation of complicity
and fraud made upon the simple circumstance of an 20
editor of a newspaper having made a mistake as to
the place where a thing was done, but not as to the
thing itself. These resolutions were the platform of
this Republican party of Mr. Lincoln's of that year.
They were adopted in a majority of the Republican 25
counties in the State ; and when I asked him at
Ottawa whether they formed the platform upon
which he stood, he did not answer, and I could not
get an answer out of him. He then thought, as I
thought, that those resolutions were adopted at the 30
Springfield Convention, but excused himself by say-
136 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALES BURGH
ing that he was not there when they were adopted,
but had gone to Tazewell court in order to avoid
being present at the Convention. He saw them pub-
lished as having been adopted at Springfield, and
5 so did I, and he knew that if there was a mistake
in regard to them, that I had nothing under heaven
to do with it. Besides, you find that in all these
northern counties where the Republican candidates
are running pledged to him, that the Conventions
lo which nominated them adopted that identical plat-
form.
One cardinal point in that platform which he
shrinks from is this: that there shall be no more
Slave States admitted into the Union, even if the
15 people want them. Lovejoy stands pledged against
the admission of any more Slave States. ['* Right,
so do we."] So do you, you say. Farnsworth
stands pledged against the admission of any more
Slave States. Washburne stands pledged the same
20 way. The candidate for the Legislature who is run-
ning on Lincoln's ticket in Henderson and Warren,
stands committed by his vote in the Legislature to
the same thing ; and I am informed, but do not know
of the fact, that your candidate here is also so
25 pledged. ["Hurrah for him! good!"] Now, you
Republicans all hurrah for him, and for the doctrine
of no more Slave States. And yet Lincoln tells
you that his conscience will not permit him to sanc-
tion that doctrine, and complains because the reso-
3° lutions I read at Ottawa made him, as a member of
the party, responsible for sanctioning the doctrine
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 137
•
of no more Slave States. You are one way, you
confess, and he is, or pretends to be, the other; and
yet you are both governed by principle in supporting^
one another. If it be true, as I have shown it is,
that the whole Republican party in the northern part 5
of the State stands committed to the doctrine of
no more Slave States, and that this same doctrine is
repudiated by the Republicans in the other part of
the State, I wonder whether Mr. Lincoln and his
party do not present the case which he cited from 10
the Scriptures, of a house divided against itself
which cannot stand ! I desire to know what are Mr.
Lincoln's principles and the principles of his party?
I hold, and the party with which I am identified
hold, that the people of each State, old and new, 15
have the right to decide the slavery question for
themselves ; and when I used the remark that I
did not care whether slavery was voted up or down,
I used it in the connection that I was for allowing
Kansas to do just as she pleased on the slavery qucs- 20
tion. I said that I did not care whether they voted
slavery up or viown, because they had the right to
do as they pleased on the question, and therefore
my action would not be controlled by any such con-
sideration. Why cannot Abraham Lincoln, and the 25
party with which he acts, speak out their principles
so that they may be understood? Why do they
claim to be one thing in one part of the State, and
another in the other part? Whenever I allude to
the Abolition doctrines, which he considers a slander 30
to be charged with being in favor of, you all in-
138 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
dorse them, and hurrah for them, not knowing
that your candidate is ashamed to acknowledge
them.
I have a few words to say upon the Dred Scott
5 decision, which has troubled the brain of Mr. Lin-
coln so much. He insists that that decision would
carry slavery into the Free States, notwithstanding
that the decision says directly the opposite, and
goes into a long argument to make you believe that
lo I am in favor of, and would sanction, the doctrine
that would allow slaves to be brought here and held
as slaves contrary to our Constitution and laws.
Mr. Lincoln knew better when he asserted this ; he
knew that one newspaper, and, so far as is within
15 my knowledge, but one, ever asserted that doctrine,
and that I was the first man in either House of
Congress that read that article in debate, and de-
nounced it on the floor of the Senate as revolution-
ary. When the Washington "Union" on the 17th
20 of last November, published an article to that effect,
I branded it at once, and denounced it ; and hence
the " Union " has been pursuing me ever since. Mr.
Toombs, of Georgia, replied to me, and said that
there was not a man in any of the Slave States
25 south of the Potomac River that held any such doc-
trine. Mr. Lincoln knows that there is not a mem-
ber of the Supreme Court who holds that doctrine ;
he knows that every one of them, as shown by their
opinions, holds the reverse. Why this attempt,
30 then, to bring the Supreme Court into disrepute
among the people ? It looks as if there was an effort
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 139
being made to destroy public confidence in the high-
est judicial tribunal on earth. Suppose he succeeds
in destroying public confidence in the court, so that
the people will not respect its decisions, but will
feel at liberty to disregard them and resist the laws 5
of the land, what will he have gained? He will
have changed the government from one of laws
into that of a mob, in which the strong arm of
violence will be substituted for the decisions of
the courts of justice. He complains because I did i^
not go into an argument reviewing Chief Justice
Taney's opinion, and the other opinions of the dif-
ferent judges, to determine whether their reasoning
is right or wTong on the questions of law. What use
would that be? He wants to take an appeal from 15
the Supreme Court to this meeting, to determine
whether the questions of law were decided properly.
He is going to appeal from the Supreme Court of
the United States to every town meeting, in the
hope that he can excite a prejudice against that 20
court, and on the wave of that prejudice ride into
the Senate of the United States, when he could not
get there on his own principles or his own merits.
Suppose he should succeed in getting into the
Senate of the United States, what then will he have 25
to do with the decision of the Supreme Court in
the Dred Scott case? Can he reverse that decision
when he gets there? Can he act upon it? Has the
Senate any right to reverse it or revise it? He will
not pretend that it has. Then why drag the matter 30
into this contest, unless for the purpose of making
140 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE AT GALESBURGH
a false issue, by which he can direct public atten-
tion from the real issue.
He has cited General Jackson in justification of
the war he is making on the decision of the court.
5 Mr. Lincoln misunderstands the history of the
country if he believes there is any parallel in the
two cases. It is true that the Supreme Court once
decided that if a Bank of the United States was
a necessary fiscal agent of the government, it was
lo constitutional, and if not, that it was unconstitu-
tional, and also, that whether or not it was neces-
sary for that purpose, was a political question for
Congress, and not a judicial one for the courts to
determine. Hence the court would not determine the
15 bank unconstitutional. Jackson respected the de-
cision, obeyed the law, executed it, and carried it
into effect during its existence ; but after the charter
of the bank expired, and a proposition was made
to create a new bank, General Jackson said, " It
20 is unnecessary and improper, and therefore I am
against it on constitutional grounds as well as those
of expediency." Is Congress bound to pass every
Act that is constitutional? Why, there are a thou-
sand things that are constitutional, but yet are in-
25 expedient and unnecessary, and you surely would
not vote for them merely because you had the right
to? And because General Jackson would not do a
thing which he had a right to do, but did not deem
expedient or proper, Mr. Lincoln is going to justify
30 himself in doing that which he has no right to do.
I ask him whether he is not bound to respect and
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 141
obey the decisions of the Supreme Court as well
as I? The Constitution has created that court to
decide all constitutional questions in the last resort ;
and when such decisions have been made, they be-
come the law of the land, and you, and he, and my- 5
self, and every other good citizen, are bound by
them. Yet he argues that I am bound by their
decisions, and he is not. He savs that their de-
cisions are binding on Democrats, but not on Re-
publicans. Are not Republicans bound by the laws 10
of the land as well as Democrats? And when the
court has fixed the construction of the Consti-
tution on the validity of a given law, is not their
decision binding upon Republicans as well as upon
Democrats? Is it possible that you Republicans 15
have the right to raise your mobs and oppose the
laws of the land and the constituted authorities, and
yet hold us Democrats bound to obey them? ^ly
time is within half a minute of expiring, and all I
liave to say is, that I stand by the laws of the land. 20
I stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it,
by the laws as they are enacted, and by the de-
cisions of the court upon all points within their
jurisdiction as they are pronounced by the highest
tribunal on earth ; and any man who resists these 25
must resort to mob law and violence to overturn the
government of laws.
tibc Seventb anD Xast 5olnt Debate, at ?lltoi\
[October 15, 1858]
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH
Ladies and Gentlemen : It is now nearly four
5 months since the canvass between Mr. Lincoln and
myself commenced. On the i6th of June the Re-
publican Convention assembled at Springfield and
nominated Mr. Lincoln as tlieir candidate for the
United States Senate, and he, on that occasion,
10 delivered a speech in which he laid down what he
understood to be the Republican creed and the plat-
form on which he proposed to stand during the
contest. The principal points in that speech of
Mr. Lincoln's were: First, that this government
15 could not endure permanently divided into Free and
Slave States, as our fathers made it ; that they must
all become free or all become slave ; all become
one thing, or all become the other, — otherwise this
Union could not continue to exist. I give you his
20 opinions almost in the identical language he used.
His second proposition was a crusade against the
Supreme Court of the United States because of
the Dred Scott decision, urging as an especial
reason for his opposition to that decision that it de-
25 prived the negroes of the rights and benefits of that
142
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 143
clause in the Constitution of the United States
which p^uarantces to the citizens of each State all
the rii^hts, privik\c:es, and immunities of the citi-
zens of the several States. On the loth of July I
returned home, and delivered a speech to the people 5
of Chicago, in which I announced it to be my pur-
l)ose to appeal to the people of Illinois to sustain
the course I had pursued in Coni^ress. In that
speech I joined issue w^ith Mr. Lincoln on the points
which he had presented. Thus there was an issue 10
clear and distinct made up between us on these two
propositions laid down in the speech of Mr. Lin-
coln at Springfield, and controverted by me in my
reply to him at Chicago. On the next day, the nth
of July, Mr. Lincoln replied to me at Chicago, 15
explaining at some length and reaffirming the posi-
tions which he had taken in his Springfield speech.
In that Chicago speech he even went further than
he had before, and uttered sentiments in regard to
the negro being on an equality with the white man. 20
He adopted in support of this position the argu-
ment which Lovejoy and Codding and other Aboli-
tion lecturers had made familiar in the northern and
central portions of the State ; to wit, that the
Declaration of Independence having declared all 25
men free and equal, by divine law, also that negro
equality w^as an inalienable right, of which they
could not be deprived. He insisted, in that speech,
that the Declaration of Independence included the
negro in the clause asserting that all men w^re 3°
created equal, and went so far as to say that if
144 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON ■
one man was allowed to take the position that it
did not include the negro, others might take the
position that it did not include other men. He said
that all these distinctions between this man and
5 that man, this race and the other race, must be dis-
carded, and we must all stand by the Declaration of
Independence, declaring that all men were created
equal.
The issue thus being made up between Mr. Lin-
lo coin and myself on three points, we went before the
people of the State. During the following seven
weeks, between the Chicago speeches and our first
meeting at Ottawa, he and I addressed large as-
semblages of the people in many of the central
15 counties. In my speeches I confined myself closely
to those three positions which he had taken, con-
troverting his proposition that this Union could not
exist as our fathers made it, divided into Free and
Slave States, controverting his proposition of a
20 crusade against the Supreme Court because of the
Dred Scott decision, and controverting his proposi-
tion that the Declaration of Independence included
and meant the negroes as well as the white men,
when it declared all men to be created equal. I
25 supposed at that time that these propositions con-
stituted a distinct issue between us, and that the
opposite positions we had taken upon them we
would be willing to be held to in every part of the
State. I never intended to waver one hair's breadth
30 from that issue either in the north or the south or
wherever I should address the people of Illinois.
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 145
I hold that when the time arrives that I cannot pro-
claim my pohtical creed in tlie same terms, not
only in the northern, but in the southern part of
Illinois, not only in the Northern, but the Southern
States, and wherever the American Hag waves over 5
American soil, that then there must be something
wrong in that creed ; so long as we live under a
common Constitution, so long as we live in a con-
federacy of sovereign and equal States, joined to-
gether as one for certain purposes, that any political 10
creed is radically wrong which cannot be pro-
claimed in every State and every section of that
Union, alike. I took up Mr. Lincoln's three proposi-
tions in my several speeches, analyzed them, and
pointed out what I believed to be the radical errors 15
contained in them. First, in regard to his doctrine
that this government was in violation of the law of
God, which says that a house divided against itself
cannot stand, I repudiated it as a slander upon the
immortal framers of our Constitution. I then said, 20
I have often repeated, and now again assert, that
in my opinion our government can endure forever,
divided into Free and Slave States as our fathers
made it, — each State having the right to prohibit,
abolish, or sustain slaver^', just as it pleases. This 25
government was made upon the great basis of the
sovereignty of the States, the right of each State to
regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself;
and that right was conferred with the understand-
ing and expectation that inasmuch as each locality 30
had separate interests, each locality must have dif-
146 THE SEVENTH JOIXT DEBATE, AT ALTON
ferent and distinct local and domestic institutions,
corresponding to its wants and interests. Our
fathers knew when they made the government that
the laws and institutions which were well adapted
5 to the Green ^Mountains of \^ermont were unsuited
to the rice plantations of South Carolina, They
knew then, as well as we know now, that the laws
and institutions which would be well adapted to the
beautiful prairies of Illinois would not be suited to
lo the mininsf res^ions of California. Thev knew that
in a Republic as broad as this, having such a variety
of soil, climate, and interest, there must necessarily
be a corresponding variety of local laws, — the
policy and institutions of each State adapted to its
15 condition and wants. For this reason this Union
was established on the right of each State to do as
it pleased on the question of slaver}^ and every
other question; and the various States were not
allowed to com.plain of, much less interfere with,
20 the policy of their neighbors.
Suppose the doctrine advocated by Mr. Lincoln
and the Abolitionists of this day had prevailed
when the Constitution was made, what would have
been the result? Imagine for a moment that ^Ir.
25 Lincoln had been a member of the Convention that
framed the Constitution of the United States, and
that when its members were about to sign that won-
derful document, he had arisen in that Convention
as he did at Springfield this summer, and, address-
30 ing himself to the President, had said, " A house
divided against itself cannot stand; this govern-
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 147
nicnt, divided into Free and Slave States cannot en-
dure, they must all be free or all be slave ; they
must all be one thing-, or all the other, — otherwise,
it is a violation of the law of God, and cannot con-
tinue to exist ; " — suppose Mr. Lincoln had con- 5
vinced that body of sages that that doctrine w^as
sound, what would have been the result? Remem-
ber that the Union was then composed of thirteen
States, twelve of which were slaveholding, and one
free. Do vou think that the one Free State would 10
have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and
thus have secured the abolition of slavery? On the
other hand, would not the twelve slaveholding
States have outvoted the one free State, and thus
have fastened slavery, by a constitutional provision. 15
on every foot of the American Republic forever?
You see that if this Abolition doctrine of Mr. Lin-
coln had prevailed wdien the government was made,
it would have established slavery as a permanent
institution in all the States, whether they wanted it 20
or not ; and the question for us to determine in Illi-
nois now, as one of the Free States, is whether or
not we are willing, having become the majority
section, to enforce a doctrine on the minority which
we would have resisted with our heart's blood had ^5
it been attempted on us when we were in a minority.
How has the South lost her power as the majority
section in this Union, and how have the Free
States gained it, except under the operation of that
principle which declares the right of the people of 30
each State and each Territory to form and regulate
148 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
their domestic institutions in their own way? It
was under that principle that slavery was abolished
in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; it was
5 under that principle that one-half of the slavehold-
ing States became free: it was under that prin-
ciple that the number of Free States increased until,
from being one out of twelve States, we have
grown to be the majority of States of the whole
lo Union, with the power to control the House of
Representatives and Senate, and the power, conse-
quently, to elect a President by Northern votes,
without the aid of a Southern State. Having ob-
tained this power under the operation of that great
15 principle, are you now prepared to abandon the
principle and declare that merely because we have
the power you will wage a w^ar against the Southern
States and their institutions until you force them to
abolish slavery everywhere?
20 After having pressed these arguments home on
Mr. Lincoln for seven weeks, publishing a number
of my speeches, we met at Ottawa in joint discus-
sion, and he then began to crawfish a little, and
let himself down. I there propounded certain ques-
25 tions to him. Amongst others, I asked him whether
he would vote for the admission of any more Slave
States, in the event the people wanted them. He
would not answer. I then told him that if he did
not answer the question there, I would renew it at
30 Freeport, and would then trot him down into Egypt,
and again put it to him. Well, at Freeport, know-
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 149
ing that the next joint discussion took place in
Eg}'pt, and being in dread of it, he did answer my
question in regard to no more Slave States in a
mode which he hoped would be satisfactory' to me,
and accomplish the object he had in view. I will 5
show you what his answer was. After saying that
he was not pledged to the Republican doctrine of
** no more Slave States," he declared :
" I state to you freely, frankly, that I should be
exceedingly sorry to ever be put in the position of ^*^
having to pass upon that question. I should be exceed-
ingly glad to know that there never would be another
Slave State admitted into this Union."
Here permit me to remark, that I do not think
the people will ever force him into a position against ^5
his will. He went on to say :
" But I must add, in regard to this, that if slavery
shall be kept out of the Territorj- during the Territorial
existence of any one given Territory, and then the
people should, having a fair chance and a clear field, 20
when they come to adopt a constitution, if they should
do the extraordinary' thing of adopting a slave consti-
tution uninfluenced by the actual presence of the
institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own
the country, but we must admit it into the Union." 25
That answer Mr. Lincoln supposed would satisfy
the old line Whigs, composed of Kentuckians and
Virginians, down in the southern part of the State.
150 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE; AT ALTON
Now, what does it amount to? I desired to know
whether he would vote to allow Kansas to come into
the Union with slavety or not, as her people de-
sired. He would not answer, but in a roundabout
5 way said that if slavery should be kept out of a
Territory during the whole of its Territorial exist-
ence, and then the people, when they adopted a State
Constitution, asked admission as a Slave State, he
supposed he would have to let the State come in.
lo The case I put to him was an entirely different one.
I desired to know whether he would vote to admit
a State if Congress had not prohibited slavery in it
during its Territorial existence, as Congress never
pretended to do under Clay's Compromise measures
15 of 1850. He would not answer, and I have not
yet been able to get an answer from him. I have
asked him whether he would vote to admit Ne-
braska, if her people asked to come in as a State with
a constitution recognizing slavery, and he refused
20 to answer. I have put the question to him with
reference to New Mexico, and he has not uttered
a word in answer. I have enumerated the Terri-
tories, one after another, putting the same question
to him with reference to each, and he has not said,
25 and will not say, whether, if elected to Congress,
he will vote to admit any Territory now in existence
with such a constitution as her people may adopt.
He invents a case which does not exist, and cannot
exist under this government, and answers it; but
30 he will not answer the question I put to him in
connection with any of the Territories now in
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 151
existence. The contract we entered into with Texas
when she entered the Union obHges us to allow
four States to be formed out of the old State, and
admitted with or without slavery, as the respective
inhabitants of each may determine. I have asked 5
Mr. Lincoln three times in our joint discussions
whether he would vote to redeem that pled<:^e, and
he has never yet answered. He is as silent as the
grave on the subject. He would rather answer as
to a state of the case which will never arise than 10
commit himself by telling w'hat he would do in a
case which would come up for his action soon after
his election to Congress. Why can he not say
whether he is willing to allow the people of each
State to have slavery or not as they please, and to 15
come into the Union, when they have the requisite
population, as a Slave or a Free State as they de-
cide? I have no trouble in answering the question.
I have said everywhere, and now repeat it to you,
that if the people of Kansas want a Slave State they 20
have a right, under the Constitution of the United
States, to form such a State, and I will let them
come into the Union with* slavery or without, as
they determine. If the people of any other Terri-
tory desire slavery, let them have it. H they do 25
not want it, let them prohibit it. It is their busir
ness, not mine. It is none of our business in
Illinois whether Kansas is a Free State or a Slave
State. It is none of your business in Missouri
whether Kansas shall adoj)t slavery or reject it. 30
It is the business of her people, and none of yours.
152 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
The people of Kansas have as much right to de-
cide that question for themselves as you have in
Missouri to decide it for yourselves, or we in Illinois
to decide it for ourselves.
5 And here I may repeat what I have said in every
speech I have made in Illinois, that I fought the
Lecompton Constitution to its death, not because
of the slavery clause in it, but because it was not
the act and deed of the people of Kansas. I said
lo then in Congress, and I say now, that if the people
of Kansas want a Slave State, they have a right to
have it. If they wanted the Lecompton Constitu-
tion, they had a right to have it. I was opposed to
that constitution because I did not believe that it
15 was the act and deed of the people, but, on the
contrary, the act of a small, pitiful minority acting
in the name of the majority. When at last it was
determined to send that constitution back to the
people, and, accordingly, in August last, the ques-
20 tion of admission under it was submitted to a popu-
lar vote, the citizens rejected it by nearly ten to
one, thus showing conclusively that I was right
when I said that the Lecompton Constitution was
not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and
25 did not embody their will.
I hold that there is no power on earth, under our
system of government, which has the right to force
a constitution upon an unwilling people. Suppose
that there had been a majority of ten to one in favor
30 of slavery in Kansas, and suppose there had been an
Abolition President and an Abolition Administra-
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 153
tion, and by some means the Abolitionists succeeded
in forcing- an Abolition Constitution upon those
slaveholding people, would the people of the South
have submitted to that act for an instant? Well, if
you of the South would not have submitted to it a 5
day, how can you, as fair, honorable, and honest
men, insist on putting a slave constitution on a peo-
ple who desire a Free State ? Your safety and ours
depend upon both of us acting in good faith, and
living up to that great principle which asserts the 10
right of every people to form and regulate their
domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject only
to the Constitution of the United States.
Most of the men who denounced my course on
the Lecompton question objected to it, not because 15
I was not right, but because they thought it expedi-
ent at that time, for the sake of keeping- the party
together, to do wrong. I never knew the Demo-
cratic party to violate any one of its principles, out
of policy or expediency, that it did not pay the debt 20
with sorrow. There is no safety or success for our
party unless we always do right, and trust the con-
sequences to God and the people. I chose not to
depart from principle for the sake of expediency
on the Lecompton question, and I never intend to 25
do it on that or any other question.
But I am told that I would have been all right if
I had only voted for the English bill after the
Lecompton was killed. You know a general par-
don was granted to all political offenders on the 3^
Lecompton question, provided they would only vote
154 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
for the English bill. I did not accept the benefits
of that pardon for the reason that I had been right
in the course I had pursued, and hence did not
require any forgiveness. Let us see how the result
5 has been worked out. English brought in his bill
referring the Lecompton Constitution back to the
people, with the provision that if it was rejected,
Kansas should be kept out of the Union until she
had the full ratio of population required for mem-
lo ber of Congress, — thus in effect declaring that if the
people of Kansas would only consent to come into
the Union under the Lecompton Constitution, and
have a Slave State when they did not want it, they
should be admitted with a population of 35,000;
15 but that if they were so obstinate as to insist upon
having just such a constitution as they thought best,
and to desire admission as a free State, then they
should be kept out until they had 93,420 inhabitants.
I then said, and I now repeat to you, that whenever
20 Kansas has people enough for a Slave State she has
people enough for a Free State. I was, and am
willing to adopt the rule that no State shall ever
come into the Union until she has the full ratio of
population for a member of Congress, provided that
25 rule is made uniform. I made that proposition in
the Senate last winter, but a majority of the Sena-
tors would not agree to it ; and I then said to them,
If you will not adopt the general rule, I will not con-
sent to make an exception of Kansas.
^° I hold that it is a violation of the fundamental
principles of this government to throw the weight
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 155
of Federal power into the scale, either in favor of
the Free or the Slave States. Equality among all
the States of this Union is a fundamental principle
in our political system. We have no more ri,u:ht to
throw the weight of the Federal Government into 5
the scale in favor of the slaveholding than the Free
States, and last of all should our friends in the
South consent for a moment that Congress should
withhold its powers either way when they know that
there is a majority against them in both Houses 10
of Congress.
Fellow-citizens, how^ have the supporters of the
English bill stood up to their pledges not to admit
Kansas until she obtained a population of 93,420
in the event she rejected the Lecompton Constitu- 15
tion? How? The new'spapers inform us that
English himself, whilst conducting his canvass for
re-election, and in order to secure it, pledged him-
self to his constituents that if returned he would
disregard his own bill and vote to admit Kansas into 20
the Union with such population as she might have
when she made application. We are informed that
every Democratic candidate for Congress in all the
States where elections have recently been held w^as
pledged against the English bill, with perhaps one 25
or two exceptions. Now, if I had only done as
these anti-Lecompton men who voted for the Eng-
lish bill in Congress, pledging themselves to refuse
to admit Kansas if she refused to become a Slave
State until she had a population of 93,420, and then 30
returned to their people, forfeited their pledge, and
156 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
made a new pledge to admit Kansas at any time she
applied, without regard to population, I would have
had no trouble. You saw the whole power and
patronage of the Federal Government wielded in
5 Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to re-elect anti-
Lecompton men to Congress who voted against
Lecompton, then voted for the English bill, and then
denounced the English bill, and pledged themselves
to their people to disregard it. My sin consists in
lo not having given a pledge, and then in not having
afterward forfeited it. For that reason, in this
State, every postmaster, every route agent, every
collector of the ports, and every Federal office-
holder forfeits his head the moment he expresses a
15 preference for the Democratic candidates against
Lincoln and his Abolition associates. A Demo-
cratic Administration which we helped to bring into
power deems it consistent with its fidelity to prin-
ciple and its regard to duty to wield its power in
20 this State in behalf of the Republican Abolition
candidates in every county and every Congressional
District against the Democratic party. All I have
to say in reference to the matter is, that if that
Administration have not regard enough for prin-
25 ciple, if they are not sufficiently attached to the
creed of the Democratic party, to bury forever their
personal hostilities in order to succeed in carrying
out our glorious principles, I have. I have no per-
sonal difficulty with Mr. Buchanan or his Cabinet.
30 He chose to make certain recommendations to Con-
gress, as he had a right to do, on the Lecompton
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 157
question. I could not vote in favor of them. I
had as much rig^ht to judge for myself how I should
vote as he had how he should recommend. lie
undertook to say to me, " If you do not vote as I
tell you, I will take off the heads of your friends." 5
I replied to him, " You did not elect me. I repre-
sent Illinois, and I am accountable to Illinois, as my
constituency, and to God ; but not to the President
or to any other power on earth."
And now this warfare is made on me because I 10
would not surrender my convictions of duty, because
I would not abandon my constituency, and receive
the orders of the executive authorities as to how I
should vote in the Senate of the United States. I
hold that an attempt to control the Senate on the part 15
of the Executive is subversive of the principles of
our Constitution. The Executive department is inde-
pendent of the Senate, and the Senate is independ-
ent of the President. In matters of legislation the
President has a veto on the action of the Senate, 20
and in appointments and treaties the Senate has a
veto on the President. He has no more right to tell
me how I shall vote on his appointments than I have
to tell him whether he shall veto or approve a bill
that the Senate has passed. Whenever you recog- 25
nize the right of the Executive to say to a Senator,
" Do this, or I will take off the heads of your
friends," you convert this government from a repub-
lic into a despotism. Whenever you recognize the
right of a President to say to a member of Congress, 30
" \'ote as I tell you, or I will bring a power to bear
158 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
against you at home which will crush you," you
destroy the independence of the representative and
convert him into a tool of Executive power. I
resisted this invasion of the constitutional rights of
5 a Senator, and I intend to resist it as long as I have
a voice to speak or a vote to give. Yet I\Ir.
Buchanan cannot provoke me to abandon one iota
of Democratic principles out of revenge or hostility
to his course. I stand by the platform of the Dem-
lo ocratic party, and by its organization, and support
its nominees. If there are any who choose to bolt,
the fact only shows that they are not as good Dem-
ocrats as I am.
My friends, there never w^as a time when it was
15 as important for the Democratic party, for all
national men, to rally and stand together, as it is
to-day. We find all sectional men giving up past
differences and continuing the one question of slav-
ery; and when we find sectional men thus uniting
20 we should unite to resist them and their treasonable
designs. Such was the case in 1850, when Clay
left the quiet and peace of his home, and again en-
tered upon public life to quell agitation and restore
peace to a distracted Union. Then we Democrats,
25 with Cass at our head, welcomed Henry Clay,
whom the w^hole nation regarded as having been
preserved by God for the times. He became our
leader in that great fight, and we rallied around
him the same as the Whigs rallied around old
30 Hickory in 1832 to put down nullification. Thus
you see that whilst Whigs and Democrats fought
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 150
fearlessly in old times about banks, the tariff, dis-
tribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury,
all united as a band of brothers when the peace,
harmony, or intejii^rity of the Union was imperiled.
It was so in 1850, when Abolitionism had even so 5
far divided this country, North and South, as to
endanger the peace of the Union ; Whigs and Demo-
crats united in establishing the Compromise Meas-
ures of that year, and restoring tranquillity and good
feeling. 10
These measures passed on the joint action of
the two parties. They rested on the great prin-
ciple that the people of each State and each Terri-
tory should be left perfectly free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions to suit them- 15
selves. You Whigs and we Democrats justified
them in that principle. In 1854, when it became
necessary to organize the Territories of Kansas and
Nebraska, I brought forward the bill on the same
principle. In the Kansas-Nebraska bill you find it 20
declared to be the true intent and meaning of the
Act not to legislate slavery into any State or Terri-
tory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the
people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way. I 25
stand on that same platform in 1858 that I did in
1850, 1854, and 1856. The Washington " Union,"
pretending to be the organ of the Adminstration,
in the number of the 5th of this month, devotes
three columns and a half to establish these ])ropo- 30
sitions : first, that Douglas, in his Freeport speech,
i6o THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
held the same doctrine that he did in his Nebraska
bill in 1854; second, that in 1854 Douglas justified
the Nebraska bill upon the ground that it was based
upon the same principle as Clay's Compromise
5 :\Ieasures of 1850. The ''Union" thus proved that
Douglas was the same in 1858 that he was in 1856,
1854, and 1850, and consequently argued that he
w-as never a Democrat. Is it not funny that I was
never a Democrat? There is no pretence that I
10 have changed a hair's breadth. The " Union "
proves by my speeches that I explained the Com-
promise Measures of 1850 just as I do now, and
that I explained the Kansas and Nebraska bill in
1854 just as I did in my Freeport speech, and yet
15 says that I am not a Democrat, and cannot be
trusted, because I have not changed during the
whole of that time. It has occurred to me that in
1854 the author of the Kansas and Nebraska bill
was considered a pretty good Democrat. It has
20 occurred to me that in 1856, when I was exerting
every nerve and every energy for James Buchanan,
standing on the same platform then that I do now,
that I was a pretty good Democrat. They now tell
me that I am not a Democrat, because I assert that
25 the people of a Territory, as well as those of a State,
have the risfht to decide for themselves whether
slavery can or cannot exist in such Territory. Let
me read what James Buchanan said on that point
when he accepted the Democratic nomination for
30 the Presidency in 1856. In his letter of acceptance,
he used the following language:
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH i6i
" The recent legislation of Congress respecting do-
mestic slavery, derived as it has been from the original
and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will
of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous
excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles 5
as ancient as free government itself, and, in accordance
with them, has simply declared that the people of a
Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for them-
selves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within
their limits." ^o
Dr. Hope will there find my answer to the ques-
tion he propounded to me before I commenced
speaking^. Of course, no man will consider it an
answer who is outside of the Democratic organiza-
tion, bolts Democratic nominations, and indirectly 15
aids to put Abolitionists into power over Democrats,
liut whether Dr. Hope considers it an answer or
not, every fair-minded man will see that James
Buchanan has answered the question, and has as-
serted that the people of a Territory, like those of 20
a State, shall decide for themselves w^hether slavery
shall or shall not exist within their limits. I an-
swer specifically if you want a further answ'er, and
say that while under the decision of the Supreme
Court, as recorded in the opinion of Chief Justice 25
Taney, slaves are property like all other property,
and can be carried into any Territory of the United
States the same as any other description of prop-
erty, yet when you get them there they are subject
to the local law of the Territory just like all other 30
property. You will find in a recent speech delivered
l62 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
by that able and eloquent statesman, Hon. Jefferson
Davis, at Bangor, Maine, that he took the same
view of this subject that I did in my Freeport
speech. He there said:
5 " If the inhabitants of any Territory should refuse
to enact such laws and police regulations as would
give security to their property or to his, it would be
rendered more or less valueless in proportion to the
difficulties of holding it without such protection. In
lo the case of property in the labor of man, or what is
usually called slave property, the insecurity would be
so great that the owner could not ordinarily retain it.
Therefore, though the right would remain, the remedy
being withheld, it would follow that the owner would
15 be practically debarred, by the circumstances of the case,
from taking slave property into a Territory where the
sense of the inhabitants was opposed to its introduc-
tion. So much for the oft-repeated fallacy of forcing
slavery upon any community."
20 You will also find that the distinguished Speaker
of the present House of Representatives, Hon. Jas.
L. Orr, construed the Kansas and Nebraska bill in
this same way in 1856, and also that great intellect
of the South, Alex. H. Stephens, put the same con-
25 struction upon it in Congress that I did in my Free-
port speech. The whole South are rallying to the
support of the doctrine that if the people of a Ter-
ritory want slavery, they have a right to have it,
and if they do not want it, that no power on earth
30 can force it upon them. I hold that there is no
principle on earth more sacred to all the friends of
SEXATOR DOUGLAS'S SPERCH 163
freedom than that which says that no institution,
no law, no constitution, should be forced on an un-
willing:^ people contrary to their wishes; and I assert
that the Kansas and Nebraska bill contains that
principle. It is the ^reat principle contained in that 5
bill. It is the ])rinciple on which James lUichanan
was made President. Without that princii)le, he
never would have been made President of the United
States. I will never violate or abandon that doc-
trine, if I have to stand alone. I have resisted the 10
blandishments and threats of power on the one side,
and seduction on the other, and have stood im-
movably for that principle, fii^htinj^ for it when
assailed by Northern mobs, or threatened by South-
ern hostility. I have defended it against the North 15
and the South, and I will defend it against whoever
assails it, and I will follow it wherever its logical
conclusions lead me. I say to you that there is but
one hope, one safety for this country, and that is
to stand immovably by that principle which de- 20
Clares the right of each State and each Territory
to decide these questions for themselves. This gov-
ernment was founded on that principle, and must
be administered in the same sense in which it was
founded. 25
But the Abolition party really thinks that under
the Declaration of Independence the negro is equal
to the white man, and that negro equality is an in-
alienable right conferred by the Almighty, and
hence that all human laws in violation of it are null 30
and void. With such men it is no use for me to
i64 THE SEVEXTH JOIXT DEBATE, AT ALTON
•
argue. I hold that the signers of the Declaration
of Independence had no reference to negroes at all
when they declared all men to be created equal.
They did not mean negro, nor the savage Indians,
5 nor the Feejee Islanders, nor any other barbarous
race. They were speaking of white men. They
alluded to men of European birth and European
descent, — to white men, and to none others, — when
they declared that doctrine, I hold that this gov-
lo emment was established on the white basis. It was
established by white men for the benefit of white
men and their posterity forever, and should be ad-
ministered by white men, and none others. But it
does not follow, by any means, that merely because
15 the negro is not a citizen, and merely because he is
not our equal, that, therefore, he should be a slave.
On the contrary, it does follow that we ought to
extend to the negro race, and to all other depend-
ent races, all the rights, all the privileges, and all
20 the immunities which they can exercise consistently
with the safety of society. Humanity requires that
we should give them all these privileges ; Chris-
tianity commands that we should extend those priv-
ileges to them. The question then arises. What
25 are those privileges, and what is the nature and
extent of them ? My answer is, that that is a ques-
tion which each State must answer for itself. We
in Illinois have decided it for ourselves. We tried
slavery, kept it up for twelve years, and finding
30 that it was not profitable, we abolished it for that
reason, and became a Free State. We adopted in
SEXATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH 165
its stead the policy that a negro in this State shall
not be a slave and shall not be a citizen. We have
a right to adopt that policy. For my part, I think
it is a wise and sound policy for us. You in Mis-
souri must judge for yourselves whether it is a wise 5
policy for you. If you choose to follow our
example, very good ; if you reject it, still well, — it
is vour business, not ours. So with Kentuckv.
Let Kentucky adopt a policy to suit herself. If
we do not like it, we will keep away from it; and 10
if she does not like ours, let her stay at home,
mind her own business, and let us alone. If the
people of all the States will act on that great
principle, and each State mind its own business,
attend to its own affairs, take care of its 15
own negroes, and not meddle with its neighbors,
then there will be peace between the North and
the South, the East and the West, throughout the
whole Union.
Why can we not thus have peace? Why should 20
we thus allow a sectional party to agitate this coun-
tr}-, to array the North against the South, and con-
vert us into enemies instead of friends, merely that
a few ambitious men may ride into power on a sec-
tional hobby? How long is it since these ambitious 25
Northern men wished for a sectional organization?
Did any one of them dream of a sectional party as
long as the North was the weaker section and the
South the stronger? Then all were opposed to sec-
tional parties : but the moment the North obtained 3°
the majority in the House and Senate by the admis-
i66 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
sion of California, and could elect a President with-
out the aid of Southern votes, that moment
ambitious Northern men formed a scheme to excite
the North against the South, and make the people
5 be governed in their votes by geographical lines,
thinking that the North, being the stronger section,
would outvote the South, and consequently they,
the leaders, would ride into office on a sectional
hobby. I am told that my hour is out. It was
lo very short.
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY
Ladies and Gentlemen : I have been somewhat,
in my own mind, complimented by a large portion
of Judge Douglas's speech, — I mean that portion
15 which he devotes to the controversy between him-
self and the present Administration. This is the
seventh time Judge Douglas and myself have met
in these joint discussions, and he has been gradually
improving in regard to his war with the Adminis-
20 tration. At Quincy, day before yesterday, he was
a little more severe upon the Administration than
I had heard him upon any occasion, and I took pains
to compliment him for it. I then told him to
" Give it to them with all the power he had " ; and
^5 as some of them were present, I told them I would
be very much obliged if they would give it to him in
about the same way. I take it he has now vastly
improved upon the attack he made then upon the
Administration. I flatter myself he has really taken
MR. LIXCOLX'S REPLY 167
my advice on this subject. All I can say now is
to recommend to him and to them what I then com-
mended.— to prosecute the war ag^ainst one another
in the most vigorous manner. I say to them again :
*' Go it, husband ! — Go it, bear ! " 5
There is one other thing I will mention before I
leave this branch of the discussion, — although I
do not consider it much of my business, anyway.
1 refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where
he undertakes to involve Mr. lUichanan in an in- 10
consistency. He reads something from ]\Ir. Bu-
chanan, from which he undertakes to involve him
in an inconsistency ; and he gets something of a
cheer for having done so. I would only remind
the Judge that while he is very valiantly fighting 15
for the Nebraska bill and the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, it has been but a little while since he
was the valiant ach'ocatc of the Missouri Compro-
mise. I want to know if Buchanan has not as much
right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? Has 20
Douglas the exclusive right, in this country, of
being on all sides of all questions? Is nobody al-
lowed that high privilege but himself? Is he to
have an entire monopoly on that subject?
So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to 25
me, or so far as it was about me, it is my business
to pay some attention to it. I have heard the Judge
state two or three times what he has stated to-day,
— that in a speech which I made at Springfield,
Illinois, I had in a very especial manner complained 30
that th-c Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had
i68 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the
United States. I have omitted by some accident
heretofore to analyze this statement, and it is re-
quired of me to notice it now. In point of fact it is
5 untrue. I never have complained especially of the
Dred Scott decision because it held that a negro
could not be a citizen, and the Judge is always
wrong when he says I ever did so complain of it.
I have the speech here, and I will thank him or any
lo of his friends to show where I said that a negro
should be a citizen, and complained especially of
the Dred Scott decision because it declared he could
not be one. I have done no such thing ; and Judge
Douglas, so persistently insisting that I have done
15 so, has strongly impressed me with the belief of a
predetermination on his part to misrepresent me.
He could not get his foundation for insisting that
I was in favor of this negro equality anywhere else
as well as he could by assuming that untrue propo-
20 sition. Let me tell this audience what is true in
regard to that matter ; and the means by which they
may correct- me if I do not tell them truly is by a
recurrence to the speech itself. I spoke of the Dred
Scott decision in my Springfield speech, and I was
25 then endeavoring to prove that the Dred Scott
decision was a portion of a system or scheme to
make slavery national in this country. I pointed
out what things had been decided by the court. I
mentioned as a fact that they had decided that a
30 negro could not be a citizen ; that they had done
so, as I supposed, to deprive the negro, under all
MR. UNCOLX'S REPLY 169
circumstances, of the remotest possihlility of ever
becoming a citizen and claiming the rights of a
citizen of the United States under a certain clause
of the Constitution. I stated that, without making
any complaint of it at all. I then went on and stated 5
the other points decided in the case ; namely, that
the bringing of a negro into the State of Illinois
and holding him in slavery for two years here was
a matter in regard to which they would not decide
whether it would make him free or not ; that they 10
decided the further point that taking him into a
United States Territory where slavery was pro-
hibited by Act of Congress did not make him free,
because that Act of Congress, as they held, was
unconstitutional. I mentioned these three things 15
as making up the points decided in that case. I
mentioned them in a lump, taken in connection with
the introduction of the Nebraska bill, and the amend-
ment of Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of
the right of the people of the Territories to exclude 20
slavery, which was voted down by the friends of
the bill. I mentioned all these things together, as
evidence tending to prove a combination and con-
spiracy to make the institution of slavery national.
In that connection and in that way I mentioned the 25
decision on the point that a negro could not be a
citizen, and in no other connection.
Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beauti-
ful fabrication of my purpose to introduce a perfect
social and political equality between the white and 30
black races. His assertion that I made an " especial
lO
170 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
objection " (that is his exact language) to the
decision on this account, is untrue in point of fact.
Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry
Clay has been alluded to, I desire to place myself,
in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly right before
this people as may be. I am quite aware what the
Judge's object is here by all these allusions. He
knows that we are before an audience having
strong sympathies southward, by relationship, place
of birth, and so on. He desires to place me in an
extremely Abolition attitude. He read upon a
former occasion, and alludes, without reading,
to-day to a portion of a speech which I delivered
15 in Chicago. In his quotations from that speech, as
he has made them upon former occasions, the ex-
tracts were taken in such a way as, I suppose,
brings them within the definition of what is called
garbling, — taking portions of a speech which, when
20 taken by themselves, do not present the entire sense
of the speaker as expressed at the time. I propose,
therefore, out of that same speech, to show how one
portion of it which he skipped over (taking an
extract before and an extract after) will give a
different idea, and the true idea I intended to con-
vey. It will take me some little time to read it, but
I believe I will occupy the time that way.
You have heard him frequently allude to my con-
troversy with him in regard to the Declaration of
Independence. I confess that I have had a struggle
with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try
briefly to place myself right in regard to it on this
25
30
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 171
occasion. I said — and it is between the extracts
Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put
in his pubHshed speeches:
" It may be argued that there are certain conditions
that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to 5
the extent that a necessity is imix)sed 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 Constitution unless we permitted them to remain 10
in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure
if we grasped for more ; and having by necessity sub-
mitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle
that is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter
remain as our standard." ^5
Now, I have upon all occasions declared as
strongly as Judge Douglas against the disposition
to interfere with the existing institution of slavery.
You hear me read it from the same speech from
which he takes garbled extracts for the purpose of 20
proving upon me a disposition to interfere with the
institution of slavery, and establish a perfect social
and political equality between negroes and white
people.
Allow me while upon this subject briefly to pre- 25
sent one other extract from a speech of mine, more
than a year ago, at Springfield, in discussing this
very same question, soon after Judge Douglas took
his ground that negroes were not included in the
Declaration of Independence :
172 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
" I think the authors of that notable instrument in-
tended to include all men, but they did not intend to
declare all men equal in all respects. They did not
mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect,
5 moral development, or social capacity. They defined
with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider
all men created equal, — equal in certain inalienable
rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. This they said, and this they meant,
lo They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that
all were then actually enjoying that equality, or yet
that they were about to confer it immediately upon
them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a
boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that
15 the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circum-
stances should permit.
" They meant to set up a standard maxim for free
society which should be familiar to all, — constantly
looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though
20 never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and
thereby constantly spreading and deepening its in-
fluence, and augmenting the happiness and value of
life to all people, of all colors, everywhere."
There again are the sentiments I have expressed
25 in regard to the Declaration of Independence upon
a former occasion, — sentiments which have been put
in print and read wherever anybody cared to know
what so humble an individual as myself chose to say
in regard to it.
30 At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer
to Judge Douglas, that three years ago there never
had been a man, so far as I knew or believed, in the
MR. LIXCOLX'S REPLY i;3
whole world, who had said that the Declaration of
Independence did not include negroes in the term
" all men.'' I reassert it to-day. I assert that Judge
DouQ:las and all his friends mav search the whole
records of the country, and it will be a matter of 5
great astonishment to me if they shall be able to find
that one human being three years ago had ever
uttered the astounding sentiment that the term '* all
men " in the Declaration did not include the negro.
Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more lo
than three years ago there were men who, finding
this assertion constantly in the way of their schemes
to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation of
slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr.
Calhoun and all the politicians of his school denied ^5
the truth of the Declaration. I know that it ran
along in the mouth of some Southern men for a
period of years, ending at last in that shameful,
though rather forcible, declaration of Pettit of Indi-
ana, upon the floor of the United States Senate, that 20
the Declaration of Independence was in that respect
" a self-evident lie," rather than a self-evident truth.
But I say, with a perfect knowledge of all this
hawking at the Declaration without directly attack-
ing it, that three years ago there never had lived a 25
man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking
way of pretending to believe it. and then asserting
it did not include the negro. I believe the first man
who ever said it was Chief Justice Taney in the
Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friend 3°
Stephen A. Douglas. And now it has become the
174 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
catchword of the entire party. I would like to call
upon his friends everywhere to consider how they
have come in so short a time to view this matter in
a way so entirely different from their former belief;
5 to ask whether they are not being borne along by
an irresistible current, — whither, they know not.
In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last
week, I see that some man in Chicago has got up a
letter, addressed to the Chicago " Times," to show,
10 as he professes, that somebody had said so before;
and he signs himself " An Old Line Whig," if I
remember correctly. In the first place, I would say
he was not an old line Whig. I am somewhat ac-
quainted with old line Whigs from the origin to
15 the end of that party; I became pretty well ac-
quainted with them, and I know they always had
some sense, whatever else you could ascribe to them.
I know there never was one who had not more sense
than to try to show by the evidence he produces that
20 some man had, prior to the time I named, said that
negroes were not included in the term "all men "
in the Declaration of Independence. What is the
evidence he produces? I will bring forward his
evidence, and let you see what he offers by way of
25 showing that somebody more than three years ago
had said negroes were not included in the Declara-
tion. He brings forward part of a speech from
Henry Clay, — the part of the speech of Henry Clay
which I used to bring forward to prove precisely
30 the contrary. I guess we are surrounded to some
extent to-day by the old friends of Mr. Clay, and
MR. LI X COIN'S REPLY 175
they will be glad to hear anything from that author-
ity. While he was in Indiana a man presented a
petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. Clay)
made a speech in answer to it, which I suppose he
carefully wrote out himself and caused to be i)ub- 5
lished. I have before me an extract from that
speech which constitutes the evidence this pretended
" Old Line Whig " at Chicago brought forward to
show that Mr. Clay didn't suppose the negro was
included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear ^°
what Mr. Clav said :
" And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in
Indiana to liberate the slaves under my care in Ken-
tucky ? It is a general declaration in the act announcing
to the world the independence of the thirteen American 15
colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an
abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of
that declaration ; and it is desirable, in the original con-
struction of society and in organised societies, to keep
it in view as a great fundamental principle. But, then, 20
I apprehend that in no society that ever did exist, or
ever shall be formed, was or can the equality asserted
among the members of the human race be practically
enforced and carried out. There are portions, large
portions, — women, minors, insane, culprits, transient 25
sojourners, — that will always probably remain subject
to the government of another portion of the com-
munity.
" That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its
import, was made by the delegations of the thirteen 30
States. In most of them slavery existed, and had long
existed, and was established by law. It was introduced
176 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of
England. Do you believe that in making that declara-
tion the States that concurred in it intended that it
should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all
5 the slaves within their respective limits? Would Vir-
ginia and other Southern States have ever united in a
declaration which was to be interpreted into an aboli-
tion of slavery among them? Did any one of the
thirteen colonies entertain such a design or expecta-
lo tion? To impute such a secret and unavowed purpose,
would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest
band of patriots that ever assembled in council, — a
fraud upon the Confederacy of the Revolution ; a fraud
upon the union of those States whose Constitution not
15 only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but permitted
the importation of slaves from Africa until the year
1808."
This is the entire quotation brought forward to
prove that somebody previous to three years ago
20 had said the negro was not included in the term " all
men " in the Declaration. How does it do so ? In
what way has it a tendency to prove that? Mr.
Clay says it is true as an abstract principle that all
men are created equal, but that we cannot practically
25 apply it in all cases. He illustrates this by bringing
forward the cases of females, minors, and insane
persons, with whom it cannot be enforced ; but he
says it is true as an abstract principle in the organi-
zation of society as well as in organized society and
30 it should be kept in view as a fundamental principle.
Let me read a few words more before I add some
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY \77
comments of my own. Mr. Clay says, a little fur-
ther on :
" I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to
the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great
evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the 5
parental government and from our ancestors. But
here they are, and the question is, How can they
be best dealt with? If a state of nature existed, and
we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man
zi'ould be more strongly opposed than I should be to lo
incorporate the institution of slavery among its
elements."
Now, here in this same book, in this same speech,
in this same extract, brought forward to prove that
Mr. Clay held that the negro was not included in i5
the Declaration of Independence, is no such state-
ment on his part, but the declaration that it is a
great fundamental truth which should be constantly
kept in view in the organization of society and in
societies already organized. But if I say a word 20
about it ; if I attempt, as Mr. Clay said all good men
ought to do, to keep it in view ; if, in this " organ-
ized society," I ask to have the public eye turned
upon it ; if I ask, in relation to the organization of
new Territories, that the public eye should be turned 25
upon it, — forthwith I am vilified as you hear me
to-day. What have I done that I have not the license
of Henry Clay's illustrious example here in doing?
Have I done aught that I have not his authority
for, while maintaining that in organizing new Ter- 30
ritories and societies, this fundamental principle
178 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
should be regarded, and in organized society hold-
ing it up to the public view and recognizing what
he recognized as the great principle of free
government ?
5 And when this new principle — this new proposi-
tion that no human being ever thought of three
years ago — is brought forward, / combat it as hav-
ing an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I com-
bat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the
lo negro, to take away from him the right of ever
striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of
the thousand things constantly done in these days
to prepare the public mind to make property, and
nothing but property, of the negro in all the States
15 of this Union.
But there is a point that I wish, before leaving
this part of the discussion, to ask attention to. I
have read and I repeat the words of Henry Clay :
20 " I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard
to the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great
evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the
parental government and from our ancestors. I wish
every slave in the United States was in the country of
25 his ancestors. But here they are; the question is,
How can they best be dealt with? If a state of nature
existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of
society, no man would be more strongly opposed than
I should be to incorporate the institution of slavery
30 among its elements."
The principle upon which I have insisted in this
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 179
canvass is in relation to laying the foundations of
new societies. I have never sought to apply these
principles to the old States for the purpose of abol-
ishincr slaverv in those States. It is nothincf but a
miserable perversion of what I have said, to assume 5
that I have declared Missouri, or any other Slave
State, shall emancipate her slaves ; I have proposed
no such thing. But when Mr. Clay says that in
laying the foundations of societies in our Territo-
ries where it does not exist, he would be opposed 10
to the introduction of slavery as an element, I insist
that we have his zvarrant — his license — for insisting
upon the exclusion of that element which he declared
in such strong and emphatic language was most
hateful to him. i5
Judge Douglas has again referred to a Spring-
field speech in which I said '' a house divided
against itself cannot stand." The Judge has so
often made the entire quotation from that speech
that I can make it from memory. I used this ^*^
language :
" 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 the slavery agitation.
Under the operation of this policy, that agitation has not ^5
only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. 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 en-
dure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not 3^
expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease
i8o THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
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 ultima,te extinction, or its advocates will push it
forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States,
Id as well as new. North as well as South."
That extract and the sentiments expressed in it
have been extremely offensive to Judge Douglas.
^° He has warred upon .them as Satan wars upon the
Bible. His perversions upon it are endless. Here
now are my views upon it in brief.
I said we were now far into the fifth year since a
policy was initiated with the avowed object and
^5 confident promise of putting an end to the slavery
agitation. Is it not so? When that Nebraska bill
was brought forward four years ago last January,
was it not for the "avowed object" of putting an
end to the slavery- agitation? We were to have no
20 more agitation in Congress ; it was all to be ban-
ished to the Territories. By the way, I will remark
here that, as Judge Douglas is very fond of com-
plimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days, Mr. Crit-
tenden has said there was a falsehood in that whole
25 business, for there was no slavery agitation at that
time to allay. W^e were for a little while quiet on
the troublesome thing, and that very allaying plas-
ter of Judge Douglas stirred it up again. But was
it not understood or intimated with the " confident
30 promise " of putting an end to the slavery agita-
MR. LIXCOLN'S REPLY i8i
tion? Surely it was. In every six?cch you heard
Judge Douglas make, until he got into this " im-
broglio," as they call it, with the Administration
about the Lecompton Constitution, every speech on
that Nebraska bill was full of his felicitations that 5
we were just at tJic cud of the slavery agitation.
The last tip of the last joint of the old serpent's tail
was just drawing out of view. But has it proved
so? I have asserted that under that policy that
agitation *' has not only not ceased, but has con- lo
stantly augmented." When was there ever a greater
agitation in Congress than last winter? When was
it as great in the country as to-day?
There was a collateral object in the introduction
of that Nebraska policy, which was to clothe the 15
people of the Territories with a superior degree of
self-government, beyond what they had ever had
before. The first object and the main one of con-
ferring upon the people a higher degree of " self-
government " is a question of fact to be determined 20
by you in answer to a single question. Have you
ever heard or known of a people anywhere on earth
who had as little to do as, in the first instance of its
use, the people of Kansas had with this same
right of "self-government"? In its main policy 25
and in its collateral object, it lias been nothin^^ but
a liznng, creeping lie from the time of its introduc-
tion till to-day,
I have intimated that I thought the agitation
would not cease until a crisis should have been
30
reached and passed. I have stated in what way I
i82 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
thought it would be reached and passed. I have
said that it might go one way or the other. We
might, by arresting the further spread of it, and
placing it where the fathers originally placed it, put
5 it where the public mind should rest in the belief
that it was in the course of ultimate extinction.
Thus the agitation may cease. It may be pushed-
forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the
States, old as well as new. North as well as South.
1° I have said, and I repeat, my wish is that the fur-
ther spread of it may be arrested, and that it may
be placed where the public mind shall rest in the
belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction.
I have expressed that as my wish. I entertain the
15 opinion, upon evidence sufficient to my mind, that
the fathers of this government placed that institu-
tion where the public mind did rest in the belief
that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Let
me ask why they made provision that the source of
20 slavery — the African slave-trade — should be cut off
at the end of twenty years? Why did they make
provision that in all the new territory we owned at
that time slavery should be forever inhibited?
Why stop its spread in one direction, and cut off its
25 source in another, if they did not look to its being
placed in the course of its ultimate extinction ?
Again: the institution of slavery is only men-
tioned in the Constitution of the United States two
or three times, and in neither of these cases does
30 the word "slavery" or ''negro race" occur; but
covert language is used each time, and for a pur-
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 183
pose full of sio;niricancc. What is the lanc^uap^e in
rcj::^ard to the prohibition of the African slave-
trade? It runs in about this way: ''The migra-
tion or importation of such persons as any of the
States now existing shall think proper to admit, 5
shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the
year one thousand eight hundred and eight."
The next allusion in the Constitution to the ques-
tion of slavery and the black race is on the subject
of the basis of representation, and there the Ian- ^o
guage used is :
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be appor-
tioned among the several States which may be included
within this Union, according to their respective num-
bers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole 15
number of free persons, including those bound to serv-
ice for a term of years, and excluding Indians not
taxed. — three-fifths of all other persons."
It says " persons," not slaves, not negroes ; but
this '' three-fifths " can be applied to no other class 20
among us than the negroes.
Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation oi
fugitive slaves, it is said : " No person held to serv-
ice or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall in consequence of any 25
law or regulation therein be discharged from such
service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim
of the party to whom such service or labor may be
due." There again there is no mention of the word
" negro " or of slavery. In all three of these places, 30
i84 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
being the only allusions to slavery in the instru-
ment, covert language is used. Language is used
not suggesting that slavery existed or that the
black race were among us. And I understand the
5 contemporaneous history of those times to be that
covert language was used with a purpose, and that
purpose was that in our Constitution, which it was
hoped and is still hoped will endure forever, —
when it should be read by intelligent and patriotic
lo men, after the institution of slavery had passed
from amongst us, — there should be nothing on the
face of the great charter of liberty suggesting that
such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed
among us. This is part of the evidence that the
15 fathers of the government expected and intended
the institution of slavery to come to an end. They
expected and intended that it should be in the course
of ultimate extinction. And when I say that I
desire to see the further spread of it arrested, I only
20 say I desire to see that done which the fathers have
first done. When I say I desire to see it placed
where the public mind will rest in the belief that it
is in the course of ultimate extinction, I only say I
desire to see it placed where they placed it. It is
25 not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes,
made this government part slave and part free.
Understand the sense in which he puts it. He
assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within
itself, — was introduced by the framers of the Con-
30 stitution. The exact truth is, that they found the
institution existing among us, and they left it as
MR. LIXCOLX'S REPLY 185
they found it. lUit in making the government they
left this institution with many clear marks of dis-
approbation upon it. They found slavery among
them, and they left it among them because of the
difficulty — the absolute impossibility — of its immc- 5
diate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks me
why we cannot let it remain part slave and part
free, as the fathers of the government made it, he
asks a question based upon an assumption which is
itself a falsehood ; and I turn upon him and ask 10
him the question, when the policy that the fathers
of the government had adopted in relation to this
element among us was the best policy in the world,
the only wise policy, the only policy that we can
ever safely continue upon, that will ever give us i5
peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all
and becomes a national institution, — / turn upon
him and ask him zvhy he could not leave it alone.
I turn and ask him why he was driven to the neces-
sity of introducing a nczv policy in regard to it. 20
He has himself said he introduced a new policy,
lie said so in his speech on the 22d of March of
the present year, 1858. I ask him why he could
not let it remain where our fathers placed it. I ask,
too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why w^e shall ^^
not again place this institution upon the basis on
which the fathers left it. I ask you, when he infers
that I am in favor of setting the Free and Slave
States at war, when the institution was placed in
that attitude by those who made the Constitution, 3Q
did they make any zvarF If we had no war out of it
i86 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief
that we shall have war out of it if we return to that
policy? Have we had any peace upon this matter
springing from any other basis? I maintain that
5 we have not. I have proposed nothing more than
a return to the policy of the fathers.
I confess, when I propose a certain measure of
policy, it is not enough for me that I do not intend
anything evil in the result, but it is incumbent on
lo me to show that it has not a tendency to that result.
I have met Judge Douglas in that point of view. I
have not only made the declaration that I do not
mean to produce a conflict between the States, but
I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I think
15 I have shown to the minds of fair men, that I pro-
pose nothing but what has a most peaceful tendency.
The quotation that I happened to make in that
Springfield speech, that '' a house divided against
itself cannot stand," and which has proved so offen-
20 sive to the Judge, was part and parcel of the same
thing. He tries to show that variety in the domes-
tic institutions of the different States is necessary
and indispensable. I do not dispute it. I have no
controversy with Judge Douglas about that. I
25 shall very readily agree with him that it would be
foolish for us to insist upon having a cranberry law
here in Illinois, where we have no cranberries,
because they have a cranberry law in Indiana,
where they have cranberries. I should insist that
^'^ it would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny to
Virginia the right to enact oyster laws, where they
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 187
have oysters, because we want no such laws here.
I understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge Doug-
las or anybody else, that the variety in the soil and
climate and face of the country, and consequent
variety in the industrial pursuits and productions of 5
a country, require systems of law conforming to
this variety in the natural features of the country.
I understand quite as well as Judge Douglas that if
we here raise a barrel of flour more than we w^ant,
and the Louisianians raise a barrel of sugar more 10
than they want, it is of mutual advantage to ex-
change. That produces commerce, brings us
together, and makes us better friends. We like one
another the more for it. And I understand as well
as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, that these 15
mutual accommodations are the cements which
bind together the different parts of this Union ;
that instead of being a thing to " divide the house,"
— figuratively expressing the Union, — they tend to
sustain it ; they are the props of the house, tending 20
always to hold it up.
But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there
is any parallel between these things and this insti-
tution of slavery? I do not see that there is any
parallel at all between them. Consider it. When 25
have we had any difficulty or quarrel amongst our-
selves about the cranberry laws of Indiana, or the
oyster laws of \'irginia, or the pine-lumber law's of
Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar,
and Illinois flour? When have we had any quarrels 30
over these things? When have we had perfect
i88 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
peace in regard to this thing which I say is an ele-
ment of discord in this Union? We have some-
times had peace, but when was it? It was when
the institution of slavery remained quiet where it
5 was. We have had difficulty and turmoil whenever
it has made a struggle to spread itself where it was
not. I ask, then, if experience does not speak in
thunder-tones, telling us that the policy which has
given peace to the country heretofore, being re-
lo turned to, gives the greatest promise of peace again.
You may say, and Judge Douglas has intimated
the same thing, that all this difficulty in regard to
the institution of slavery is the mere agitation of
office-seekers and ambitious Northern politicians.
^5 He thinks we want to get " his place," I suppose.
I agree that there are office-seekers amongst us. The
Bible says somewhere that we are desperately sel-
fish. I think we would have discovered that fact
without the Bible. I do not claim that I am any
20 less so than the average of men, but I do claim that
I am not more selfish than Judge Douglas.
But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation
we have in regard to this institution of slavery
springs from office-seeking, from the mere ambi-
25 tion of politicians? Is that the truth? How many
times have we had danger from this question? Go
back to the day of the Missouri Compromise. Go
back to the Nullification question, at the bottom of
which lay this same slavery question. Go back to
30 the time of the Annexation of Texas. Go back to
the troubles that led to the Compromise of 1850.
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY i8g
You will find that every time, with the single excep-
tion of the Nullification question, they sprung from
an endeavor to spread this institution. There never
was a party in the history of this country, and there
probably never will be, of sufficient strength to dis- 5
turb the general peace of the country. Parties
themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor
questions, yet it extends not beyond the parties them-
selves. But does not this question make a disturb-
ance outside of political circles? Does it not enter 10
into the churches and rend them asunder? What
divided the great Methodist Church into two parts,
North and South? What has raised this constant
disturbance in every Presbyterian General Assem-
bly that meets? What disturbed the Unitarian
Church in this very city two years ago? What has 15
jarred and shaken the great American Tract Soci-
ety recently, not yet splitting it, but sure to divide it
in the end ? Is it not this same mighty, deep-seated
power that somehow operates on the minds of men,
exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of 20
society, — in politics, in religion, in literature, in
morals, in all the manifold relations of life? Is
this the work of politicians? Is that irresistible
power, which for fifty years has shaken the govern-
ment and agitated the people, to be stilled and 25
subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly
simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it?
If you will get everybody else to stop talking about
it, I assure you I will quit before they have half
done so. But where is the philosophy or states- 3°
190 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
manship which assumes that you can quiet that
disturbing element in our society which has dis-
turbed us for more than half a century, which has
been the only serious danger that has threatened
5 our institutions, — I say, where is the philosophy or
the statesmanship based on the assumption that we
are to quit talking about it, and that the public mind
is all at once to cease being agitated by it? Yet
this is the policy here in the North that Douglas is
lo advocating, — that we are to care nothing about it !
I ask you if it is not a false philosophy. Is it not
a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a
system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing
about the very thing that everybody does care the
15 most about? — a thing which all experience has
shown we care a very great deal about?
The Judge alludes very often in the course of
his remarks to the exclusive right which the States
have to decide the whole thing for themselves. I
20 agree with him very readily that the different States
have that right. He is but fighting a man of straw
when he assumes that I am contending against the
right of the States to do as they please about it.
Our controversy with him is in regard to the new
25 Territories. We agree that when the States come
in as States they have the right and the power to
do as they please. We have no power as citizens
of the Free States, or in our Federal capacity as
members of the Federal Union through the Gen-
30 eral Government, to disturb slavery in the States
where it exists. We profess constantly that we
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 191
have no more inclination than belief in the power
of the government to disturb it ; yet we are driven
constantly to defend ourselves from the assumption
that we are warring upon the rights of the States.
What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall 5
be kept free from it while in the Territorial condi-
tion. Judge Douglas assumes that we have no
interest in them, — that we have no right whatever
to interfere. I think we have some interest. I
think that as wdiite men we have. Do we not wish 10
for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may so
express myself? Do we not feel an interest in getting
to that outlet with such institutions as we would
like to have prevail there? If you go to the Terri-
tory opposed to slavery, and another man comes 15
upon the same ground with his slave, upon the
assumption that the things are equal, it turns out
that he has the equal right all his way, and you
have no part of it your way. If 'he goes in and
makes it a Slave Territory, and by consequence a 20
Slave State, is it not time that those who desire to
have it a Free State were on equal ground? Let
me suggest it in a different way. How many Dem-
ocrats are there about here [" A thousand "] who
have left Slave States and come into the Free State 25
of Illinois to get rid of the institution of slavery?
[Another voice: " A thousand and one."] I reckon
there are a thousand and one. I will ask you, if
the policy you are now advocating had prevailed
when this country was in a Territorial condition, 30
where would you have gone to get rid of it? Where
192 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
would you have found your Free State or Territory
to go to? And when hereafter, for any cause, the
people in this place shall desire to find new homes,
if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will
5 they find the place to go to ?
Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this
question as to whether there is a right or wrong in
enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new
Territories being in such a condition that white
^o men may find a home, — may find some spot where
they can better their condition ; where they can
settle upon new soil and better their condition in
life. I am in favor of this, not merely (I must say
it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who
^5 are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white
people everywhere, the world over, — in which
Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men
from all the world, may find new homes and better
their conditions in life.
^^-' I have stated upon former occasions, and I may
as well state again, what I understand to be the
real issue in this controversy between Judge Doug-
las and myself. On the point of my wanting to
make war between the Free and the Slave States,
^5 there has been no issue between us. So, too, when
he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a per-
fect social and political equality between the white
and black races. These are false issues, upon which
Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy.
30 There is no foundation in truth for the charge that
I maintain either of these propositions. The real
MR. LIXCOLX'S REPLY 193
issue in this controversy — the one pressing upon
every mind — is the sentiment on the part of one
class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a
mrong, and of another class that docs not look upon
it as a wronjT^. The sentiment that contemplates the 5
institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is
the sentiment of the Republican party. It is the
sentiment around which all their actions, all their
arguments, circle, from which all their propositions
radiate. They look upon it as being a moral, social, lo
and political wrong; and while they contemplate it
as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its
actual existence among us, and the difficulties of
getting rid of it in any satisfactory way and to all
the constitutional obligations thrown about it. Yet, 15
having a due regard for these, they desire a policy
in regard to it that looks to its not creating any
more danger. They insist that it should, as far as
may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the
methods of treating it as a wrong is to make pro- 20
vision that it sJiall grozu no larger. They also desire
a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at
some time, as being wrong. These are the views
they entertain in regard to it as I understand them ;
and all their sentiments, all their arguments and 25
propositions, are brought within this range. I have
said, and I repeat it here, that if there be a man
amongst us who does not think that the institution
of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of
which I have spoken, he is misplaced, and ought not 3o
to be with us. And if there be a man amongst us
194 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard
its actual presence amongst us and the difficulty of
getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and
to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown
5 about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our plat-
form. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical
action. He is not placed properly with us.
On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and
limiting its spread, let me say a word. Has any-
lo thing ever threatened the existence of this Union
save and except this very institution of slavery?
What is it that we hold most dear amongst us ? Our
own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threat-
ened our liberty and prosperity, save and except
15 this institution of slavery? If this is true, how do
you propose to improve the condition of things by
enlarging slavery, — by spreading it out and making
it bigger? You may have a wen or cancer upon
your person, and not be able to cut it out, lest you
20 bleed to death ; but surely it is no way to cure it, to
engraft it and spread it over your whole body. That
is no proper way of treating what you regard a
wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing with
it as a wrong, — restricting the spread of it, and not
25 allowing it to go into new countries where it has not
already existed. That is the peaceful way, the old-
fashioned way, the way in which the fathers them-
selves set us the example.
On the other hand, I have said there is a senti-
30 ment which treats it as not being wrong. That is
the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean
MR. LIXCOLS'S REPLY 195
to say that every man who stands within tliat range
positively asserts that it is right. That class will
include all who positively assert that it is right, and
all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as indifferent,
and do not say it is either right or wrong. These 5
two classes of men fall within the general class of
those who do not look upon it as a wrong. And if
there be among you anybody who supposes that he,
as a Democrat, can consider himself " as much
opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to 10
reason with him. You never treat it as a wrong.
What other thing that you consider as a wrong do
you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you
say it is wrong, but your leader never does, and you
quarrel witJi anybody zcJio says it is zirong. 15
Although you pretend to say so yourself, you can
find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You
must not say anything about it in the Free States,
because it is not here. You must not say anything
about it in the Slave States, because it is there. You 20
must not say anything about in the pulpit, because
that is religion, and has nothing to do with it. You
must not say anything about it in politics, because
that zcill disturb the security of " my place."
There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, 25
although you say yourself it is a wrong. lUit,
finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief that
if the people of the Slave States should adopt a sys-
tem of gradual emancipation on the slavery ques-
tion, you would be in favor of it. You would be in 3^
favor of it. You say that is getting it in the right
196 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. But
you are deceiving yourself. You all know that
Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St.
Louis, undertook to introduce that system in Mis-
3 souri. They fought as valiantly as they could for
the system of gradual emancipation which you pre-
tend you would be glad to see succeed. Now, I will
bring you to the test. After a hard fight they were
beaten, and when the news came over here, you
lo threw up your hats and hurrahed for Democracy.
More than that, take all the argument made in favor
of the system you have proposed, and it carefully
excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in
the institution of slavery. The arguments to sustain
15 that policy carefully excluded it. Even here to-day
you heard Judge Douglas quarrel with me because I
uttered a wish that it might some time come to an
end. Although Henry Clay could say he wished
every slave in the United States was in the country
20 of his ancestors, I am denounced by those pretending
to respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish that it
might some time, in some peaceful way, come to an
end. The Democratic policy in regard to that insti-
tution will not tolerate the merest breath, the slight-
25 est hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. Try
it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says
he " don't care whether it is voted up or voted
down " in the Territories. I do not care myself, in
dealing with that expression, whether it is intended
3o to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the
subject, or only of the national policy he desires to
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 197
have established. It is alike valuable for my pur-
pose. Any man can say that who does not see any-
thing wrong- in slavery ; but no man can logically
say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man
can logically say he don't care w'hcthcr a wrong is 5
voted up or voted down. He may say he don't care
whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down,
but he must logically have a choice between a right
thing and a wrong thing. He contends that what-
ever community wants slaves has a right to have 10
them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if
it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to
do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality,
slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory,
like other property. This is strictly logical if there 15
is no difference between it and other property. If it
and other property are equal, his argument is entirely
logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the
other right, there is no use to institute a comparison
between right and wrong. You may turn over 20
everything in the Democratic policy from beginning
to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute
book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott deci-
sion, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the
shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments, — it 25
everywhere carefully excludes the idea that thc.e is
anything wrong in it.
That is the real issue. That is the issue that will
continue in this country, when these poor tongues
of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is 3©
^he eternal struggle between these two principles^
198 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
right and wrong — throughout the world. They are
the two principles that have stood face to face from
the beginning of time, and will ever continue to
struggle. The one is the common right of human-
5 ity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is
the same principle in whatever shape it develops
itself. It is the same spirit that says : " You work
and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter
in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of
lo a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own
nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from
one race of men as an apology for enslaving another
race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I was glad
to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express
15 it here, to Judge Douglas, — that he looks to no end
of the institution of slavery. That will help the
people to see where the struggle really is. It will
hereafter place with us all men who really do wish
the wrong may have an end. And whenever we can
20 get rid of the fog which obscures the real question,
when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to
avow a policy looking to its perpetuation, — we can
get out from among that class of men and bring
them to the side of those who treat it as a wrong.
25 Then there will soon be an end of it, and that end
will be its " ultimate extinction." Whenever the
issue can be distinctly made, and all extraneous mat-
ter thrown out so that men can fairly see the real
difference between the parties, this controversy will
30 soon be settled, and it will be done peaceably, too.
There will be no war, no violence. It will be placed
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY 199
a.q'ain where the wisest and best men of the world
placed it. Brooks, of South Carolina, once declared
that when this Constitution was framed its framers
did not look to the institution existing until his day.
When he said this, I think he stated a fact that is 5
fully borne out by the history of the times. But he
also said they were better and wiser men than the
men of these days ; yet the men of these days had
experience which they had not, and by the inven-
tion of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this 10
country that slavery should be perpetual. I now
say that, willingly or unwillingly, purposely or with-
out purpose. Judge Douglas has been the most
prominent instrument in changing the position of
the institution of slavery which the fathers of the 15
government expected to come to an end ere this, —
and putting it upon Brooks's cotton-gin basis;
placing it where he openly confesses he has no
desire there shall ever be an end of it.
I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will 20
employ it in saying something about this argument
Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains the Dred
Scott decision, that the people of the Territories can
still somehow exclude slavery. The first thing I
ask attention to is the fact that Judge Douglas con- 25
stantly said, before the decision, that whether they
could or not, was a question for the Supreme Court.
But after the court had made the decision he vir-
tually says it is not a question for the Supreme
Court, but for the people. And how is it he tells 30
us they can exclude it? He says it needs "police
2Q0 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
r^palatifon^" and that admits of "unfriendly legis-
lation.** Although it is a right established by the
Constitution of the United States to take a slave into
a Territofy of the United Sta: ff :■.:•.'. \ I him as
5 property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will
^^^ friendly .:-^-^:.::' ^:" : : .:: t^: :;-.._ .:
they adopt unfriendly le c . f ' • : . : r. : . ; -■- : .r. prac-
tically exclude him. Nov,, vv::.-:^^; :;-:.::: this
proposition as a matter of fact, I pass t: : - r : er the
lo real const'- -" aal obligation. Let me i^j^c uie gen-
tiemnan who looks me in the face before me, and let
us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial
Lc~.r.2ttLre. The first thing he will do will be to
svv t^r that he will support the Coosdtiitioii of the
>5 United States. His neighbor by his side in tiie Ter-
ritory has slaves and needs Territorial legislation to
enable him to enjoy that constitutional right Can
he withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs
for the enjoyment of a right wbich is fixed in his
ao favor in the Cdnstitiifion of the United States whiiii
he has sworn to support ? Can he witUiold it with-
out violating his oath? And, more especially, can
he pass unfriendly leg*'*?' -.■;." to violate his oath?
Why, this is a nzonstrcuj i-:.-: of talk aboiLEt the Coo-
25 stttution of the L^nited States ! There has never
beem as outlandish or iawiess a doctrme from the
mouth of any respectabte mam &n ecrth. I do not
believe it is a constitutional r^^ to hcdd slaves in a
Territory of the United States. I bdieve the deci-
30 sion was improf)erly made and I go for reversing
iL Judge Douglas is furioiis against tiiose who go
AIR. LL\COL.\"S REPLY 201
for reversing a decision. But he is for legislating
it out of all force while the law itself stands. I
repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doc-
trine uttered from the mouth of a respectable man.
I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) be- 5
lieve that people of the Southern States are entitled
to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law, — that is a
right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be
made available to them without Congressional leg-
islation. In the Judge's language, it is a ** barren 10
right," which needs legislation before it can become
efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it is
guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional, I
agree that the legislation shall be granted to it. —
and that not that we like the institution of slavery-. 15
We profess to have no taste for running and catch-
ing niggers. — at least, I profess no taste for that
job at all. Why then do I yield support to a Fugi-
tive Slave law? Because I do not understand that
the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can 20
be supported without it. And if I believed that the
right to hold a slave in a Territor}- was equally fixed
in the Constitution with the right to reclaim fugi-
tives, I should be bound to give it the legislation
necessar>' to support it. 1 say that no man can deny 25
his obligation to give the necessary' legislation to
support slavery- in a Territor>-, who believes it is a
constitutional right to have it there. Xo man can,
who does not give the Abolitionists an argriment to
deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to 30
enact a Fugitive State law. Tr^' it now. It is the
202 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE. AT ALTON
strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say
if that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right
to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a constitu-
tional right with the right of a slaveholder to have
5 his runaway returned. No one can show the dis-
tinction between them. The one is express, so that
we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in
the Constitution, so that he who believes the deci-
sion to be correct believes in the right. And the
lo man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in
spite of that constitutional right, slavery may be
driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnish-
ing an argument by which Abolitionists may deny
the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the
15 power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the
slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know
how such an argument may strike a popular assem-
bly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body
of men whose minds are educated to estimating evi-
20 dence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota
of difference between the constitutional right to
reclaim a fugitive, and the constitutional right to
hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott
decision is correct. I defy any man to make an
25 argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to
deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold a slave in
a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length,
breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for nul-
lifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not
30 such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas,
after all,
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOIXDER 203
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOIXDER
Mr. Lixcolx has concluded his remarks by say-
inp^ that there is not such an Abohtionist as I am in 5
all America. If he could make the Abolitionists of
Illinois believe that, he would not have much show
for the Senate. Let him make the Abolitionists
believe the truth of that statement, and his political
back is broken. 10
His first criticism upon me is the expression of
his hope that the war of the Administration will be
prosecuted against me and the Democratic party of
this State with vigor. He wants that war prose-
cuted with vigor ; I have no doubt of it. His hopes of 15
success and the hopes of his party depend solely upon
it. They have no chance of destroying the De-
mocracy of this State except by the aid of Federal
patronage. He has all the Federal office-holders
here as his allies, running separate tickets against the 20
Democracy to divide the party, although the leaders
all intend to vote directly the Abolition ticket, and
only leave the greenhorns to vote this separate
ticket who refuse to go into the Abolition camp.
There is something really refreshing in the thought 25
that Mr. Lincoln is in favor of prosecuting one war
vigorously. It is the first war that I ever knew him
to be in favor of prosecuting. It is the first war
that I ever knew him to believe to be just or con-
stitutional. When the Mexican war was being 3^
waged, and the American arniy was surrounded by
204 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
the enemy in Mexico, he thought that war was
unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust. He
thought it was not commenced on the right spot.
When I made an incidental allusion of that kind in
5 the joint discussion over at Charleston some weeks
ago, Lincoln, in replying, said that I, Douglas, had
charged him with voting against supplies for the
Mexican war, and then he reared up, full length,
and swore that he never voted against the supplies ;
lo that it was a slander; and caught hold of Ficklin,
who sat on the stand, and said, " Here, Ficklin, tell
the people that it is a lie." Well, Ficklin, who had
served in Congress with him, stood up and told them
all that he recollected about it. It was that when
15 George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, brought for-
ward a resolution declaring the war unconstitutional,
unnecessary, and unjust, that Lincoln had voted for
it. " Yes," said Lincoln, " I did." Thus he confessed
that he voted that the war vv^as wrong, that our
20 country was in the wrong, and consequently that the
Mexicans were in the right ; but charged that I had
slandered him by saying that he voted against the
supplies. I never charged him with voting against
the supplies in my life, because I knew that he was
25 not in Congress when they were voted. The war was
commenced on the 13th day of May, 1846, and on
that day we appropriated in Congress ten millions
of dollars and fifty thousand men to prosecute it.
During the same session we voted more men and
30 more money, and at the next session we voted more
men and more money, so that by the tirne Mr. Lin-
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 205
coin entered Congress we had enough men and
enough money to carry on the war, and had no
occasion to vote for any more. When he got into
the House, being opposed to the war, and not being
able to stop the supplies, because they had all gone 5
forward, all he could do was to follow the lead of
Corwin, and ])rove that the war was not begun on
the right si)ot, and that it was unconstitutional, un-
necessary, and wrong. Remember, too, that this he
did after the war had been begun. It is one thing 10
to be opposed to the declaration of a war, another
and very different thing to take sides with the
enemy against your own country after the war has
been commenced. Our army was in Mexico at the
time, many battles had been fought ; our citizens, 15
who were defending the honor of their country's
flag, were surrounded by the daggers, the guns, and
the poison of the enemy. Then it was that Corwin
made his speech in which he declared that the Amer-
ican soldiers ought to be welcomed by the Mexicans 20
with bloody hands and hospitable graves; then it
was that Ashmun and Lincoln voted in the House
of Representatives that the war was unconstitu-
tional and unjust; and Ashmun's resolution, Cor-
win's speech, and Lincoln's vote were sent to Mex- 25
ico and read at the head of the Mexican army, to
prove to them that there was a Mexican party in the
Congress of the United States who were doing all
in their power to aid them. That a man who takes
sides with the common enemy against his own 30
country in time of war should rejoice in a war being
2o6 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
made on me now, is very natural. And, in my
opinion, no other kind of a man would rejoice in it.
Mr. Lincoln has told you a great deal to-day about
his being an old line Clay Whig. Bear in mind that
5 there are a great many old Clay Whigs down in
this region. It is more agreeable, therefore, for him
to talk about the old Clay Whig party than it is for
him to talk Abolitionism. We did not hear much
about the old Clay Whig party up in the Abolition
lo districts. How much of an old line Henry Clay
Whig was he ? Have you read General Singleton's
speech at Jacksonville? You know that General
Singleton was for twenty-five years the confidential
friend of Henry Clay in Illinois, and he testified that
15 in 1847, when the Constitutional Convention of this
State was in session, the Whig members were in-
vited to a Whig caucus at the house of Mr. Lincoln's
brother-in-law, where Mr. Lincoln proposed to
throw Henry Clay overboard and take up General
20 Taylor in his place, giving as his reason that, if the
Whigs did not take up General Taylor, the Demo-
crats would. Singleton testifies that Lincoln in that
speech urged as another reason for throwing Henry
Clay overboard, that the Whigs had fought
25 long enough for principle, and ought to begin to
fight for success. Singleton also testified that Lin-
coln's speech did not have the effect of cutting
Clay's throat, and that he (Singleton) and others
withdrew from the caucus in indignation. He fur-
30 ther states that when they got ;.to Philadelphia to
attend the National Convention of the Whig party,
MR. DOUGLAS'S RPJOINDER 207
that r.incoln was there, the bitter and deadly enemy
of Clay, and that he tried to keep him (Sini^leton)
out of the Convention because he insisted on votini^
for Clay, and Lincohi was determined to have Tay-
lor. Singleton says that Lincoln rejoiced with very 5
great joy when he found the mangled remains of
the murdered Whig statesman lying cold before
him. Now, Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is an old
line Clay Whig! General Singleton testifies to the
facts I have narrated, in a public speech which has 10
been printed and circulated broadcast over the State
for weeks, yet not a lisp have we heard from Mr.
Lincoln on the subject, except that he is an old Clay
Whig.
What part of Henry Clay's policy did Lincoln 15
ever advocate. He was in Congress in 1848-9,
when the Wilmot Proviso warfare disturbed the
peace and harmony of the country, until it shook the
foundation of the Republic from its centre to its
circumference. It was that agitation that brought 20
Clay forth from his retirement at Ashland again to
occupy his seat in the Senate of the United States,
to see if he could not, by his great wisdom and
experience, and the renown of his name, do some-
thing to restore peace and quiet to a disturbed coun- 25
try. Who got up that sectional strife that Clay had
to be called upon to quell ? I have heard Lincoln
boast that he voted forty-two times for the Wilmot
Proviso, and that he would have voted as many
times more if he could. Lincoln is the man, in con- 30
nection with Seward, Chase, Giddings, and odier
2o8 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
Abolitionists, who got up that strife that I helped
Clay to put down. Henry Clay came back to the
Senate in 1849, and saw that he must do something
to restore peace to the country. The Union Whigs
5 and the Union Democrats welcomed him, the
moment he arrived, as the man for the occasion.
We believed that he, of all men on earth, had been
preserved by Divine Providence to guide us out of
our difficulties, and we Democrats rallied under Clay
10 then, as you Whigs in Nullification time rallied
under the banner of old Jackson, forgetting party
when the country was in danger, in order that we
might have a country first, and parties afterward.
And this reminds me that Mr. Lincoln told you
15 that the slavery question was the only thing that
ever disturbed the peace and harmony of the Union.
Did not Nullification once raise its head and disturb
the peace of this Union in 1832? Was that the
slavery question, Mr. Lincoln? Did not disunion
20 raise its monster head during the last war with
Great Britain? Was that the slavery question, Mr.
Lincoln? The peace of this country has been dis-
turbed three times, once during the war with Great
Britain, once on the tariff question, and once on the
25 slavery question. His argument therefore that
slavery is the only question that has ever created dis-
sension in the Union falls to the ground. It is true
that agitators are enabled now to use this slavery
question for the purpose of sectional strife. He
30 admits that in regard to all things else, the principle
that I advocate, making each State and Territory
MR. DOUG LAS' S- REJOINDER 209
free to decide for itself, ought to prevail. He
instances the cranberry laws and the oyster laws,
and he might have gone through the whole list with
the same effect. I say that all these laws are local
and domestic, and that local and domestic concerns 5
should be left to each State and each Territory to
manage for itself. If agitators would acquiesce in
that principle, there never would be any danger to
the peace and harmony of the Union.
Mr. Lincoln tries to avoid the main issue by 10
attacking the truth of my proposition, that our
fathers made this government divided into Free and
Slave States, recognizing the right of each to decide
all its local questions for itself. Did they not thus
make it? It is true that they did not establish 15
slavery in any of the States, or abolish it in any of
them ; but finding thirteen States, tw'elve of which
were slave and one free, they agreed to form a gov-
ernment uniting them together as they stood, divided
into Free and Slave States, and to guarantee forever 20
to each State the right to do as it pleased on the
slavery question. Having thus made the govern-
ment, and conferred this right upon each State for-
ever, I assert that this government can exist as they
made it, divided into Free and Slave States, if any 25
one State chooses to retain slavery. He says that
he looks forward to a time when slavery shall be
abolished everywhere. I look forward to a time
when each State shall be allowed to do as it pleases.
If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my 30
business, but its own ; if it chooses to abolish slay-
210 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
ery, it is its own business, — not mine. I care more
for the great principle of self-government, the right
of the people to rule, than I do for all the negroes
in Christendom. I would not endanger the per-
5 petuity of this Union, I would not blot out the great
inalienable rights of the white men, for all the
negroes that ever existed. Hence, I say, let us
maintain this government on the principles that our
fathers made it on, recognizing the right of each
lo State to keep slavery as long as its people determine,
or to abolish it when they please. But Mr. Lincoln
says that when our fathers made this government
they did not look forw^ard to the state of things now
existing, and therefore he thinks the doctrine was
15 wrong ; and he quotes Brooks, of South Carolina, to
prove that- our fathers then thought that probably
slavery would be abolished by each State acting for
itself before this time. Suppose they did; suppose
they did not foresee what has occurred, — does that
20 change the principles of our government? They
did not probably foresee the telegraph that transmits
intelligence by lightning, nor did they foresee the
railroads that now form the bonds of union between
the different States, or the thousand mechanical
25 inventions that have elevated mankind. But do
these things change the principles of the govern-
ment? Our fathers, I say, made this government
on the principle of the right of each State to do as
it pleases in its own domestic affairs, subject to the
30 Constitution, and allowed the people of each to
apply to every new change of circumstances such
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER 211
remedy as they may sec fit to improve tlieir con-
dition. This ri,c:ht they have for all time to come.
Mr. Lincoln went on to tell you that he does not
at all desire to interfere with slavery in the States
where it exists, nor does his party. I expected him 5
to say that down here. Let me ask him, then, how
he expects to put slavery in the course of ultimate
extinction everywhere, if he does not intend to inter-
fere with it in the States where it exists? He says
that he will prohibit it in all Territories, and the 10
inference is, then, that unless they make Free States
out of them he will keep them out of the Union ; for,
mark you, he did not say whether or not he would
vote to admit Kansas with slavery or not, as her
people might apply (he forgot that, as usual, etc.) ; 15
he did not say whether or not he was in favor of
bringing the Territories now in existence into the
Union on the principle of Clay's Compromise Meas-
ures on the slavery question. I told you that he
would not. His idea is that he will prohibit slavery 20
in all the Territories, and thus force them all to
become Free States, surrounding the Slave States
with a cordon of Free States, and hemming them in,
keeping the slaves confined to their present limits
whilst they go on multiplying, until the soil on 25
which they live will no longer feed them, and he
will thus be able to put slavery in a course of ulti-
mate extinction by starvation. Lie will extinguish
slavery in the Southern States as the French gen-
eral exterminated the Algerines when he smoked 30
them out. He is going to extinguish slavery by
212 THE SEVENTH JOIXT DEBATE, AT ALTON
surrounding the Slave States, hemming in the slaves,
and starving them out of existence, as you smoke a
fox out of his hole. He intends to do that in the
nam-e of humanity and Christianity, in order that
5 we may get rid of the terrible crime and sin entailed
upon our fathers of holding slaves. Mr. Lincoln
makes out that line of policy, and appeals to the
moral sense of justice and to the Christian feeling
of the community to sustain him. He says that any
lo man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the
position of the king who claimed to govern by divine
right. Let us examine for a moment and see what
principle it was tnat overthrew the divine right of
George the Third to govern us. Did not these Col-
15 onies rebel because the British Parliament had no
right to pass laws concerning our property and
domestic and private institutions without our con-
sent? We demanded that the British Government
should not pass such laws unless they gave us
20 representation in the body passing them ; and this
the British Government insisting on doing, we went
to war, on the prmciple that the Home Government
should not control and govern distant colonies with-
out giving them a representation. Now, Mr. Lin-
25 coin proposes to govern the Territories without giv-
ing them a representation, and calls on Congress
to pass laws controlling their property and domes-
tic concerns without their consent and against their
will. Thus, he asserts for his party the identical
30 principle asserted by George UL and the Tories of
the Revolution,
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOISDER 213
I ask you to look into these thirij:^s and then tell
me whether the Democracy or the Abolitionists are
right. I hold that the people of a Territory, like
those of a State (I use the language of Mr.
Buchanan in his Letter of Acceptance), have the 5
right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall
or shall not exist within their limits. The point
upon which Chief Justice Taney expresses his opin-
ion is simi)ly this, that slaves, being property, stand
on an equal footing with other property, and conse- 10
quently that the owner has the same right to carry
that property into a Territory that he has any other,
subject to the same conditions. Suppose that one
of your merchants was to take fifty or one hundred
thousand dollars' worth of liquors to Kansas. He 15
has a right to go there, under that decision ; but
when he gets there he finds the ]\Iaine liquor law in
force, and what can he do with his property after
he gets it there ? He cannot sell it, he cannot use it ;
it is subject to the local law, and that law is against 20
him, and the best thing he can do with it is to bring
it back into Missouri or Illinois and sell it. If you
take negroes to Kansas, as Colonel Jefferson Davis
said in his Bangor speech, from which I have quoted
to-day, you must take them there subject to the 25
local law. If the people want the institution of
slavery, they will protect and encourage it ; but if
they do not want it they will withhold that
protection, and the absence of local legislation pro-
tecting slavery excludes it as completely as a 30
positive prohibition. You slaveholders of Missouri
214 THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
might as well understand what you know practi-
cally, that you cannot carry slavery where the peo-
ple do not want it. All you have a right to ask is
that the people shall do as they please : if they want
5 slavery, let them have it; if they do not want it,
allow them to refuse to encourage it.
My friends, if, as I have said before, we will only
live up to this great fundamental principle, there
will be peace between the North and the South.
xo Mr. Lincoln admits that, under the Constitution, on
all domestic questions, except slavery, we ought not
to interfere with the people of each State. What
right have we to interfere with the people of each
State. What right have we to interfere with slav-
15 ery any more than we have to interfere with any
other question? He says that this slavery question
is now the bone of contention. Why? Simply
because agitators have combined in all the Free
States to make war upon it. Suppose the agitators
20 in the States should combine in one half of the
Union to make war upon the railroad system of the
other half ? They would thus be driven to the same
sectional strife. Suppose one section makes war
upon any other particular institution of the opposite
25 section, and the same strife is produced. The only
remedy and safety is that we shall stand by the Con-
stitution as our fathers made it, obey the laws as
they are passed, while they stand the proper test,
and sustain the decisions of the Supreme Court and
3o the constituted authorities.
Xlncoln'0 HC^Drc^a at Cooper Unetltute
[February 2T, i860]
Mr. President and Fellow-citizens of New
York : The facts with which I shall deal this even-
ing are mainly old and familiar ; nor is there any- 5
thins:;- new in the general use I shall make of them.
If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode
of presenting- the facts, and the inferences and obser-
vations following that presentation. In his speech
last Autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the 10
New York " Times," Senator Douglas said :
" Our fathers, when they framed the government
under which we live, understood this question just as
well, and even better, than we do now."
I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for 15
this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes
a precise and an agreed starting-point for a dis-
cussion between Republicans and that wing of the
Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply
leaves the inquiry: What was the understanding 20
those fathers had of the question mentioned?
What is the frame of government under which
we live? The answer must be, '* The Constitution
of the United States." That Constitution consists
of the original, framed in 1787, and under which the 25
215
2i6 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
present government first went into operation, and
twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first
ten of which were framed in 1789.
Who were our fathers that framed the Constitu-
5 tion ? I suppose the '' thirty-nine " who signed the
original instrument may be fairly called our fathers
who framed that part of the present government.
It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and
it is altogether true to say they fairly represented
10 the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at
that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly
all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be
repeated.
I take these " thirty-nine," for the present, as
15 being '' our fathers who framed the government
under which we live." What is the question which,
according to the text, those fathers understood
" just as well, and even better, than we do now "?
It is this: Does the proper division of local from
20 Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution,
forbid our Federal Government to control as to
slavery in our Federal Territories?
Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative,
and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and
25 denial form an issue ; and this issue — this question —
is precisely what the text declares our fathers under-
stood "better than w^e." Let us now inquire
whether the " thirty-nine," or any of them, ever
acted upon this question ; and if they did, how they
30 acted upon it — how they expressed that better
understanding. In 1784, three years before the Con-
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 217
stitution, the United States then owning the North-
western Territory, and no other, the Congress of
the Confederation had before them the question
of prohibiting slavery in that Territory, and four of
the *' thirty-nine " who afterward framed the Con- 5
stitution were in that Congress, and voted on that
question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mif-
flin, and Hugh Wilhamson voted for the prohibition,
thus showing that, in their understanding, no hue
dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything lo
else, properly forbade the Federal Government to
control as to slavery in Federal territory. The other
of the four, James IMcIIenry, voted against the pro-
hibition, showing that for some cause he thought
it improper to vote for it. 15
In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while
the convention was in session framing it, and while
the Northwestern Territory still was the only Terri-
tory owned by the United States, the same question
of prohibiting slavery in the Territor}- again came 20
before the Congress of the Confederation ; and two
more of the " thirty-nine " who afterward signed the
Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on the
question. They were William Blount and William
Few ; and they both voted for the prohibition — thus 25
showing that in their understanding no line dividing
local from Federal authority, nor anything else,
properly forbade the Federal Government to control
as to slavery in Federal territory. This time the
prohibition became a law, being part of what is now 3^
well known as the Ordinance of '87.
2iS LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
The question of Federal control of slavery in the
Territories seems not to have been directly before
the convention which framed the original Constitu-
tion; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-
5 nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instru-
ment, expressed any opinion on that precise question.
In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the
Constitution, an act w^as passed to enforce the ordi-
nance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in
10 the Northwestern Territorv. The bill for this act
was reported by one of the " thirty-nine " — Thomas
Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Rep-
resentatives from Pennsylvania. It went through
all its stages without a word of opposition, and
15 finally passed both branches without ayes and nays,
which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In
this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine
fathers who framed the original Constitution. They
were John Langdon, Nicholas Oilman, Wm. S.
20 Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos.
Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin,
Rufus King, William Patterson, George Clymer,
Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Dan-
iel Carroll, and James Madison.
25 This shows that, in their understanding, no line
dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything
in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to
prohibit slavery in the Federal territory ; else both
their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to
30 support the Constitution, would have constrained
them to oppose the prohibition.
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 219
Ap^ain, Gcorj^^e Washington, another of the
** thirty-nine," was then President of the United
States, and as such ai)proved and sip^ncd the hill,
thus completing its validity as a law, and thus show-
ing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local 5
from Federal authority, nor anything in the Con-
stitution, forhade the Federal Government to con-
trol as to slavery in Federal territory.
No great while after the adoption of the original
Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal 10
Government the country now constituting the State
of Tennessee ; and a few years later Georgia ceded
that which now constitutes the States of ^Mississippi
and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was
made a condition by the ceding States that the Fed- 15
eral government should not prohibit slavery in the
ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then actu-
ally in the ceded country. Under these circum-
stances. Congress, on taking charge of these
countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within 20
them. But they did interfere with it — take con-
trol of it — even there, to a certain extent. In 1798
Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi.
In the act of organization they prohibited the
bringing of slaves into the Territory from any place 25
without the United States, by fine, and giving free-
dom to slaves so brought. This act passed both
branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In
that Congress were three of the *' thirty-nine " who
framed the original Constitution. They were John 3°
Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Baldwin.
220 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
They all probably voted for it. Certainly they
would have placed their opposition to it upon record
if, in their understanding, any line dividing local
from Federal authority, or anything in the Consti-
5 tution, properly forbade the Federal Government to
control as to slavery in Federal Territory.
In 1803 the Federal Government purchased the
Louisiana countr}\ Our former territorial acquisi-
tions came from certain of our own States; but
10 this Louisiana country was acquired from a for-
eign nation. In 1804 Congress gave a territorial
organization to that part of it which now constitutes
the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within
that part, was an old and comparatively large city.
15 There were other considerable towns and settle-
ments and slavery was extensively and thoroughly
intermingled with the people. Congress did not,
in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they
did interfere with it — ^take control of it — in a more
20 marked and extensive ^^'ay than they did in the case
of Mississippi. The substance of the provision
therein made in relation to slaves was :
1st. That no slave should be imported into the
Territory from foreign parts.
25 2d. That no slave should be carried into it who
had been imported into the United States since the
first day of May, 1798.
3d. That no slave should be carried into it,
except by the owner, and for his own use as a set-
So tier; the penalty in all cases being a fine upon the
violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 221
This act also was passed without ayes or nays.
In the Congress which passed it there were two of
the " thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin
and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of
Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. 5
They would not have allowed it to pass without
recording their opposition to it if, in their under-
standing, it violated either the line properly dividing
local from Federal authority, or any provision of
the Constitution. 10
In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri ques-
tion. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in
both branches of Congress, upon the various phases
of the general question. Two of the " thirty-nine "
— Rufus King and Charles Pinckncy — were mem- 15
bers of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for
slavery prohibition and against all compromises,
while Mr. Pinckncy as steadily voted against slav-
ery prohibition and against all compromises. By
this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, 20
no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor
anything in the Constitution, was violated by Con-
gress prohibiting slavery in Federal territory ;
while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in
his understanding, there was some sufficient reason 25
for opposing such prohibition in that case.
The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of
the " thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the
direct issue, which I have been able to discover.
To enumerate the persons who thus acted as 3°
being four in 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789,
222 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20,
there would be thirty of them. But this would be
counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William
Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice,
5 and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true num-
ber of those of the " thirty-nine " whom I have
shown to have acted upon the question which, by
the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-
three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon
10 it in any way.
Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our
thirty-nine fathers "who framed the government
under which we live," who have, upon their official
responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon
15 the very question which the text affirms they
" understood just as well, and even better, than we
do now " ; and twenty-one of them— a clear majority
of the whole '* thirty-nine " — so acting upon it as
to make them guilty of gross political impropriety
20 and wilful perjury if, in their understanding, any
proper division between local and Federal authority,
or anything in the Constitution they had made
themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Fed-
eral Government to control as to slavery in the
25 Federal Territories. Thus the twenty-one acted;
and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions
under such responsibility speak still louder.
Two of the twenty-three voted against Congres-
sional prohibition of slavery in the Federal Terri-
30 tories, in the instances in which they acted upon
the question. But for what reasons they so voted
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 223
is not known. They may have done so because they
thoii£]^ht a proper division of local from Federal
authority, or some provision or principle of the
Constitution, stood in the way ; or they may, with-
out any such question, have voted against the pro- 5
hibition on what appeared to them to be. sufficient
grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to
support the Constitution can conscientiously vote
for what he understands to be an unconstitutional
measure, however expedient he may think it ; but 10
one may and ought to vote against a measure which
he deems constitutional if, at the same time, he
deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be
unsafe to set down even the two who voted against
the prohibition as having done so because, in their 15
understanding, any proper division of local from
Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution,
forbade the Federal Government to control as to
slavery in Federal territory.
The remaining sixteen of the " thirty-nine," so 20
far as I have discovered, have left no record of
their understanding upon the direct question of Fed-
eral control of slavery in the Federal Territories.
But there is much reason to believe that their under-
standing upon that question would not have 25
appeared different from that of their twenty-three
compeers, had it been manifested at all.
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text,
I have purposely omitted whatever understanding
may have been manifested by any person, however 30
distinguished, other than the thirtv-nine fathers who
224 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
framed the original Constitution ; and, for the same
reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding
may have been manifested by any of the " thirty-
nine " even on any other phase of the general ques-
5 tion of slaverv'. If we should look into their acts
and declarations on those other phases, as the
foreign slave-trade, and the morality and policy of
slavery genperally, it would appear to us that on the
direct question of Federal control of slavery in
lo Federal Territories, the sixteen, if they had acted
at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-
three did. Among that sixteen were several of the
most noted anti-slavery men of those times — as Dr.
Franklin, Alexander Hamilton-, and Gouverneur
15 Alorris — while there was not one now known to
have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rut-
ledge, of South- Carolina.
The sum of the whole is that of our thirty-nine
fathers who framed the original Constitution,
20 twenty-one — a clear majority of the whole — cer-
tainly understood that no proper division of local
from Federal authority, nor any part of the Con-
stitution, forbade the Federal Government to con-
trol slaver}' in the Federal Territories ; while all
25 the rest had probably the same understanding.
Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our
fathers who framed the original Constitution; and
the text affirms that they understood the question
" better than we."
3° But, so far, I have been considering the under-
standing of the question manifested by the framers
LIXCOLN AT COOPER IXSTITUTE 225
of the original Constitution. In and by the original
instrument, a mode was provided for amencHng it ;
and, as I have already stated, the present frame of
*' the government under whieh we live " consists of
that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed 5
and adopted since. Those who now insist that Fed-
eral control of slavery in Federal Territories vio-
lates the Constitution, point us to the provisions
which they suppose it thus violates ; and, as I under-
stand, they all fix upon provisions in these amenda- 10
tory articles, and not in the original instrument.
The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant
themselves upon the fifth amendment, which pro-
vides that no person shall be deprived of " life, lib-
erty, or property without due process of law " ; while 15
Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant
themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing
that " the powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution " " are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." 20
Now it so happens that these amendments were
framed by the first Congress which sat under the
Constitution — the identical Congress which passed
the act, already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition
of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only 25
was it the same Congress, but they were the iden-
tical, same individual men who, at the same session,
and at the same time within the session, had under
consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these
constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting 30
slavery in all the territory the nation then owned.
226 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
»
The constitutional amendments were introduced
before, and passed after the act enforcing the ordi-
nance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of
the act to enforce the ordinance, the constitutional
5 amendments were also pending.
The seventy-six members of that Congress, includ-
ing sixteen of the framers of the original Constitu-
tion, as before stated, were pre-eminently our
fathers who framed that part of " the government
10 under which we live " which is now claimed as for-
bidding the Federal Government to control slavery
in the Federal Territories.
Is it not a little presumptuous in anyone at this
dav to affirm that the two thing^s which that Con-
15 gress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity
at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with
each other? And does not such affirmation become
impudently absurd when coupled with the other
affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who
20 did the two things alleged to be inconsistent, under-
stood whether they really were inconsistent better
than we — better than he who affirms that they are
inconsistent ?
It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine
^5 framers of the original Constitution, and the sev-
enty-six members of the Congress which framed the
amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly
include those who may be fairly called " our fathers
who framed the government under which we live."
30 And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any
one of them ever^ in his whole life, declared that, in
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 227
his understanding, any proper division of local from
Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution,
forbade the Federal Government to control as to
slavery in the Federal Territories. I go a step fur-
ther. I defy anyone to show that any living man 5
in the world ever did, prior to the beginning of the
present century (and I might almost say prior to
the beginning of the last half of the present cen-
tury), declare that, in his understanding, any proper
division of local from Federal authority, or any part 10
of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Govern-
ment to control as to slavery in the Federal Terri-
tories. To those who now so declare I give not
only " our fathers who framed the government
under which we live," but with them all other living 15
men within the century in which it was framed,
among whom to search, and they shall not be able
to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with
them.
Now, and here, let me guard a little against being 20
misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound
to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did.
To do so would be to discard all the lights of cur-
rent experience — to reject all progress, all improve-
ment. What I do say is that if we would supplant 25
the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case,
we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and
argument so clear, that even their great authority,
fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand ; and
most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves 30
declare they understood the question better than we.
228 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
If any man at this day sincerely believes that a
proper division of local from Federal authority, or
any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal
Government to control as to slavery in the Federal
5 Territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his
position by all truthful evidence and fair argu-
ment which he can. But he has no right to mislead
others, who have less access to history, and less
leisure to study it, into the false belief that " our
lo fathers who framed the government under which
we live " were of the same opinion — thus substitut-
ing falsehood and deception for truthful evidence
and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely
believes " our fathers who framed the government
^5 under which we live " used and applied principles,
in other cases, which ought to have led them to
understand that a proper division of local from
Federal authority, or some part of the Constitution,
forbids the Federal Government to control as to
20 slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to
say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the
responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he
understands their principles better than they did
themselves ; and especially should he not shirk that
25 responsibility by asserting that they " understood
the question just as well, and even better, than we
do now."
But enough ! Let all who believe that " our
fathers who framed the government under which
30 w^e live understood this question just as well, and
even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke,
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 229
and act as they acted upon it. This is all Repub-
hcans ask — all Republicans desire — in relation to
slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be
again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to
be tolerated ana protected only because of and so 5
far as its actual presence amongst us makes that tol-
eration and protection a necessity. Let all the
guaranties those fathers gave it be not grudgingly,
but fully and fairly maintained. For this Repub-
licans contend, and with this, so far as I know or 10
believe, they will be content.
And now, if they would listen — as I suppose they
will not — I would address a few words to the
Southern people.
I would say to them : You consider yourselves a 15
reasonable and a just people ; and I consider that in
the general qualities of reason and justice you are
not inf<erior to any other people. Still, when you
sjxak of us Republicans, you do " so only to
denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better 20
than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates
or murderers, but nothing like it to " Black Repub-
licans." In all your contentions with one another,
each of you deems an unconditional condemnation
of ** Black Republicanism," as the first thing to be 25
attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us
seems to be an indispensable prerequisite — license,
so to speak — among you to be admitted or permitted
to speak at all. Now can you or not be prevailed
upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite 30
just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward
230 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
your charges and specifications, and then be patient
long enough to hear us deny or justify.
You say we ar€ sectional. We deny it. That
makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon
5 you. You produce your proof; and what is it?
Why, that our party has no existence in your sec-
tion— gets no votes in your section. The fact is
substantially true ; but does it prove the issue ? If
it does, then in case we should, without change of
lo principle, begin to get votes in your section, we
should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot
escape this conclusion ; and yet, are you willing to
abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon
find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall
15 get votes in your section this very year. You will
then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that
your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that
we get no votes in your section is a fact of your
making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in
20 that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains
so until you show that we repel you by some wrong
principle or practice. If we do repel you by any
wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but
this brings you to where you ought to have started
25 — to a discussion of the right or wrong of our
principle. If our principle, put in practice, would
wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for
any other object, then our principle, and we with it,
are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced
30 as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether
our principle, put in practice, would wrong your
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 231
section; and so meet us as if it were possible that
something may be said on your side. Do you accept
the challenge? No! Then you really believe that
the principle which '' our fathers who framed the
government under which we live " thought so 5
clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and
again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly
wrong as to demand your condemnation without a
moment's consideration.
Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the 10
warning against sectional parties given by Wash-
ington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight
years before Washington g?ve that warning, he
had, as President of the United States, approved and
signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition 15
of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which
act embodied the policy of the government upon
that subject up to and at the very moment he
penned that w-arning ; and about one year after he
penned it, he wTote Lafayette that he considered that 20
prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same
connection his hope that we should at some time
have a confederacy of free States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectional-
ism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that 25
warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in
our hands against you? Could Washington him-
self speak, would he cast the blame of that section-
alism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you,
who repudiate it? We respect that warning of 3°
Washington, and we commend it to you, together
ZZ2 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
with his example pointing to the right application
of it.
But you say you are conservative — eminently
conservative — while we are revolutionary, destruc-
5 tive, or something of the sort. What is conserva-
tism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried,
against the new and untried? We stick to, con-
tend for, the identical old policy on the point in con-
troversy which was adopted by " our fathers who
lo framed the government under which we live " ;
while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit
upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting
something new. True, you disagree among your-
selves as to what that substitute shall be. You are
15 divided on new propositions and plans, but you are
unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old
policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving
the foreign slave-trade; some for a Congressional
slave code for the Territories ; some for Congress
20 forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within
their limits; some for maintaining slavery in the
Territories through the judiciary; some for the
" gur-reat pur-rinciple " that " if one man would
enslave another, no third man should object," fan-
25 tastically called " popular sovereignty," but never a
man among you is in favor of Federal prohibition
of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the
practice of " our fathers who framed the govern-
ment under which we live." Not one of all your
30 various plans can show a precedent or an advocate
in the century within which our government origi-
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 233
nated. Consider, then, whether your claim of con-
servatism for yourselves, and your charge of
destructiveness against us, are based on the most
clear and stable foundations.
Again, you say we have made the slavery ques- 5
tion more prominent than it formerly was. We
deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but
we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you,
who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We
resisted, and still resist, your innovation ; and thence 10
comes the greater prominence of the question.
Would you have that question reduced to its former
proportions? Go back to that old policy. What
has been will be again, under the same conditions. If
you would have the peace of tiie old times, re-adopt 15
the precepts and policy of the old times.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among
your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof?
Harper's Ferry ! John Brown ! ! John Brown was
no Republican ; and you have failed to implicate a 20
single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise.
If any member of our party is guilty in that matter,
you know it or you do not know it. If you do
know it, you are inexcusable for not designating
the man and proving the fact. If you do not know 25
it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and espe-
cially for persisting in the assertion after you have
tried and failed to make the proof. You need not
be told that persisting in a charge which one
does not know to be true, is simply malicious 30
slander.
^34 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
Some of you admit that no Republican designedly
aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, but
still insist that our doctrines and declarations nec-
essarily lead to such results. We do not believe it.
5 We know we hold no doctrine, and make no declara-
tion, which were not held to and made by '' our
fathers who framed the government under which
we live." You never dealt fairly by us in relation
to this affair. When it occurred, some important
JO State elections were near at hand, and you were in
evident glee with the belief that, by charging the
blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us
in those elections. The elections came, and your
expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every
15 Republican man knew that, as to himself at least,
your charge was a slander, and he was not much
inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Repub-
lican doctrines and declarations are accompanied
wdth a continual protest against any interference
20 whatever with your slaves, or with you about your
slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to
revolt. True, we do, in common with " our fathers
who framed the government under which we live,"
declare our beHef that slavery is wrong; but the
25 slaves do not hear us declare even this. For any-
thing we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know
there is a Republican party. I believe they would
not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrep-
resentations of us in their hearing. In your polit-
jo ical contests among yourselves each faction charges
the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism ;
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 235
and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black
RepubHcanism to simply be insurrection, blood, and
thunder among the slaves.
Slave insurrections are no more common now
than they were before the Republican party was 5
organized. What induced the Southampton insur-
rection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least
three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's
Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic
fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was " got 10
up by Black Republicanism." In the present state
of things in the United States, I do not think a
general, or even a very extensive, slave insurrec-
tion is possible. The indispensable concert of
action cannot be attained. The slaves have no 15
means of rapid communication ; nor can incendiary
freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive
materials are everywhere in parcels ; but there
neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable
connecting trains. 20
Much is said by Southern people about the aflfec-
tion of slaves for their masters and mistresses ; and
a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an upris-
ing could scarcely be devised and communicated to
twenty individuals before some one of them, to save 25
tlie life of a favorite master or mistress, would
divulge it. This is the rule ; and the slave revolu-
tion in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case
occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gun-
powder plot of British history, though not connected 30
with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only
236 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet
one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend betrayed
the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted
the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the
5 kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the
field, and local revolts extending to a score or so,
will continue to occur as the natural results of slav-
ery ; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think,
can happen in this country for a long time. Who-
lo ever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event,
will be alike disappointed.
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many
years ago, " It is still in our power to direct the pro-
cess of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and
15 in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off
insensibly ; and their places be, pari passu, filled up
by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is
left to force itself on, human nature must shudder
at the prospect held up."
20 Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that
the power of emancipation is in the Federal Gov-
ernment. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the
power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding
States only. The Federal Government, however, as
25 we insist, has the power of restraining the exten-
sion of the institution — the power to insure that a
slave insurrection shall never occur on any Ameri-
can soil which is now free from slavery.
John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a
30 slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men
to get up a revolt among slaves, in which th« slaves
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 237
refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd
that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly
enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its
philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts,
related in history, at the assassination of kings and 5
emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppres-
sion of a people till he fancies himself commissioned
by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the
attempt, which ends in little else than his own execu-
tion. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon, and 10
John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry, were, in
their philosophy, precisely the same. The eager-
ness to cast blame on old England in the one case,
and on New England in the other, does not dis-
prove the sameness of the two things. 15
And how much would it avail you, if you could
by the* use of John Brown, Helper's book, and
the like, break up the Republican organization?
Human action can be modified to some extent, but
human nature cannot be changed. There is a judg- 20
ment and a feeling against slavery in this nation,
which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You
cannot destroy that judgment and feeling — that sen-
timent— by breaking up the political organization
which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter 25
and disperse an army which has been formed into
order in the face of your heaviest fire ; but if you
could, how much would you gain by forcing the
sentiment which created it out of the peaceful chan-
nel of the ballot-box into some other channel? ,0
What would that other channel probably be?
238 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
Would the number of John Browns be lessened or
enlarged by the operation?
But you will break up the Union rather than sub-
mit to a denial of your constitutional rights.
5 That has a somewhat reckless sound ; but it would
be palliated, if not fully justified, were we propos-
ing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you
of some right plainly written down in the Consti-
tution. But we are proposing no such thing.
lo When you make these declarations you have a
specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed
constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the
Federal Territories, and to hold them there as prop-
erty. But no such right is specially written in the
15 Constitution. That instrument is literally silent
about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny
that such a right has any existence in the Constitu-
tion, even by implication.
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will
20 destroy the government, unless you be allowed to
construe and force the Constitution as you please,
on all points in dispute between you and us. You
will rule or ruin in all events.
This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps
25 you will say the Supreme Court has decided the dis-
puted constitutional question in your favor. Not
quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction
between dictum and decision the court has decided
the question for you in a sort of way. The
30 court has substantially said, it is your constitutional
right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and
LINCOLN .IT COOPER INSTITUTE 239
to hold tlicni there as property. When I say tlic
decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it
was made in a (Hvided court, by a bare majority
of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with
one another in the reasons for making it ; that 5
it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree
with one another about its meaning, and that it was
mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact —
the statement in the opinion that *' the right of prop-
erty in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed 10
in the Constitution."
An inspection of the Constitution will show that
the right of property in a slave is not " distinctly
and expressly affimied " in it. Bear in mind, the
judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such 15
right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution ; but
they pledge their veracity that it is " distinctly and
expressly " affirmed there — '' distinctly," that is,
not mingled with anything else — " expressly," that
is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of 20
any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that
such right is affirmed in the instrument by implica-
tion, it would be open to others to show that neither
the word " slave " nor '' slavery " is to be found in 25
the Constitution, nor the word " property " even,
in any connection with language alluding to the
thing slave, or slavery ; and that wherever in that
instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a
" person " ; and wherever his master's legal right in 30
relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as *' ser-
238 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
Would the number of John Browns be lessened or
enlarged by the operation?
But you will break up the Union rather than sub-
mit to a denial of your constitutional rights.
5 That has a somewhat reckless sound ; but it would
be palliated, if not fully justified, were we propos-
ing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you
of some right plainly written down in the Consti-
tution. But we are proposing no such thing.
lo When you make these declarations you have a
specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed
constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the
Federal Territories, and to hold them there as prop-
erty. But no such right is specially written in the
^5 Constitution. That instrument is literallv silent
about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny
that such a right has any existence in the Constitu-
tion, even by implication.
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will
2o destroy the government, unless you be allowed to
construe and force the Constitution as you please,
on all points in dispute between you and us. You
will rule or ruin in all events.
This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps
25 you will say the Supreme Court has decided the dis-
puted constitutional question in your favor. Not
quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction
between dictum and decision the court has decided
the question for you in a sort of way. The
30 court has substantially said, it is your constitutional
right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and
LIXCOLX AT COOPER IXSTITVTE 239
to hold them there as property. When I say the
decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it
was made in a (hvided court, hy a bare majority
of the jud^^es, and they not quite agreein.c: with
one another in the reasons for making it ; that 5
it is so made as that its avowed supporters cHsagrec
with one another about its meaning;", and that it was
mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact —
the statement in the opinion that " the right of prop-
erty in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed 10
in the Constitution."
An inspection of the Constitution will show that
the right of property in a slave is not " distinctly
and expressly affinned " in it. Bear in mind, the
judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such 15
right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution ; but
they pledge their veracity that it is '' distinctly and
expressly " affirmed there — " distinctly," that is,
nut mingled with anything else — " expressly," that
is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of 20
any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that
such right is affirmed in the instrument by implica-
tion, it would be open to others to show that neither
the word " slave " nor " slavery " is to be found in 25
the Constitution, nor the word '' property " even,
in any connection with language alluding to the
thing slave, or slavery; and that wherever in that
instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a
" person " ; and wherever his master's legal right in 30
relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as " ser-
242 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from
the charge and the denunciation.
The question recurs, What will satisfy them?
Simply this : we must not only let them alone, but
5 we must somehow convince them that we do let
them alone. This, we know by experience, is no
easy task. We have been so trying to convince
them from the very beginning of our organization,
but virith no success. In all our platforms and
lo speeches we have constantly protested our purpose
to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to
convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them
is the fact that they have never detected a man of
us in any attempt to disturb them.
15 These natural and apparently adequate means all
failing, what will convince them? This, and this
only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in
calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly
— done in acts as well as in words. Silence will
20 not be tolerated — we must place ourselves avow-
edly with them. Senator Douglas's new sedition
law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all
declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in
politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We
25 must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with
greedy pleasure. We must pull down our free-
State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must
be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slav-
er}% before they will cease to believe that all their
30 troubles proceed from us.
I am quite aware they do not state their case pre-
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 243
cisely in this way. Most of them would probably
say to us, " Let us alone ; do nothinp^ to us, and say
what you please about slavery." But we do let
them alone — have never disturbed them — so that,
after all, it is what we say which dissatisfies them. 5
They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we
cease saying.
I am also aware they have not as yet in terms
demanded the overthrow of our free-State consti-
tutions. Yet those constitutions declare the wrong 10
of slavery with more solemn emphasis than do all
other sayings against it ; and when all these other
sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of
these constitutions will be demanded, and nothing
be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the 15
contrary that they do not demand the whole of this
just now. Demanding what they do, and for the
reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere
short of this consummation. Holding, as they do,
that slavery is morally right and socially elevating, 20
they cannot cease to demand a full national recog-
nition of it as a legal right and a social blessing.
Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any
ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong.
If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and con- 25
stitutions against it are themselves wrong, and
should be silenced and swept away. If it is right,
we cannot justly object to its nationality — its uni-
versality ; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist
upon its extension — its enlargement. All they ask 3^
we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right;
244 LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE
all we ask they could as readily grant, if they
thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our
thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which
depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right,
5 as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full
recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong,
as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our
votes with their view, and against our own? In
view of our moral, social, and political responsi-
lo bilities, can we do this?
.Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford
to let it alone where it is, because that much is due
to the necessity arising from its actual presence in
the nation; but can we, while our votes will pre-
15 vent it, allow it to spread into the national Terri-
tories, and to overrun us here in these free States?
If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand
by our duty fearlessly and effectively. Let us be
diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances
20 wherewith we are so industriously plied and bela-
bored— contrivances such as groping for some mid-
dle ground between the right and the wrong: vain
as the search for a man who should be neither a
living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of
25 " don't care " on a question about which all true men
do care; such as Union appeals beseeching true
Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the
divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the
righteous to repentance ; such as invocations to
30 Washington, imploring men to unsay what Wash-
ington said and undo what Washington did.
LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE 245
Neither let us be slandered from (3ur duty by
false accusations against us, nor frightened from it
by menaces of destruction to the government, nor
of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that
right makes might, and in that faith let us to the
end dare to do our duty as we understand it.
NOTES
THE SPRINGFIELD SPEECH
June i6, 1858
On the evening after he had received from the
Republican State Convention its unanimous nomina-
tion for tfte United States Senatorship, Mr. Lincoln
opened his campaign with this address. Because of its
deliberate preparation and the radical character of some
of its doctrines, it became the cardinal statement of
the Republican position in the campaign of 1858, and
the center of the most bitter attack of Mr. Lincoln's
opponents. Indeed its utterance may be said to have
marked the beginning of the final phase of the anti-
slavery agitation which culminated in the War of the
Rebellion. It had as much to do as any other single
utterance with Lincoln's ultimate rise to national
leadership.
1:12. I believe this government cannot endure per-
manently half slave and half free. — We can now appre-
ciate with difficulty the sensation produced first
throughout the state of Illinois, and later throughout
the entire country by the first paragraph of this
address containing the famous allusion to the '* house
divided against itself." To the conservative friends
of slavery and of freedom alike, it seemed a deliberate
incitement to sectional strife. " At the North, nine
men out of ten," says J. T. Morse (Life of Lin-
coln, vol. i. p. 115), "cared less for any principle,
moral or political, than they did for the discovery of
some course whereby this unwelcome conflict between
slavery and freedom could be prevented from dis-
247
248 NOTES
organizing the course of daily business." Mr. Lincoln's
words, therefore, were at the beginning of the campaign
the delight of his political enemies and the dismay of
his friends. But in his judgment the time was ripe.
Mr. Lincoln, as Republican leader of his state, had
been led for some time to expect his nomination. His
entire address of acceptance was prepared beforehand
with the utmost care. When it was complete, Mr.
Lincoln read it for criticism to his law partner, Mr.
William H. Herndon. After the words "A house
divided against itself cannot stand," Herndon, who was
an abolitionist, remarked, " It is true, but is it politic
to say so?" Lincoln replied: "The proposition is
true and has been for six thousand years. I want to
use some universally known figure expressed in simple
language, as universally well known, that may strike
home to the minds of men in order to raise them up to
the peril of the times."
Reading the address later before a group of a dozen
friends, he asked each for his opinion. Only one
endorsed it; one characterized it as " ahead of its
time " ; another as a " fool utteranc-e." The con-
servative vote it was urged would be alienated. But
Herndon, who was of the number, exclaimed, " Lin-
coln, deliver that speech as read, and it will make you
President." To his critics Lincoln replied, " Friends,
this thing has been retarded long enough. The time
has come when these sentiments should be uttered;
and if it is decreed that I should go down because of
this speech, then let me go down linked to the truth —
let me die in the advocacy of what is just and right."
The nobility of such language is manifest when we
consider Lincoln's intense ambition for the Senator-
ship, the uncertain strength of the anti-slavery senti-
ment in the state, and the fact that he knew he was
leading his party into unknown paths. The joy with
which the doctrine of this opening paragraph was
NOTES 249
received by Lincoln's opponents is revealed by Senator
Douglas's incessant attacks upon it throughout the
debates,
2: 15. The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded.
— When Taylor was elected president in 1848, slavery
was sanctioned by law in fifteen Southern states and
the District of Columbia. It was prohibited by law in
fifteen Northern states. The admission of Californir.
in 1850 as a free state gave the North an advantage in
all matters of national legislation. Morever by the
provisions of the Missouri Compromise slavery was
excluded from all national territory north of lat. 36° 30'.
2:18. Four days later commenced the struggle. —
Senator Douglas introduced the Nebraska Bill on Jan.
4, 1854.
3:2. If any one man choose to enslave another. — •
This paraphrase of Douglas's doctrine of popular
sovereignty is a happy instance of Lincoln's power to
sum up a political issue in a homely and telling
aphorism. For further explanation of the doctrine
see the Debates, and the Introduction, p. xxiii.
3:15. "But," said opposition members, "let us
amend the bill." — Sen. Salmon P. Chase of Ohio led the
opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. By various
means, including this amendment which is discussed by
Mr. Lincoln in the Freeport debate beginning on p. 26,
and subsequently by Mr. Douglas, beginning p. 36. Sen-
ator Chase sought to render distinct the division
between the slavery and anti-slavery forces in the
Senate.
4:4. Senator Trumbull. — Lyman Trumbull (1813-96),
a conspicuous figure in this campaign, had been a judge
of the Supreme Court in Illinois, and was from 1854-
72 a Senator, representing his state in the national
Senate. He was in this campaign a supporter of Lin-
coln— perhaps his most powerful rtne.
4: 10. Mr. Buchanan was elected. — By the popular
\i
250 NOTES
vote, James Buchanan, Democrat, received 1.838.169
votes; John C- Fremont, Republican, 1.341,264; and Mil-
lard Fillmore, representing the Know-Nothings and
Whigs, received 874,534. Buchanan succeeded Franklin
Pierce.
4:22. The reputed author of the Nebraska bill. —
i.e. Senator Douglas.
4:31. The Silliman letter.— A document addressed
to President Buchanan in 1856 by the "' electors of the
State of Connecticut," with Prof. Silliman of Yale
University as its chief author, relative to the state of
affairs in Kansas. In his reply the President cites the
Dred Scott decision as proving that slavery existed in
Kansas Territory with the sanction of the Constitu-
tion of the United States.
5:6. The Lecompton Constitution.— For a discus-
sion, see the Introduction, p. xxxii.
5: 10. He cares not whether slavery be voted down
or voted up, — This declaration of Senator Douglas was
made in a speech on the Lecompton scheme, Dec. 9,
1857, in the Senate of the United States. The quota-
tion was used with great effect by Lincoln throughout
the campaign. The indifference of Douglas to the
moral aspect of slavery was the ultimate cause of his
political downfall,
8:17. Stephen A. Douglas, Franklin Pierce, Roger
B. Taney, James Buchanan. — The charge, which Lin-
coln has now completely insinuated, is that President
Pierce, his successor. President Buchanan, Chief Justice
Taney and Senator Douglas, leader of the Democratic
party in the Senate, were in collusion for the further-
ance of a policy whereby slavery was to be national-
ized. This was a matter of general belief among
Republicans at the time.
A specific charge relative to the Dred Scott decision
had recently been made by William H. Seward in the
United States Senate, to the effect that " Before com-
NOTES 251
ing into office Buchanan approached, or was approached,
by the Supreme Court of the United States." The
court, alleged Mr. Seward, informed Mr. Buchanan of
the nature of its expected decision, in such a way that
the President was able to " announce the forthcoming
extrajudicial exposition of the Constitution and pledge
his submission to it as authoritative and final."
(Quoted by Rhodes' Histor>' of the U. S., ii. p. 268.)
Mr, Rhodes indicates the lack of evidence to sustain
the charge. ** The only evidence for the charge of
Seward lay in the statement of the President in his
inaugural, that the question as to the time when people
of a territory might exclude slavery therefrom was
pending before the Supreme Court and would speedily
be settled. Undoubtedly Buchanan then knew what
would be substantially the decision of the court on
the territorial question — but so did a thousand other
men." It had in fact been accurately forecast in the
New York Tribune of March 2, 1856. ** But, however
Buchanan got his evidence," continues Rhodes, " his
character and that of Taney are proof that the Chief
Justice did not communicate the import of the deci-
sion to the President-Elect,
" The tact of Lincoln is shown in making the charge
by intimation and by trenchant questions; then, with
humor and exquisite skill, giving a homely illustration
which struck the popular mind so forcibly that the
notion conveyed by it undoubtedly became the belief
of the Republican masses as long as the Dred Scott
decision remained a question of politics." (Rhodes'
Histor\', Vol. ii. p. 270.)
The character of the evidence tending to prove the
broad conspiracy to nationalize slavery, on the part of
" Stephen, and Roger, and Franklin, and James." so
far as it is brought forward by Lincoln in the Debates,
is discussed in subsequent notes. (See 24:20. 25:25, 26:8,
and 31:2, and notes thereon.)
252 NOTES
9: 22. If McLean or Curtis had sought. — At the time
of the Dred Scott decision, March 6, 1857, the Supreme
Court consisted of five members from Southern states.
Of the four judges from Northern states two were
Democrats; Justice McLean was the only Republican,
and Justice Curtis was still rated as a Whig. In the
decision, all justices essentially concurred except Jus-
tices McLean and Curtis, the latter of whom wrote
an extremely able minority opinion.
9:25. Chase and Mace. — Senator Salmon P. Chase of
Ohio, of pronounced anti-slavery views; the leading
opponent of Douglas in the Kansas-Nebraska debate
in 1854. Daniel Mace, was a Democratic Representa-
tive from Indiana and an opponent of the Nebraska
Bill.
11:4 There are those who denounce us. — Lincoln
was obliged at the beginning of the campaign to meet
a singular defection among the leaders of his own
party. Horace Greeley, the powerful editor of the New
York Tribune^ Anson G. Burlingame, Schuyler Colfax,
and many others, became for a time more or less openly
sympathizers with Douglas. Lincoln's comparative ob-
scurity, and the unparalleled prestige of Douglas as a
national leader, were the incentives to this political
unfaith. This defection was a great mortification to
Lincoln and a stumbling block throughout his entire
campaign. Senator Douglas never had any lasting idea
of becoming a Republican leader. His lack of convic-
tions on the slavery issue, as Lincoln points out, unfitted
him for such a step. His votes on the Lecompton
matter and the English Bill, were among the highest
expressions in his whole career of a political morality,
previously very unstable. But no other explanation of
Mr. Lincoln's defeat for the Senatorship is necessary
beyond this defection of Republican leaders in their
following after a vain hope.
11:6. A little quarrel with the present head of the
NOTES 253
dynasty — The reference is to Douglas's quarrel with
the Buchanan administration on account of his revolt
against the Lecompton Constitution, and the English
Bill (see Introduction p. xxiii).
THE SECOND JOINT DEBATE
AT FREEPORT*
August 27, 1858
The first two of the series of seven debates, those at
Ottawa and Freeport, took place in Northern Illinois,
among a population strong in Republican and Aboli-
tion sentiment. In the Ottawa debate on August 21,
Douglas had attacked the " House-divided-against-it-
self" doctrine as revolutionary; had sneered at Lin-
coln for maintaining that negroes were included in the
statement of the Declaration of Independence that " all
men are created equal "; and had criticised his opponent
for his continued opposition to the principles affirmed
by the U. S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision.
By this mode of attack, Douglas sought, first of all, to
fix extreme abolition principles upon Lincoln, thinking
to accomplish this the more readily, since Lincoln, in
giving voice to radical views in this section of the
state, would be heartily applauded by those whose sup-
port he sought. But such an expression in Northern
Illinois, Douglas knew, would embarrass Lincoln when
he came to address audiences in Central Illinois which
were divided or lukewarm in their attitude toward
slavery; and would embarrass him still more before the
pro-slavery audiences of Southern Illinois — " Egypt,"
as it is termed in the Debates. Lincoln's following was
heterogeneous. " Their principles," tauntingly ex-
claimed Douglas, " in the North are jet-black, in the
center they are in color a decent mulatto, and in lower
Egypt they are almost white." If he could fix extreme
*For a general account of the tcriei of debatetf tec the latruduclioa.
254 NOTES
abolition views upon Lincoln in Northern Illinois,
Douglas hoped thereby to detach many of Lincoln's sup-
porters in central and southern Illinois. But on the
other hand, if Lincoln resisted the temptation thus set
before him, but failed, through timidity or conservatism,
to satisfy his anti-slavery hearers in Northern Illinois,
disintegration would begin on the spot in the ranks of
those who were expected to support him.
As a specific means of accomplishing his end, Senator
Douglas propounded seven questions to Mr. Lincoln in
the Ottawa Debate, based on certain resolutions passed
in 1854, alleged Senator Douglas, by the first Republi-
can state convention ever held in Illinois — resolutions
expressive of strong Abolition sentiment, which, accord-
ing to Douglas were passed in the presence and with
the sanction of Lincoln. (For a copy of these resolu-
tions, see p. 260.)
In reply to Douglas at Ottawa Lincoln asserted that
he had had no connection whatever with the resolu-
tions quoted by his opponent and was, therefore, under
no obligation to answer the questions asked. Never-
theless he consented to do so provided Judge Douglas
would agree to answer similar questions that might
subsequently be asked by Mr. Lincoln himself. To this
proposal Judge Douglas made at the time no answer.
The Ottawa debate appears to have been a drawn
battle. The partisans of either side were enthusiastic.
Mr. Lincoln was carried off on the shoulders of several
young farmers who overruled his remonstrances. But
perhaps the advantage in this first debate lay on the
whole with Douglas. His questions had not been
answered. Lincoln yielded the platform thirteen min-
utes before the expiration of his time. The superior
dexterity and polish of Douglas are apparent to the
reader of the debate, and the effect of its publication,
declared Douglas's partisan biographer, James. W.
Sheehan, was most damaging to Lincoln. '' The fate
Korrs 255
of Lincoln was scaled by the discussion at Ottawa, and
nothing but a special interposition of Providence could
have elected a legislature favorable to his election to the
Senate." (Life of Douglas: p. 432.) Though Lincoln
was then, as always, immeasurably the superior of
Douglas morally and in intellectual power, he had not
yet attained his subsequent height of earnestness and
spiritual vision; nor had he yet acquired the uniform
literary skill, which becomes progressively apparent as
the campaign goes on.
The Frecport debate, the second in the series, says
Mr. Horace White (Herndon's Life of Lincoln, Vol. ii.
p. no), was attended by "a crowd even larger than
that at Ottawa. Hundreds of people came from Chi-
cago and many from the neighboring state of Wiscon-
sin. Douglas came from Galena the night before the
debate, and was greeted with a great torchlight proces-
sion. Lincoln came the fallowing day from Dixon and
was received at the railway station by a dense crowd,
filling up the adjacent streets, who shouted themselves
hoarse when his tall form was seen emerging from the
tr^in."
This debate is perhaps the most famous of all the
series. That is true, not because of its literary excel-
lence, but because of the subsequent national impor-
tance of answers made by each candidate to vital ques-
tions put by the other — answers which, in the case of
Senator Douglas, won for him the Senatorship, but
destroyed his chance of attaining the larger goal of his
ambition, the Presidency in i860.
MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH
The Questions of Senator Douglas
14:15. !Mr. Lincoln opened the Freeport debate by
answering the seven questions which had been pro-
pounded to him by Judge Douglas at Ottawa. In the
256 NOTES
week which had intervened since the debate at Ottawa,
Mr. Lincoln had ascertained to his satisfaction that the
resolutions used by Judge Douglas at Ottawa were,
to all intents and purposes in this c-ampaign, a forgery.
The issue which thereupon arose as to their genuine-
ness between the rival candidates is one of the most
conspicuous of the merely local features of the cam-
paign. The dispute upon them recurs with consider-
able acrimony in the Galesburgh debate. (See Lin-
coln's speech, pp. 113-116, and Douglas's rejoinder, pp.
133-136-) Lincoln, however, waiving the question
whether Douglas has any right to require him to
answer questions based upon a platform for which he
is in no way responsible — proceeds to answer each in
detail. His first series of responses seems to take
a technical advantage of the precise phrasing of Doug-
las's questions.
Does Mr. Lincoln derive any real advantage from
this first series of technical denials?
17:21. Question i. In regard to the Fugitive Slave
Law. The Fugitive Law of 1850 aroused bitter opposi-
tion in the North. Among its most obnoxious provisions
were the following: (i) Alleged fugitive slaves were
denied the right of testimony in their own behalf. " Ex-
parte evidence determined the identity of the negro who
was claimed. Even the affidavit of the owner was not
necessary; that of his agent or attorney would suffice."
(Rhodes' History of U. S., 4. 185.) (2) The reclaimed
slave was denied the right of trial by jury, but was
tried by commissioners appointed by the United Cir-
cuit Courts, who were " to hear and determine the case
of a claimant in a summary manner." The decision of
these commissioners once made, no " ccfurt, judge,
magistrate, or any person" could "molest" the owner
of a recovered slave by any legal process whatsoever.
(3) The United States marshals were obli"ed to exe-
cute the law under penalty of heavy fine for laxity
NOTES 2S7
of effort. (4) Bystanders "and '*' all good citizens "
could be summoned to prevent the escape or to aid in
the discovery of a negro fugitive; and any person who
should willingly " hinder or prevent the claimant from
arresting the fugitive," or should " rescue, or attempt to
rescue .... or harbor or conceal " the fugitive,
was liable to a " fine not exceeding $1,000. and to
imprisonment not exceeding six months; and should,
moreover, for each fugitive so lost, pay to his owner
the sum of $1,000. (5) If the Commissioner decided
that the negro should be returned to the claimant, his
fee was ten dollars; if the contrary, his fee was five
dollars."
The interest of the slave-holders in the enactment can
be judged from the following statement made in Scrib-
ner's Popular History of the U. S., (Vol. iv. p. 395) :
" It was estimated that more than 30.000 fugitive slaves
found homes in Canada during the thirty years of the
anti-slavery agitation; and that at the time of the pas-
sage of the act of 1850 there were not less than 20,000
in the free states."
The citizens of the free states, excepting the Aboli-
tionists, who formed a small proportion of the popu-
lation, were as a rule in favor of the general principle
which permitted a slave-holder to recover a slave who
had crossed the border into a free state or territory; but
the specific provisions of the law of 1850, especially
those which made every citizen liable on demand to
render assistance in recapturing fugitives, were exe-
crated. Ttie passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in
1854 did much to awaken a smarting sense of their injus-
tice. Thereafter, the law had no efficient enforcement.
See Lincoln's speech at Cooper Institute: 201:5.
18: 5. Question 2. Whether I am pledged to the admis-
sion of any more Slave States. This cautious and hesi-
tating reply to an extraordinarily shrewd question is
ridiculed by Judge Douglas in his reply on pp. 59-C3 to
2s8 NOTES
Mr. Lincoln's answers to Questions T and 2. When
Mr. Lincoln makes the hypothesis (line 12), "if slavery
shall be kept out of the territories during the territorial
existence of any one given territory," it must be
remembered that the Dred Scott decision of 1857 had
already in effect legalized slavery in all the territories.
The answer, therefore, is indirect.
What would have been the effect of a more direct
answer, positive or negative? Notice especially in this
connection Douglas's attack in the Alton debate
(148:24 et seq.) on this same reply of Lincoln's.
Has Lincoln sought to evade the question by " invent-
ing a case which did not exist and could not exist"
at the time when* he answered the question? (See
Douglas's assertion to that effect, p. 150, line 27.)
The answer as given must certainly have failed to
satisfy the Abolitionists. Douglas says (149:28),
that Mr. Lincoln supposed " it would satisfy the old
line Whigs, composed of Kentuckians and Virginians,
down in the southern part of the State," men who
favored slavery, but who believed the Union should be
preserved at any cost.
18: 19. If we own the country, i.e. If the territory
already belongs to us ; an allusion to the contemplated
acquisition of Cuba by purchase — a favorite plan of
President Buchanan and his Southern advisers.
18:24. Question 4. In regard to the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia. This question of
abolishing slavery within the District is distinct from
that of the abolition of the slave trade therein, which
took place in 1850, as a result of one of the measures
of the Compromise legislation of that year.
Mr. Lincoln favors abolition in the District only if
it be " gradual, compensated, and accomplished with the
consent of the inhabitants." Were these three condi-
tions likely to be agreeable or equally agreeable to the
anti-slavery element of Illinois?
NOTES 259
rg: ir. Question 5. The question of the abolition of
the slave trade between the different states. Though
Lincoln's rcpl}' is ahiidst ahsohitcly non-committal, the
question raised is entirely unimportant as an issue in
the debates of this campaign.
20: I. Question 6. Whether I desire that Slavery
should be prohibited in all the territories. In the
answer to this interrogation, at least, Lincoln is explicit
and direct. {i6:j9.) Here he goes the entire length desired
by his immediate audience.
20: 5. Question 7. Whether I am opposed to the
acquisition of more territory unless slavery is first pro-
hibited. Lincoln's declaration (17:4), that in general
he would or would not oppose the acquisition of
new territory accordingly as he thought it would or
would not aggravate the slavery question " derived its
immediate importance from the well-known intention
of the Buchanan administration and a very considerable
party in the South very soon to acquire Cuba." (J. J.
Morse: Abraham Lincoln, Vol. i. p. 134.) While Secre-
tary of State under Polk, Buchanan had offered Spain
$100,000,000 for the island.
For Douglas's views upon "expansion" sec pp. 40-
41. And especially see Lincoln's reply at Galesburgh,
pp. 125-129.
20: J2. The Questions of Mr. Lincoln. The anno-
tation of these questions is deferred until i\Ir. Doug-
las's answers to them are discussed. See the annotation
of page 23 et seq. Mr. Lincoln now takes the aggres-
sive.
21:20. The first Republican Convention, held at
Springfield in October, 1854. This introtluces the issue
ot the authenticity of the resolutions to which reference
has already been made. The important sections of the
resolutions quoted at Ottawa by Mr. Douglas, with
his prefatory remarks concerning them are appended
herewith. After charging that Lincoln and Trumbu'.l
26o NOTES
had conspired together to make a new party out of the
disrupted elements of the Old Whigs and Democrats
(see Introduction), and that they had at this time assem-
bled their forces in conjunction with Owen Lovejoy,
Fred Douglass and other Abolition leaders in a state
convention, Senator Douglas goes on:
" I have the resolutions of their state convention then
held, which was the first mass state convention ever
held in Illinois by the Black Republican party. . . .
Here are the most important and material resolutions
of this Abolition platform:
" ' I. Resolved, That we believe this truth to be self-evi-
dent, that when parties become subversive of the ends
for which they are established, or incapable of restor-
ing the Government to the true principles of the Con-
stitution, it is the right and duty of the people to dis-
solve 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 circum-
stances and 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
ourselves together in defense of the liberty and Consti-
tution of the country, and will hereafter co-operate as
the Republican party, pledged to the accomplishment of
the following purposes: To bring the administration of
the Government back to the control of first principles;
to restore Nebraska and Kansas to the position of free
territories; as the Constitution 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 admission 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
NOTES 261
General Government has exclusive jurisdiction; and to
resist the acquirements of any more territories unless
the practice of slavery therein forever shall have been
prohibited.' "
The facts regarding the resolutions as recorded by
Lincoln's law partner, William H. Herndun (Life of
Lincoln, Vol. ii. p. 36), are, briefly, as follows: In Octo-
ber of 1854, the State Fair was held at Springfield. To
it came Douglas to defend the Kansas-Nebraska legis-
lation especially before that section of his party which
he had alienated. To it also came Lincoln, the spokes-
man for all who opposed Douglas and his new theory
of Popular Sovereignty. Both made powerful speeches.
Lincoln's address kindled anew the old anti-Nebraska
spirit among his hearers, and Owen Lovejoy, a fiery,
radical, fanatical Abolitionist, as soon as Lincoln fin-
ished speaking, rushed forward, and announced a meet-
ing that same evening of the friends of Freedom.
That meant all the Abolitionists. The plan was to have
Lincoln speak again, but while Lovejoy was in search
of him, Herndon, fearing the effect such an affiliation
might have on Lincoln's senatorial ambitions, for the
following year, sent him a message urging him to avoid
Lovejoy. "Go home at once," said Herndon. "Take
Bob with you and drive somewhere into the country,
and stay till this thing is over."
Lincoln accepted the suggestion and drove over into
Tazewell County to attend a session of court, where he
remained until the Abolitionists had left Springfield and
gone home. That is what saved Lincoln from an
unfortunate political connection.
But the mass meeting thus assembled was in no
sense a convention, much less a Republican Convention.
It is hard to believe that Senator Douglas could have
been ignorant of this fact. The very resolutions pre-
sented by him at Ottawa as having been passed by this
convention were passed, charges Lincoln, by another
262 NOTES
convention in another county. This fact is of course
the basis of the accusation tliat the resolutions were
forged. To this charge Douglas replies at length and
with some acrimony on pages 43-49 of this debate.
Lincoln returns to the matter in his reply in the Gales-
burgh debate. (See pp. 113-118.)
Before leaving this topic, it should be noted that
Lincoln has already (p. 15, line 12), stated in this debate
that the Republican party of Illinois held its first
state convention at Bloomington in 1856, two years
after the date of the resolutions under discussion.
24:20. There was a conspiracy to make slavery per-
petual and national. This charge it will be remembered
constitutes the body of Lincoln's Address of Acceptance
at Springfield on June 16, 1858. The attitude of Mr.
Douglas toward it is expressed in the following selec-
tion from his rejoinder at Ottawa:
" 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 Springfield,
about StepJien, 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 excep-
tion to this figure of his. He has a right to be as play-
ful as he pleases in throwing his arguments 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
Judgft 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 against me, thus
charging me with moral turpitude. When he put it in
NOTES 263
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 Rob, 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 building
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.
" Mr, Lincoln has not character enough for integrity
and truth, merely on his own ipse dixit, to arraign Presi-
dent Buchanan, President Pierce, and nine Judges of
the Supreme Court, not one of whom would be com-
plimented by being put on an equality with him. There
is an unpardonable presumption in a man putting him-
self up before thousands of people, and pretending 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." See text and notes, 8:17, 25:25,
31:2. ^ * .
24:29. Observe the effectiveness of Lincoln's quaint
humor, as a means of getting rid of the prejudicial
acrimony of Senator Douglas's rejoinder just quoted.
25:25. By an amendment it was provided
not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory.
Douglas proposed this amendment on February 7. 1854,
two weeks after the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was intro-
duced. It was, said Senator Benton of Missouri, " a
264 NOTES
little stump speech injected into the belly of the bill."
The entire Bill, applying the principle of Popular
Sovereignty, made slavery in any territory permissive
upon the will of the people to introduce it. It amounted
to an absolute repeal of the eighth section of the Mis-
souri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in
the territory north of latitude 36° 30'. This repeal, alone
by itself, opened the way for the Southern contention
that slave-holders had " a constitutional right to go into
any territory with their property — a right which could
not be affected by act of Congress or Territorial legis-
lature." To admit this claim would have been a com-
plete betrayal of Northern principles. Douglas had made
a tremendous concession to the South. He sought now
to allay the rising tide of Northern wrath and alarm.
To be sure he had already embodied in the provisions
of the Bill the principle of Popular Sovereignty, giving
the people of the territories the right to decide for
themselves whether slavery should exist among them,
but further to appease many Northern Democrats who
were willing to subscribe to that principle, but who
repudiated the Southern belief in the constitutionality
of slavery — to appease them, and thus prevent a threat-
ened div-ision of his forces, Douglas introduced the
amendment quoted by Lincoln. Its purpose was purely
persuasive. Its introduction of the word "State" into
the bill was, however, regarded as ominous by Lincoln,
who cited the circumstance in the Ottawa debate in
corroboration of his theory of a conspiracy to nation-
alize slavery.
26:8. Mr. Chase of Ohio introduced an amendment
. . . to exclude slavery if they saw fit. This
amendment was introduced on Feb. 6, 1854, the day
before Senator Douglas's amendment just quoted was
presented. Senator Salmon P. Chase, later appointed
Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by President
Lincoln, was Douglas's chief opponent in the warfare
NOTES 265
over the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Chase was a Free-
Soil Senator from Ohio, a radical anti-slavery man and
an able leader. Presumably he had no idea that Doug-
las would accept any amendment proposed by him of
the character described — any more than he had himself
of accepting the suggestion of General Cass, (28:2)
for an amendment that should give the people of
the territories the power to introduce as well as to
exclude slavery. The amendment was a phase of the
parliamentary battle which Chase was waging to expose
the extreme pro-slavery character of the bill, and thus
divide the Northern and Southern Democrats. This
division, threatened then, and avoided by various
temporary expedients of Douglas (see the previous
note), became a formally accomplished fact in the
presidential campaign of i860. The replies of Doug-
las in this Freeport Debate to the questions of Mr.
Lincoln contain the doctrine which made the breach
inevitable.
For Douglas's reply to this argument of Lincoln,
see p. 36: 14 ct scq. Is Lincoln's use of the facts of
this amendment, as tending to prove the alleged con-
spiracy to nationalize slavery, conclusive?
26: 18. A decision of the Supreme Court. The Dred
Scott decision of 1857, rendered three years after the
Kansas-Nebraska Bill became a law. For its bearing
on the conspiracy charge it should be remembered that
the Dred Scott case was first argued before the Supreme
Court of the United States in the spring of 1856. See
note on 8:17. See especially Douglas, p. 64:27.
28:2. General Cass. Lewis Cass (1782-1866), Dem-
ocratic Senator from Michigan, was an ardent supporter
and main ally of Henry Clay, in his compromise meas-
ures of 1850, and one of the most prominent leaders of
his party.
30: 20. Upon his ipse dixit charging a conspiracy.
The language of Douglas appears in the last paragraph
266 NOTES
cited from the Ottawa debate, in the annotation upon
24:20.
31:2. That he had made substantially the same
charge against substantially the same persons. In the
Ottawa Debate, Lincoln had quoted matter from a
speech of Douglas in the Senate on March 22, 1858, in
which Douglas, after reading certain passages from the
Washington Union upon the Lecompton Constitution,
pointed out their essential relation to certain passages
in the Lecompton Constitution itself, and further
declared that the evidence pointed to a common author-
itative source for both expressions; that common source
being he inferred none other than President Buchanan.
This amounted to a charge on Douglas's part that the
Administration was conspiring to defraud Kansas of her
right to determine for herself whether she should per-
mit slavery within her borders or not. Thus Lincoln
seeks Douglas's admission that he believed Buchanan
to be a party to a conspiracy to engraft slavery upon
Kansas, and by so doing Lincoln seeks to forge another
link in his circumstantial proof of a conspiracy to
nationalize slavery. Douglas qualifies his own charge
in his Reply, beginning 64: 10, but see especially
Lincoln's reiteration of the whole matter in his Rejoin-
der, pages 72-78.
The elements of the conspiracy to nationalize slavery
as thus far outlined in the campaign by Lincoln are:
(i) the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854,
repealing the Missouri Compromise, and putting into
operation the principle of popular sovereignty; (2) the
defeat of the Chase amendment in 1854; (3) the Dred
Scott decision of 1857, denying the rights of citizenship
to the negro, affirming the constitutionality of slavery
and denying the power of Congress or a territorial legis-
lature to exclude slavery from any territory; (4) the impli-
cation of the Buchanan administration in the Lecompton
scheme in November, 1857. (5) There is left a "vacant
NOTES 267
niche," yet to be filled by a new Dred Scott decision, soon to
come, whereby slavery will be legalized in the states as well
as in the territories. Then nationalization will be complete.
To what extent does Lincoln's treatment of the sev-
eral phases of this conspiracy amount to demonstra-
tion ?
MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY
The Questions of Mr. Lincoln, and their Answers by
Senator Douglas
(The questions as Lincoln asked them appear <jn
pages 20-21.)
337- Question i. "If the people of Kansas shall,
by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects,
adopt a state constitution, and ask admission 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?"
The Lecompton Constitution (see Introduction p. xxxii),
after its adoption at the grossly unjust election of Dec.
21, 1857, at which, according to Douglas, "probably four-
fifths of all the legal voters of Kansas were disfran-
chised and excluded from the polls," was sent to Con-
gress by President Buchanan on Feb. 2, 1858, with a
special message recommending the admission of Kansas
under that organic act. This recommendation was made
by the President notwithstanding the fact that at a sub-
sequent valid and lawful election on Jan. 4, 1858. the
legal voters of the state, by a large majority had
rejected the Lecompton Constitution. The Constitu-
tion, however, passed the Senate on March 23, despite
the revolt of Douglas. On April i, 1858, the bill was
amended in the House by motion of Montgomery, a
Democratic Representative from Pennsylvania. The
Senate had voted down the same amendment, proposed
268 NOTES
in that body by Senator Crittenden, a Kentucky Whig.
The proposition, which came to be known as the Crit-
tenden-AIontgomery Compromise, " provided that the
Lecompton Constitution should be submitted to a vote
of the people of Kansas; if assented to, Kansas should
become a state on the proclamation of the President;
if rejected, the inhabitants of the territory were author-
ized to form a constitution and state government."
(Rhodes: History of U. S., ii. 299.) The Senate refused
to concur with the House in this measure. In the effort
to reach an agreement between the Senate and the
House, William H. English, a Representative from
Indiana, proposed another Compromise, known as the
English Bill. This measure offered Kansas a large grant
of public lands, if the territory would vote to accept
statehood under the Lecompton Constitution; if it re-
fused to do so, Kansas could not be admitted until
its population equaled the ratio required for a repre-
sentative, i. e.j 93,420. The population of Kansas in 1858
was about 35,000. Even with these bribes, the people
of Kansas refused to ratify the Lecompton Con-
stitution.
To return to the question asked Douglas by Lincoln.
Lincoln and Douglas were in essential agreement upon
the Lecompton issue. Why then did Lincoln press his
opponent for an answer to this question? Just as
Douglas had sought to divide Lincoln's followers by
imputing Abolition tenets to him, so Lincoln sought
now to take advantage of the open warfare on the
Lecompton matter between Douglas and the Buchanan
Administration, as a means of cutting off some
of Douglas's support. There was a small and rather
disreputable party of Buchanan Democrats in Illinois
consisting mainly of office-holders, who had nominated
candidates in this campaign in obedience to behests
from Washington to do all in their power to injure
Pouglas. These people, called *' Danites," cast about
NOTES 269
5000 votes. Into these ranks pro-slavery Democrats at
odds with Douglas's position on the Kansas question
would naturally fall. To this question Lincoln probahly
expected a negative answer, but by his cleverly shielded
affirmative answer Douglas avoided widening the
breach with his own party, while at the same time,
though his answer was a slight concession to pro-
slavery interests, he did not drive from him voters
that wavered between himself and Lincoln, but were
essentially opposed to slavery. In short, Douglas's
answer did not seriously disturb the delicate balance of
political sentiment,
34:25. Whether he will vote to admit Oregon before
requisite population. Many Republicans op-
posed the admission of Oregon to the Union because
she lacked sufficient population for a unit of repre-
sentation in Congress. Kansas had already been held
to this rule. Oregon, however, was admitted in 1859.
35: 12. Question 2. Can the people of United States
territory, 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 appreciate the full force of this interrogatory, which
embodies Lincoln's most vital thrust at his opponent,
the student must bear in mind the nature of Douglas's
doctrine of popular sovereignty, and the effect upon it
of the Dred Scott decision. In his speech in the Senate
on March 3, 1854, in defense of the Kansas-Nebraska
Bill, Douglas had thus defined popular sovereignty : The
principle which we propose to carry into effect is this —
That Congress shall neither legislate slavery into any ter-
ritories or state, nor out of the same; but the people shall
be left free to regulate their domestic concerns in their ozvn
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."
This was the principle which the Kansas-Nebraska
Act substituted for the plain provisions of the Missouri
Compromise. Except in so far as it concerns slavery
270 NOTES
Douglas's principle of Popular Sovereignty is identical
with the principle of individual liberty for which the
Revolutionary War was fought. (See Douglas at Alton
212: 12.) The constitutional limitations suggested in
the final clause of the quotation were left by agreement
in a caucus of Northern and Southern Democrats to
the courts to interpret. But the Dred Scott decision
in 1857 provided the interpretation promised. It de-
clared that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the
territories, nor authorize a territorial legislature to do
so. Thus the Dred Scott decision annihilated " popular
sovereignty."
To Douglas was left the task of reconciling his theory
with the decision of the Supreme Court. If he gave up
the principle he had so long fought for with such
prodigious power, and accepted the decision of the
court, he would thereby make a complete surrender to
the South and forfeit his entire following in the North.
That meant the loss of the senatorial campaign of 1858,
and the destruction of his presidential aspirations for
i860. If on the other hand he maintained the principle
and attacked the decision, he forfeited his pledge to the
South, and occupied the questionable ground of refusing
to abide by a decision of the highest judicial tribunal.
Of the two alternatives, the latter was the less destruc-
tive of his chances in the present campaign; both were
equally fatal to his presidential ambitions for two years
hence. The dilemma was sufficiently serious, but his
presidential more than his senatorial interests were in
jeopardy. Was it to Lincoln's interest to force the
issue? Could the resourceful Douglas discover or in-
vent a way to extricate himself? Could he devise a
way to reconcile the principle and the decision?
Since the Lecompton measure of 1857-8 Douglas had
been employing his principle as a means of resisting
the encroachments of slavery. To such an extent had he
thereby separated himself from the Administration and
NOTES 271
its Southern supporters, that many Northern Republi-
cans sought to see in him a proselyte and new leader
for their party, and were even supporting him against
Lincoln in this campaign. If Douglas could satisfy his fol-
lowers that the people of the territories still had the power
to reject slavery, notwithstanding the Dred Scott decision,
Lincoln's attempt to force the issue in this second question
might result in strengthening this feeling of confidence
in Douglas as a bulwark against the aggressions of
the South, and exactly to that extent detract from the
support of Lincoln.
Whether Lincoln should put the question to Douglas
at Freeport or not was the subject of a conference
the night before the debate, between Mr. Lincoln and a
number of Republican leaders. All who were there
counseled Lincoln not to put the question, because he
would probably answer in the affirmative and secure a
re-election. '* It was their opinion," says Mr. Horace
White, " that Lincoln should argue strongly from the
Dred Scott decision, which Douglas endorsed, that the
people of the territories could not lawfully exclude
slavery prior to the formation of a State Constitution,
but that he should not force Douglas to say yes or no.
. . . Mr. Lincoln replied that to draw an affirmative
answer from Douglas on this question was exactly
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 election." " I
am after larger game," Lincoln is said to have re-
marked ; " the battle of i860 is worth a hundred of
this."
The following extract from Nicolay and Hay's Life
of Lincoln, (vol. ii. p. 159), is pertinent:
" Nearly a month before, Lincoln in a private letter ac-
curately foreshadowed Dauglas's course on this ques-
tion. 'You shall have hard work to get him directly to
the point whether a territorial legislature has or has
2n NOTES
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 ter*
ritories unless the people desire it and so give it protec-
tion by territorial legislation. 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 question was put, and Douglas's reply formulated
what is known as the " Freeport theory of ' unfriendly
legislation.' " In a subsequent speech in Ohio Lincoln
paraphrased it as a policy which provided that " a thing
may lawfully be driven away from a place where it has
a lawful right to be." (See Douglas's further state-
ment of his position on page 96:30 ct seq.) But to the
whole South it gave mortal offense, for, while profess-
ing allegiance to the Dred Scott decision, it put in the
hands of the opponents of slavery in every territory
a means of making the decision of none effect. Of
this " Freeport theory," to which Douglas had already
given local expression on one or two occasions, a lead-
ing historian says: "This answer attracted more at-
tention than any statement of Douglas during the
campaign; and, while he could not have been elected
Senator without taking that position, the enunciation
of the doctrine was an insuperable obstacle to cement-
ing the division in the Democratic party. The influence
of this meeting at Freeport is an example of the
greater interest incited by a joint debate than by an
ordinary canvass, and illustrates the effectiveness of
the Socratic method of reasoning. During this same
campaign Douglas had twice before declared the same
doctrine in expressions fully as plain and forcible,
but without creating any particular remark; while now
the country resounded with discussions of the Free-
port theory of ' unfriendly legislation.' " (J. F.
Rhodes: Hist, of U. S., ii. p. 328.)
NOTES 273
Douglas never regained the Southern support lost
as a consequence of this reply. The feeling of the
South toward him is expressed in this utterance from
a speech by Senator Benjamin of Louisiana in the Sen-
ate, May 22, i860: " It is impossible that confidence thus
lost can be restored. On what ground has that con-
fidence been forfeited, and why is it that we now refuse
to him* our support and fellowship? . . .
"We accuse him for this, to wit: that having bar-
gained 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
price, has cost him the loss of the Presidency of the
United States."
36: 12. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satis-
factory. Observe the splendid assurance which char-
acterizes Douglas's reply in this destructive dilemma,
strongest here where his position is logically weakest.
(See Lincoln's reply at Alton, 199-201.)
36: 15. In relation to Mr. Chase's amendment. In
reply to Lincoln's allegation, 26:8. (See note on
same passage.)
38: 13. Question 3. If the Supreme Court of the
United States shall decide that states cannot exclude
slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing
in, adopting, and following such decision as a rule of
274 NOTES
political action? If the same question had been asked
in 1830 or 1840 regarding a hypothetical decision that
territories, instead of states, could not exclude slavery
from their limits, it would hardly have seemed more
startling. (See Johnston: American Orations, iii. 388.)
Among the most embarrassing aspects of Lincoln's
position v^as that which required him to attack a de-
cision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It
was theoretically easy to maintain that the decision
was law, and must be recognized as such while it
existed, but that it was wrong in principle and would
ultimately cease to be law. But the position was a
hard one to maintain through a series of debates, for
the American people have always been quick to resent
any criticism of the decrees of their highest judicial
tribunal.
Hence Lincoln reveals good strategy by anticipating
Douglas's attack, and seeking to make Douglas meet
the troublesome issue in an analogous form, first.
Properly enough, however, since he has always denied
the existence of any conspiracy to introduce slavery
into the states, Douglas refuses to admit that such a
decision is possible, and thus declines to assume the
burden offered him. Lincoln returns to the matter in
the Galesburgh debate (p. 118.) See also note on 139:2.
39:3. Seward, and Hale, and Wilson. William H.
Seward, Senator from New York, was at this time the
National Republican leader; later he was Lincoln's chief
competitor for the presidential nomination, but was
Secretary of State in his rival's cabinet throughout the
Civil War." John P. Hale and Henry Wilson were
Senators from New Hampshire and Massachusetts,
respectively.
39:7. Mr. Toombs of Georgia. Robert Toombs was
a leader of the secession forces in the Senate during
the years just before the Civil War — one of the ablest,
most uncompromising and aggressive statesmen, and one
NOTES 27S
of the most eloquent orators of his party, honest and out-
spoken.
39:26. Question 4. Are you in favor of acquiring
additional territory, in disregard of how such acquisition
may effect the nation on the slavery question? This
question closely correlates with Question 7 in the series
propounded by Judge Douglas at Ottawa. (See 17:1,
ct scq.) The significance of this question and Lin-
coln's attitude toward the matter involved is made
plain in Lincoln's discussion at Galesburgh (pp. 125-
129). Among those indifferent to the spread of slavery
Douglas's reply was no doubt as popular then as
similar doctrines have been since. From the point
of view of those believers in national expansion — who
could, like Douglas, close their eyes to the moral evil
of slavery, Lincoln was here forced to the unpopular
side.
42:5. Lovejoy, Farnsworth, and Fred. Douglass.
Noted Abolitionists, all. Owen Lovejoy (181 1-64) was
a Republican representative in Congress from 1856 to
1862. John F. Farnsworth was a lawyer of Chicago —
who served three terms in Congress. Frederick Doug-
lass (1817-1895), a mulatto ex-slave, was widely known
as an orator in the anti-slavery cause.
43:7. A platform . adopted by the Black
Republican Party at Springfield in 1854. Douglas re-
plies to the charge of Lincoln made in his opening
speech (21:20. ct scq.). See the annotation thereon.
43:25. He declared the Mexican War to be unjust
and infamous, and would not support it. In general the
Mexican War was condemned throughout the North,
except by those who were favorable to the extension of
slavery. In the Charleston debate of Sept. 18, Lincoln
replied to the charge of Douglas as follows:
" [Here Mr. Lincoln turned to the crowd on the
platform, and selecting Hon. Orlando B. Ficklin, led
him forward, and said: — ]
276 NOTES
" I do not mean to do anything with Mr. Ficklin
except to present his face and tell you that he person-
ally knows it to be a lie. He was a member of Congress
at the only time I was in Congress, and knows that
whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote
of mine which would endorse the origin and justice of
the w^ar, I refused to give such endorsement, and voted
against it; but I never voted against the supplies for
the army and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas,
that whenever a dollar was asked by way of compensa-
tion, otherwise, for the benefit of the soldiers, / gave
all the votes that Ficklin or Douglas did, and perhaps
more."
Mr. Ficklin thereupon publicly corroborated Mr.
Lincoln's statement.
47:8. The following (Rockford) platform. This
platform is almost identical with the alleged Springfield
platform of 1854, printed on page 260, over which the
original dispute arose.
49:30. The Crittenden-Montgomery Bill. This
measure is described in the annotation upon Lincoln's
first question. (See p. 268.)
50:6. The Black Republican Party. The organiza-
tion of the Republican party of the disrupted elements
of the Northern Whigs, Anti-Nebraska Democrats, and
Free-Soilers, began in local centers in 1854. Its first
national convention was held in 1856, and nominated
Fremont and Da\-ton as candidates for President
and Vice-President Opposition to the extension of
slavery to the territories was the strong tie which
bound the members of the new part>' to a single
platform.
The charge of a corrupt bargain between Trumbull
and Lincoln to capture the organization of the new
party, abolitionize it, and divide the spoils, which
Douglas now makes with considerable elaboration, is
denied by Lincoln in his rejoinder and in other speeches
NOTES
-/ /
in the campaign. The charge rests upon no evidence.
(See note on 54: 17.)
50:27. Giddings. Joshua R. Giddings (1795-1864)
was one of the ablest anti-slavery leaders in Congress
during most of the period from i8j8 to 1859.
51 : 3 Clay and Webster. These statesmen were the
leaders during this period of the Southern and Northern
Whigs respectively. The Whig party, both North and
South, believed that the preservation of the Union was
of supreme importance. To ensure this they favored
compromises with the slave power. The Northern
Whigs were not, like the Democrats, blind to the
right or wrong of slavery. They believed it, however,
subordinate in importance to the maintenance of the
Union.
51:7. A bank, . . . distribution, the specie cir-
cular, (a) The attempt to renew the charter of the
Second United States Bank, which expired in i8j6, was
defeated by President Jackson, and his veto was sus-
tained at the polls in the succeeding national election,
(b) The proposition to distribute the surplus of the
national Treasury among the states was at various
times a party issue, (c) The Specie Circular, issued
in 1836, required that pa>-ments for public lands should,
in all ordinarj- cases, be made in gold and silver. It
was opposed by those who were interested in the
prevailing inflation of the time, and in credit
schemes.
51:13. Cass . . . FiUmore. Cass was a Demo-
crat, and Fillmore a Whig,
52:7. John Wentworth. John Wentworth (1815-
88) was editor of the Chicago Democrat from 1836 to
1861, and a representative in Congress for three terms.
Beginning a Democrat, he became a Whig, and later a
Republican under the influence of the Kansas-Nebraska
legislation.
54:8. General Shields. General James -\. Shields
278 NOTES
(1810-79), a soldier in the Mexican War, was United
States Senator from Illinois from 1849 to 1855. Later
he served with distinction in the Civil War. He is said
to have been the only general who ever defeated
" Stonewall " Jackson.
54: 17. When Lincoln was beaten for Shield's place.
Douglas never afforded any evidence to sustain this
charge. The facts as recorded in Morse's Life of Lin-
coln (Vol. i. p. 96) are as follows: On Feb. 8, 1855,
the legislature began to ballot for Senator. The first
ballot resulted: Lincoln (Whig), 45, Shields (Douglas
Democrat), 41, Trumbull (Anti-Nebraska Democrat),
5, Scattering, 5. After several ballots, Lincoln fell to
IS votes and Trumbull rose to 35, but Matteson, who
had been substituted for Shields, had 47 ballots, and
his election was imminent. "Lincoln's weakness lay
in the fact that the Abolitionists had too loudly praised
him, and publicly counted him as one of themselves."
For this reason five Democrats, supporters of Trumbull,
were as bitter against Lincoln as they were against
the candidate of Douglas, Matteson. " Lincoln could
count upon his fifteen adherents to the extremity; but
the five anti-Douglas Democrats were equally staunch
against him, so that his chance was evidently gone.
Trumbull was a Democrat, but he was opposed to the
policy of Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Bill; his follow-
ing was not altogether trustworthy, and a trifling de-
fection from it seemed likely to occur and make out
Matteson's majority. Lincoln pondered briefly; then
subjecting all else to the great principle of 'anti-
Nebraska,' he urged his friends to transfer their votes
to Trumbull. With grumbling and reluctance they did
so, and by this aid on the tenth ballot, Trumbull was
elected."
59: 19. Either Mr. Lincoln was then committed to
those propositions . . . violated his pledge. Is the
alternative fairly proved?
NOTES 279
61:19. " Tn my opinion it will not cease until" . . .
See the opening paragraph of the Springiicld Speech, and
the annotation thereon.
63: 20. I will retire in shame from the United States
Senate. Note the skill of DouKlas in developing pre-
judice against his opponent. Is the method justifiable
as here used?
64: 19. Mr. Buchanan was ... in England.
James Buchanan was ^Minister to England from 1853
to 1856.
MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER
72:22. Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon
the Editor of the Washington " Union " alone. See the
annotation upon the passage on 32:2.
73: 13. He had an eye farther north than he has
to-day. Douglas's revolt from the Administration on
the Lecompton matter aroused a suspicion on the part
of many that he intended to become a Republican.
See 77:31, et seq.
THE FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH
October 7, 1858
The debate at Freeport, read to-day, clearly reveals
Lincoln's supremacy in the great struggle. Events
have long vindicated the soundness of his moral and
political philosophy, and the ultimate wisdom of his
strategy. Yet at the hour anxiety and alarm filled
the minds of his advisers. "After the debate was
finished," says Mr. Horace White (Herndon's Life of
Lincoln, ii. no) "we Republicans did not feel very
happy. We held the same opinion that Mr. Judd
and Dr. Ray had — that Douglas's answer (to Lincoln's
second question) had probably saved him from defeat.
28o NOTES
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."
Between the debate at Freeport and that at Gales-
burgh, besides numerous individual campaign speeches
by each candidate, occurred the joint debates at Jones-
boro, on September 15, and at Charleston, on September
18. Jonesboro was in Southern Illinois, and strong in
pro-slavery sentiment. However, the place was a
stronghold of the " Danites " or Buchanan Democrats,
and therefore favorable to neither of the candidates.
The audience was small and there was little enthusiasm.
The debate at Charleston, in a region where the can-
didates had about equal following, drew an enormous
crowd. The fever of the campaign was now well-nigh
at its height. " Over long, weary miles of hot dusty
prairie [writes an eye-witness], the processions of
eager partisans come on foot, or horseback, in wagons
drawn by horses or mules . . . pushing on in
clouds of dust under a blazing sun . . . waiting in
anxious groups for hours at the places of speaking."
In this debate Lincoln produced documents to prove
that Douglas had in 1856 tried to bring Kansas into the
Union without allowing her people to vote upon their
constitution. Douglas was hard pressed, and in
the opinion of his friends Lincoln scored a distinct
victory.
Nearly three weeks later the contestants met at
Galesburgh. Mr. White (Herndon's Life of Lincoln,
ii. 123) describes the circumstances as follows:
" Here we had the largest audience of the whole series
and the worst day, the weather being very cold and
raw, notwithstanding which, the people flocked from
far and near. One feature of the Republican procession
was a division of one hundred ladies and an equal
number of gentlemen on horseback as a special escort
NOTES 281
to the carriage containing Mr. Lincoln. 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 Gales-
burgh was, in my judgment, the best of the series."
The student should notice the altering status of the
speakers as the campaign reaches its height. Douglas,
with unabated assurance, continues the lines of attack
and defense which he had marked out at the begin-
ning of the campaign. But in Lincoln is growing a
profounder sense of the tremendous and universal im-
port of the real issue which lies at the bottom of party
differences. With skill rapidly disciplined under the
stress and shock of the attack of the greatest parlia-
mentary debater of his time, Lincoln discards more
and more whatever is local and personal in his argu-
ment. Before his clarifying vision loom with growing
distinctness the larger aspects of the great issue —
matters, not of personalities or politics, but of principle,
phases of the national and universal issue — the great
moral wrong of slavery.
The debates at Galesburgh present two of these larger
aspects of the struggle not emphasized in the Freeport
debate. They are the questions whether negroes have
any share in the Declaration of Independence; and
whether the Republican party represents a sectional,
instead of a national movement. Aside from these two
vital aspects of the debate the topics of discussion at
Galesburgh are the same as those at Freeport. In ad-
dition to analyzing new arguments, the student should
therefore concern himself, aside from the parry and
thrust of each individual encounter, with the diminish-
ing or growing emphasis upon specific issues as the
campaign unfolds itself; with the appearance and
manipulation of fresh evidence; with tendencies on the
part of either debater to shift his ground, or to alter
the character or form of his argument as he approaches
282 NOTES
audiences of different sympathies, and as the campaign
becomes more intense. From this point onward the
annotation will seek only to correlate matters under
discussion, to explain the few matters of historical
reference not already explained, and to be merely sug-
gestive upon points of logical or persuasive process.
The arguments upon the questions whether negroes
are included in the Declaration of Independence, and
upon the charge of sectionalism, are so clear and uni-
versal in their character as to need little special annota-
tion.
MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH
80: 17. The Lecompton Constitution. What exigency
of the campaign induces Douglas to devote nearly
one-third of his opening speech in this debate to the
Lecompton question, upon which he and Lincoln are
in essential agreement? (Compare Lincoln's speech at
Alton, p. 166.)
83 : 24. The effort has been made ... by certain
postmasters. See the annotation upon 33:7. (Lincoln's
first question to Douglas.)
84: 16. Groesbeck and Pendleton and Cox. (i)
William S. Groesbeck (1815-1877), was a Democratic
representative from Ohio from 1857 to 1859. At the
impeachment of President Johnson in 1868 he was
leading counsel for the defense. (2) George H. Pendel-
ton (1825-1889) was at this time a Democratic rep-
resentative. In i860 he lacked 2 1-2 votes of the nomi-
nation of his party for the Presidency. (3) S. S. Cox
(1824-1889) lived a long, varied, and conspicuous politi-
cal and diplomatic career. From 1857 onward he served
three terms in Congress.
84:21. The Joneses of Pennsylvania. One of the
"Joneses of Pennsylvania" was Jehu G. Jones (1811-
78), a representative from 1851-8, and later minister to
Austria.
NOTES 283
87:8. The Republican party is availing itself of un-
worthy means, lias Douglas established the truth of
his charge? Is it plausible?
87:30. But now you have a sectional organization.
For another presentation of this issue by Uuuglas, see
the Alton debate, p. 144, and Lincoln's speech in reply,
p. 179; see also especially the Cooper Institute Address, p.
230.
88: 16. The Old Dominion. Virginia.
89:3. Garrison. William Lloyd Garrison (1805-
1879) "was perhaps the most radical and conspicuous of
the New England Abolitionists. He was almost anar-
chistic in his denunciation of the Constitution as " a
Covenant with Death, and an agreement with Hell."
89: 30. The doctrine of the Declaration of Indepen-
dence. Douglas recurs to this argument at Alton. (See
page 163, and especially Lincoln's Reply, pp. 171 to 178.)
97:3. How is it that in a territory the peo-ple can do
as they please on the slavery question under the Dred
Scott decision? See annotation of 35:12, Lincoln's
second interrogatory to Douglas.
98:12. Mr. Orr of South CaroHna. James L. Orr
(1822-1873) was a representative from 1848 to 1858, and a
conspicuous Southern leader.
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY
Does Mr. Lincoln gain in confidence and assurance
since the Freeport debate? Are there gains in other
respects? Does he seek merely to answer his op-
ponent now?
102:26. He spoke . . . not venturing to use the
word Democrat. What condition continues to embar-
rass Douglas? Why should Lincoln have hesitated to
use the word Republican in all circumstances of the
campaign?
103:2. The National Democracy. Douglas's rupture
284 NOTES
with the National Democracy occurred in 1857 over the
Lecompton issue.
106:4. The people of Chicago would not let Judge
Douglas preach a certain favorite doctrine. On Sept.
I. 1854. Senator Douglas addressed a mass meeting in
Chicago in defense of his Kansas-Nebraska Act. Pub-
lic sentiment was bitter against him. " When the time
came, flags at half-mast, and the dismal tolling of church
bells welcomed him. A vast and silent crowd was gath-
ered, but not to hear him. Hisses and groans broke in
upon his opening sentences. Hour after hour, from
eight o'clock until midnight he stood before them; time
and again, as the uproar lessened, his voice combated
it; but they would not let him speak. . . . On the
way home his carriage was set upon and he was in
danger of his life." (W. G. Brown: Stephen A. Doug-
las, p. 96.)
107:30. The Compromise of 1850. See Introduction.
Lincoln's explanation which now follows is accurate
and detailed.
112:29. He had . . . more to do with . . . the
Lecompton Constitution than Buchanan had. See the
reference to the Charleston debate in the preliminary
note upon the Galesburgh debate.
113: II. The opponents of the Democratic party were
divided. Fremont was the Republican nominee; Fill-
more, that of the Know-Nothings and Whigs.
113:30. A set of resolutions . . . in October, 1854.
See the Freeport debate (Lincoln) 21:20 ef seq. and
(Douglas) 43-49, with annotation upon the former
reference.
118: 13. If the Supreme Court . . . shall decide
. . . are you in favor of acquiescing. See 38: 13 et
seq. and the annotation thereon.
119:30. Nothing in the constitution of any state can
destroy. The precision of Lincoln's logic finds in this
syllogism an excellent exemplification. ,
NOTES 285
T2i:i8. The new Dred Scott decision. See the
Springfield Speech (8: 17,) and the latter half of the
annotation upon (31:2.)
122: I. General Jackson , . , the political obliga-
tion of a Supreme Court decision. In 1832, General
Jackson praciically refused to enforce a decision of the
Supreme Court against the state of Georgia.
122: 12. The Cincinnati platform. This Democratic
platform of 1856 affirmed that Congress cannot charter
a National Bank, though the Supreme Court had
decided that the Bank, whose charter expired in 1836,
was constitutional.
122: 16. He himself was one ... in breaking
down the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois. In
1841, a Democratic legislature reconstructed the legis-
lature in such a way as to increase the number of
judges. Douglas, less than twenty-eight years old, was
named for one of the new places.
125: \C^. Are you opposed to the acquisition of further
territory, unless slavery is prohibited? See 20:5, and
annotation thereon.
125:25: Are you in favor of acquiring territory in
disregard of . . . slavery? See 30: jO. and annotation.
MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER
135: Does Mr. Lincoln wish to push these things
to the point of personal difTficulties here? Has Douglas
really answered Lincoln on this much vexed issue?
136:25. And yet Lincoln . . . will not . . .
sanction. . . . the doctrine of no mfore slave states.
Is this a fair restatement of Lincoln's position at Free-
port (18:5.)?
139:2. Suppose he succeeds in destroying public
confidence in the court. In reference to the nature of
his opposition to the Dred Scott decision. Mr. Lincoln
in his opening speech in the debate at Quincy. one
week later, made the following statement :
NOTES
'^ We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way,
npon which I onght perhaps to address you a few
words. We do not propose that when Dred Scott has
been decided to be a slaTe by the court, we, as a mob,
will decide him to be free. We do not propose that,
when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided
by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way
disturb the rights of property thus settled; but we
nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule
which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody
who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the
members of Congress or the President to favor no
measure that does not actually concur with the princi-
ples of that decision. We do not propose to be bound
by it as a political rule in that way, because we think
it lays the foundation, not merely of enlarging and
spreading out what we consider an evil, but it laj-s the
foimdatioiis for spreading that evil into the states
themselves. We propose so resisting it as to have it
reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established
fipon this subject-"
THE SEVENTH JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON
Ottober 15, 1858
On October 13 Mr. Lincoln met Douglas, in the sixth
debate of the series, at Quincy. Like Galesburgh, the
region was one in which each of the candidates had a
good following. Lincoln, with continually increasing
insistence, forced the issue of the right or wrong of
slavery. Doagias, indifferent, always, to this issue, or
feigning to be indifferent, generally chose to ignore
it, bat in this debate, he specifically declined in the follow-
ing language to discuss it:
"He tells you that I will not argue the question
wbdibeT slavery is rig^t or wrong. I will teU you why
NOTES 2S7
I will not do it I hold that under the Constitution of
the United States, each state of this Union has a right
to do as it pleases on the subject of slavery. In
Illinois we have exercised that sovereign right by pro-
hibiting slavery within our own limits. I approve of that
line of policy. We have done our whole duty in Illinois.
We have gone as far as we had a right to go under
the Constitution of our common country. It is none of
our business whether slavery exists in Missouri or not.
Missouri is a sovereign state of this Union, and has
the same right to decide the slavery- question for her-
self that Illinois has to decide it for herself. Hence I
do not choose to occupy the time allotted to me in dis-
cussing a question that we have no right to act upon."
The student may now compare the issues in this
debate with those of the Freeport meeting. Upon
what issues do they still meet each other squarely?
Does either of them give time to discussion of matters
upon which the debaters themselves are in agreement?
If so, for what reason? To what extent do they diverge
froiTi one another, in failing to meet squarely upon
what one or the other insists are the real issues of the
campaign? Does either of the speakers show any
motive in his debating beyond defeating his opponent
in the immediate campaign? If such a motive exists,
in what terms may it be defined? Does Lincoln in
this speech in Southern Illinois give substantiation to
Douglas's charge that he has one doctrine for one part
of the state, and another for a different part? What
likenesses or contrasts exist in the kinds of persuasion
which arise in this debate from the character of the two
speakers? Compare their literary styles.
"The campaign." says Mr. Horace White, "was now
drawing rapidly 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. Doug-
las's voice was worn down to extreme huskiness. He
288 NOTES
took great pains to save what was left of his throat,
but to listen to him moved one's pity. Nevertheless, 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 . . . two months before — a high
pitched tenor, almost a falsetto, that could be heard
at a greater distance than Douglas's heavy basso."
The attendance at the debate w^as the smallest of
the series except that at Jonesboro — and, as at that
place, the audience held strong pro-slavery opinions.
For a second time Douglas was " trotting Lincoln
down " to the abiding place of pro-slavery sentiment
in Illinois.
In this debate Lincoln, for the first time in the
speeches of this volume, deals with the constitutionality
of slavery. In this debate, too, he deals less than on any
other with issues arising out of the politics of the day; —
more clearly than in any other debate he builds his
argument upon the high moral plane of the right or
wrong of slavery.
146: 22. Imagine . . . that Mr. Lincoln had been a
member of the Convention that framed the Constitu-
tion. Compare this argument, and Lincoln's reply,
beginning p. 182, with the opening sections of the
speech at Cooper Institute.
148:2. Slavery was abolished in . . . New Jer-
sey. New Jersey abolished slavery in 1804, being the
seventh and last of the original thirteen states so to do.
148:25. The admission of . . . slave states. See
18:5, and annotation.
144: 17. His proposition . . . Union could not
exist as our fathers made it. See Douglas, 87:30, and
Lincoln's reply, 105:13; also, the Cooper Institute
Address, 230.
151: I. The contract with Texas. In 1845, Congress
by joint action " passed a resolution providing for the
admission of Texas, and, with her consent, the forma-
NOTES 289
tion of four additional states out of the territory in
states formed north of the line of 36° 30' north latitude,
slavery to be prohibited. . . . Texas accepted the
terms and at the next session of Congress was formally
admitted." (Rhodes' History of U. S., i. 85.)
152:7. The Lecompton Constitution (and Kansas.)
See Introduction; also, 33:7, and annotation thereon.
158:30. Nullification. In 1832, maintaining that a
state can for its own purposes annul an Act of Con-
gress, South Carolina passed the famous Ordinance of
Nullification, declaring that acts of Congress relating to
the collection of tariffs should not be binding in the
ports of that state. The state threatened the use of
force, but the firm stand of President Jackson saved
the day, and South Carolina rescinded the Ordinance
on March 2, 1833.
162: I. Hon. Jefferson Davis. The subsequent Presi-
dent of the Confederacy was at this time the Senator
from Mississippi, and loader of his party in the Senate.
163:25. The Abolition party thinks that under the
Declara.tion . . . the negro is equal. See the Gales-
burgh debate (89:30), and Lincoln's response in open-
ing his Reply (loi).
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY
167: 18. The valiant advocate of the Missouri Com-
promise. This was before 1854, when the Kansas-
Nebraska Bill was presented.
168:22. The Dred Scott decision in my Springfield
speech. See 8: 17, and annotation.
170:4. I desire to place myself in connection with
Mr. Clay, as nearly right. The voters to whom Mr.
Lincoln now addresses his plea are old line Whigs,
followers of Clay, men who in this locality may have
favored slavery — but considered the maintenance of the
Union of more importance.
:29o NOTES
170: IT. He read upon a former occasion ... a
speech ... at Chicago. See 89 et scq.
171:30. Negroes were not included in the Declara-
tion of Independence. See 89:30 et seq. in Douglas's
speech at Galesburgh, and Lincoln's Reply (101-102).
179:22. "We are now far into the fifth year." See
i: I, and annotation upon i: 12.
180:23. Mr. Crittenden. Senator Crittenden of Ken-
tucky, joint author of the Crittenden-Montgomery Com-
promise (see annotation upon 33:7)- Crittenden was
a Kentucky Whig, and his support of Douglas in
this campaign was a keen disappointment to Mr.
Lincoln.
182:5. Where the public mind should rest in the
beUef that it was in course of ultimate extinction. Is
Lincoln distinct upon this point? Does Lincoln deal
effectively with the economic aspects of slavery or with
its remedies?
182:26. Slavery . . . in the Constitution. Seethe
first half of the Cooper Institute address.
189:12. What divided the great Methodist Church
. . . Presbyterian General Assembly. Both these
denominations were divided into Northern and South-
ern churches during the anti-slavery agitation.
192:21. The real issue in this controversy. Com-
pare with Douglas's statement (pp. 142-3).
199:2. Brooks of South Carolina. Preston S.
Brooks, who assaulted Charles Sumner on the floor of
the Senate, on May 22, 1856, after Senator Sumner had
severely arraigned Senator Butler of South Carolina, a
relative of Brooks, in a speech on the Kansas question.
199: By the invention of the cotton-gin. The cot-
ton-gin, invented by Eli Whitney in 1/93, multiplied the
cotton-picking capacity of a slave by fifty. The result-
ing demand for negro labor had an essential bearing
on the slavery issue.
199:20. This argument . . . sustains the Dreu
NOTES 291
Scott decision (and) still excludes slavery. Sec 35: 12
and annotation.
201:5. Most of us believe . . . Congressional
Fugitive Slave Law. See 17:21 and annotation.
205:6. The lead of Corwin. Thomas Corwin (1794-
1865), a statesman of varied and important service from
1830 till his death. As Whig and later as Republican
he served as Representative, Senator, Governor of his
native state of Ohio, as a member of Taylor's and
Fillmore's Cabinet.
206:11. Have you read General Singleton's speech?
This is "new material in rebuttal."
THE COOPER INSTITUTE SPEECH
Feb. 27, i860
With the conclusion of the senatorial campaign of
1858, Mr. Lincoln, although a defeated candidate, had
become a leader of national significance. Only Seward,
among Republicans, equaled him in prestige. The
desire to see and hear him was general throughout the
East. In the fall of 1859 he was invited to deliver a
" political lecture " before the Young Men's Central
Republican Union of New York City. The invitation
was accepted and the address was given in Cooper
Institute on Feb. 27, i860, before a large audience in
which were many of the most influential men of the
city. William Cullen Bryant was the presiding officer.
" Since the days of Clay and Webster," said the Tribune,
" no man has spoken to a larger assemblage of the
intellect and culture of the city."
But the curiosity of the public in regard to Lincoln's
personality was perhaps equaled by his own wish to
test his arguments and his personal power upon the
difi^erent tradition and culture of an Eastern audience.
His address was more laboriously prepared than any
292 NOTES
other of his life — yet he had strong misgivings about its
reception, and as he at last stepped before the audience
at the invitation of Mr. Bryant he felt miseries of
embarrassment from his sense of the unaccustomed
conditions, the critical and refined audience, his own
ungainliness, and his ill-fitting and wrinkled clothes.
But as the fervor of speaking grew upon him, his con-
sciousness of these things faded away, while the audi-
ence with attention fixed upon the argument unfolding
in matchless clearness and precision, saw only the sway-
ing figure of one transfigured by lofty moral earnestness
and the vision of a high ideal — " If any part of the audi-
ence," say Nicolay and Hay in their account, " came
with the expectation of hearing the rhetorical fireworks
of the * half-horse, half-alligator ' variety, they met
novelty of an unlooked for kind. In Lincoln's entire
address he neither introduced an anecdote nor essayed
a witticism; and the first half of it does not contain
even an illustrative figure or a poetical fancy. It was
the quiet searching exposition of the historian, and the
terse, compact reasoning of the statesman, about an
abstract principle of philosophy in language well-nigh
as restrained and colorless as he would have employed
in arguing a case before a court. Yet such was the apt
choice of words, the easy precision of sentences, the
simple strength of propositions, the fairness of every
point he assumed, and the force of every conclusion he
drew — that his listeners followed him with the interest
and delight a child feels in its easy mastery of a plain
sum in arithmetic."
The effect of the speech was remarkable. All the
daily papers printed it in full on the following day.
The Tribune, said: "Mr. Lincoln is one of nature's
orators. . . . The tones, the gestures, the kindling
eye, and the mirth-provoking look defy the reporter's
skill. The vast assemblage frequently rang with cheers
and shouts of applause, which were prolonged and
NOTES 293
intensified at the close. No man ever before made
such an impression upon a New York audience."
" Before Lincohi made his Cooper Institute Speech/'
says Rhodes (Mist, of U. S. vol. ii. p. 458), "the men-
tion of his name as a possible nominee for President
would have been considered a joke anywhere except in
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa." This and his other
Eastern speeches, however, "made it patent that he
might become a formidable opponent of Seward."
In criticism upon the speech, Horace Greeley, in a
lecture published in the Century Magazine for July,
1892, has made this striking comment upon its quality:
** Every citizen has certain conceptions, recollections,
convictions, notions, prejudices, which to.gcther make
up what he terms his politics. The canvasser's art
consists in making him believe and feel that an over-
ruling majorit}"" of these preconceptions ally him to that
side whereof said canvasser is the champion. In other
words he seeks to belittle those points whereon his
auditor is at odds with him, and emphasizes those
wherein they two arc in accord; thus persuading the
hearer to sympathize, act. and vote with the speaker.
And with this conception in view, I do not hesitate to
pronounce Mr. Lincoln's speech at Cooper Institute in
the spring of i860 the very best political address to
which I ever listened, and I have heard some of Web-
ster's grandest. As a literary effort, it would not of
course bear comparison with many of Webster's
speeches; but regarded as an effort to convince the
largest possible number that they ought to be on the
speaker's side, not on the other, I do not hesitate to
pronounce it unsurpassed."
Divested, as it is, of the personality of debate and the
incidents of local politics; developed without the restric-
tions imposed by the conditions of public debate, the
Cooper Institute address is, in form and in substance,
the best statement of the broad and universal printj-
294 NOTES
pies of the anti-slaTCiy argnment made pricr to the
Civil War. The student will find it profitable to com-
pare it with Lincoln's speeches in the Freeport Debste,
with the Tiew of contrasting its saperiority in the in
of expression. As showing the minute thoronghres?
of its pi^paration. it is said to have taken the Xr ,v
Ycrk Tribmme t-iree weeks to verify the statements of
i:.:-. -" this address.
215: 17. That wing of the Democracy headed by
Senator Douglas. I" :^:: I -^ r ; :: :e
216: 19. Does ihe proper division of local from
Federal authority. . . . The if^.ie thus
stated was of oDurse a comio'l^-S. isiut ::' ::".t ::e-.::.:s
- - - - F- -i-
216: 31. In 1784.
Lhe Congress •:: '.':.
.55 bv
219:1a. North Carclir.E ceded . . . the state of
Te-nessee. "In 17*50 Congre?? had accepted the ces-
5 : : Xortb Car : :r 1 : :. : ^ 1 :. : f : " the express con-
1 : " : : ivery : ; t r f ^ r :; : r : .: rbed." „ - ; ; : 5 :
5 ;;: : 5 r Triir p. 88.
219: 12- A few years later Georgia ceded
Mississippi and Alabama. In 1798 this cession was
acceptei " ; _ -: ^s.
231: ID. Tile warning against sectional parties given
by Washington in his Farewell Address. The passage
i' ir^ - :' iT- :-T '-''-■/-z\ ■■ It is of infinite
monic:. .-: ; j 5 : _ : ; r.v^-'-y estimate the immense
lalne : y : 1 . Vnion to your collective and
indivic ^ - :; :- yo'T should cherish a cordial,
babittii i.:i_ 1^^1:1:: _:.= ^::^, iment to it; accustom:-^
SOTES 29S
yourselves to think and speak of it as of the f -im
of your political safety and prosperity; watching for
its preservation with jealous anxiety: . . . and indig-
nantly frowning upon the first dawning of any attempt
to alienate any portion of our country from the rest,
or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together
the various parts."
233: 18. What is your proof? Harper's Ferry!
John Brown's raid upon Harper's Ferr>-, 'oegir.nir.g
Oct- 16, 1859. was one of the most dramatic episodes of
the anti-slavery agitation before the outbreak of the
Civil War. John Brown, a native of Connecticut, with
his sons an active participant in the Kansas border
warfare in 1856, began early in 1857, on the pretext of
securing aid for that contest, to collect material secretly
for an invasion of Virginia; also to drill a military
company. He gradually enlisted the sympathy and se-
cured some contributions from Xorthem Abolitionists.
But the impracticable character of the man and his
enterprise for destroying slavery in Virginia became
quickly apparent to most of them. Undaunted by his
slender support, however, he appeared in Virginia in
July, 1859, and for about three months was plotting the
capture of Harper's Ferry, a small town in which was
located a government arsenal. BrovsTi's idea was that
the slaves would fiock to his standard as soon as it was
raised, and that by arming them and withdrawing his
force to the mountains, he would presently create an
insurrection sufficiently formidable to destroy the sys-
tem of slavery in Virginia and perhaps eventually
throughout the South.
On Oct. 16, 1859, he captured the government arsenal
with his force of eighteen men. For two days he held
the works against an increasing force of assailants. At
length Brevet Col. Robt. E. Lee, with eighty marines,
captured Brown with six men, all that were left of his
force. The seven were quickly tried, convicted of trea-
296 NOTES
son, and hanged. John Brown met his fate with a
heroism which extorted the admiration of his enemies.
John Brown was a fanatic. Yet there was ingrained
in his character, inflexible resolution, unsurpassed
physical and moral heroism, and a sort of stern Puritan
idealism, all of which invite a comparison of the man
with the psalm-singing warriors of Cromwell's time.
These elements of character we must consider, as well
as the political tension of the time, before we compre-
hend the tremendous moral effect of this Quixotic raid
upon the country at large. For a considerable period it
dominated all political discussion. Lincoln's judgment
of the affair expressed in this address represents the
general opinion of the present day.
235:6. What induced the Southampton insurrection.
" In August of 1831, a slave insurrection broke out in
Southampton, Va., under the leadership of Nat Turner,
and more than sixty white persons, most of them
women and children, were massacred in cold blood."
(Burgess: The Middle Period, p. 249.) Both at the
North and at the South it was generally believed that
the insurrection was instigated by the Abolitionists.
The Abolitionist historians deny that such was the case.
235:27. The slave revolution in Hayti. The slaves
of Hayti rose in insurrection on August 23, 1791. For
several years a terrible struggle went on between the
representatives of French authority and the negroes
under the leadership of Tousaint L'Ouverture and his
successors, ending with the independence of the negro
republic. The contest was waged throughout its length
with extreme ferocity and cruelty.
235:29. The Gunpowder Plot. The Gunpowder Plot
was a design to blow up the English House of Lords,
conceived in 1604 by certain Catholic opponents of the
religious policy of that body. Twenty-six barrels of
powder were stored in a vault beneath the chamber in
which the Lords rnet, and it was planned to explode th^
NOTES 207
powder on the 5th of November, 1605. Twenty per-
sons were admitted to the plot, who kept it a secret
for a year and a half. Ultimately, however, one of the
number, wishing to warn a particular friend among the
Lords, despatched him a mysterious note of warning,
which led to an investigation, and the discovery of the
plot. Guy Fawkes, the leader, and all his accomplices,
were arrested and executed, or else killed in resisting
arrest.
237: 10. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon. On
January 14, 1858, a gang of desperadoes under Felice
Orsini attempted to assassinate Napoleon III. As the
gang had made London its base of operations, a strong
feeling of resentment against England arose in France
because its members had found shelter there.
237: 17. Helper's Book. Hinton R. Helper was the
author of "The Impending Crisis of the South," a book
published in 1857. Because of its bitter attack upon the
economic and moral aspects of slavery, the book pro-
duced a great sensation, and its author, a Southern man,
writing from the point of view of the "poor whites,"
was obliged to become a fugitive.
THE END
ALDEN'S ART OF DEBATE
B/Dr. R. M. Alden, Univ. of Pennsylvania. xv4-a79 pp. i6mo. |i.oo, net.
Prof. George B. Churchill, Amherst CoiU^e : "I think it is by
far the best b<.ok we have on this subject for college or general use. It is
methodical, careful and full. While comprehensive, it is easily grasped, which
cannot be said of all the discussions in some of the best recent books on Argu-
mentation."
Prof F. N. Scott, Uttiverst'ty o/ ^T^ch^gan : *^'' 1l'\% a.Ue%\\ anAxnitr-
esting treatment of the subject, packed with ideas expressed in a most delight-
ful and taking way."
RINGWALT'S AMERICAN ORATORY
Selections, with introduction and notes by Ralph C. Ringwai.t, formerly
Instructor in Columbia University. 334 pp. lamo. $1.00, net.
Contains Schurz's General Avtnesty, Jeremiah S. Black's Trial by Jury,
Phillips's Daniel O' Connelly Dcpew's Inauguration 0/ Washington, Curtis's
The Leadership 0/ Educated Men, Henry VV. Grady's The New South, and
Beecher's The Sepulchre in the Garden.
Prof. F. W. Sco\\.i University of Michigan: " An extremely sensible
book."
Prof. D. L. Maulsby, T'/c/Zj C«7//<rf^.* -'The opening essay is the best
on its subject that I have seen of recent years. It shows grasp on both the
early and later literature of the subject, and is thoroughly alive to modern
conditions."
Prof. A. G. Newcomer, Leland Stanford University: " The essay
on the theory of oratory is one of the most sensible and at the same time stim-
ulating essays of the kind I have ever seen."
WAGNER'S MODERN POLITICAL ORATIONS (BRItish)
Edited by Leopold Wagner, xv 4- 344 pp. lamo. $1.00, n^/.
A collection of some of the most notable examples of the political oratory of
the present reign. Includes Brougham on Negro Emancipation; Fox and
Cobden on the Corn Laws ; Bright on the Suspension of Habeas Corpus Act ;
Butt and Morley on Home Rule ; Gladstone on the Beaconsfield Ministry ;
Parnell on the Coercion Bill ; and others by Beaconsfield, Russell, Randolph
Churchill, Chamberlain, Macaulay, Bulwer-Lytton, McCarthy, etc., etc.
POLITICAL PAMPHLETS
By Burke, Steele, Saxby, Halifax, Arbuthnot, Swift, Bolingbroke, and
"Junius." Edited by A. F. Pollard. Bound in one volume. Fampk-
let Library. lamo. Cloth, $1.75. «''. special.
The Nation: " The selections are very well chosen. . . . Deserves well of
book-buyers in point of matter and form."
HENRY HOLT & CO. =» "i.%'^^^tk^"~*
v, '01
" One of the best series of annotated school texts that have ever
been produced."— i^/a/
ENGLISH READINGS
i6mo, cloth. Prices net
ARNOLD : Prose Selections. Ed. by L. E. Gates, Harvard, xci-f
BROWNING : Selections. Ed! by E. T. Mason. 275 pp. ...'.'.. . . .6oc!
BURKE : Selections. Ed. by BLISS PERRY, Princeton, xxvi+298 pp. 6oc.
On Conciliation. Ed. by D. V. THOMPSON. xliv-fi22 pp 50c.
BYRON: Selections from his Poetry. Ed, by F. J. Carpenter,
Chicago Univ. lviii+412 pp $1.00
COLERIDGE : Prose Selections. Ed. by H. A. Beers, Yale, xxx-f
146 pp 50C.
DE QTJINCEY : English Mail Coach and Joan of Arc. Ed. by J. M.
Hart, Cornell. xxvi+i.^S pp 50c.
DRYDEN : Essays on the Drama, Ed. by Wm, Strunk, Cornell.
xl+i8o pp 50C.
FORD : The Broken Heart. Ed, by CLINTON Scollard. xvi+132
pp 50C.
JOHNSON: Rasselas. Ed. by O. F. Emerson, Western Reserve
Univ. lv+179 pp 50c.
LANDOR : Selected Imaginary Conversations. Ed. by A. G.
Newcomer. Stanford Univ. lix+166 pp 50c.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES. Ed. by A. L. Bouton,
(/« Preparation)
LYLY : Endymion, Ed. by GEO. P. Baker, Harvard. cxcvi+109
pp 85c.
MACAULAY : Essays on Milton and Addison. Ed. by J. A. TUFTS,
Phillips Exeter Academv.
MACAULAY AND CARLYLE': Croker's Boswell's Johnson. Ed.
bv Wm. Strunk, Cornell, xl-l-192 pp 50c.
MARLOWE : Edward II. and Selections from Tamburlaine and the
Poems. Ed. by E. T. McLaughlin. xxi+180 pp 50c.
MILTON : Lyric and Dramatic Poems. Ed. by M. W. SAMPSON,
Indiana Univ. 11+345 pp 75c.
NEWMAN : Prose Selections. Ed. by L. E. Gates, Harvard. lx+
228 pp 50C.
PATER : Selections. Ed. by E. E. HALE, Jr., Union Coll. lxxvii+
268 pp 75c.
POPE : Selections from his Poetry. Ed. by E. B. Reed, Yale. xxx+
246 pp 70C.
RUSKIN : Sesame and Lilies, Ed. by R. H. Root, Yale. xxviii-K
1 37 pp • • • 50c.
SHAKESPEARE : Merchant of Venice. Ed., with Introduction
and Notes, by T. M. Parrott 50c.
SWIFT : Prose Selections. Ed. by F. C. Prescott, Cornell. xlvii+
22Q pp 60c.
TENNYSON : The Princess. Ed. by L. A. Sherman, Univ. of Nebr.
Ixi-l-i8s pp 60C.
THACKERAY : English Humorists. Ed. by W. L. Phelps, Yale.
xli+:i6o pp 80C.
SPECIMENS OF PROSE COMPOSITION.
The Short Story. Ed.by G. H. NETTLETON.Yale. vii4-22gpp. 50c.
Forms of Discourse. Ed. by E. H. Lewis, Lewis Inst., Chicago.
viii+:567 pp 60C.
Prose Narration. Ed. by W. T. BREWSTER, Columbia. xxxviii+
2og pp 50c.
Prose Description. Ed. by C. S. Baldwin, Yale, xlvii+145 pp. soc.
Exposition. Ed. b\' H. Lamont, Brown Univ. xxix+180 pp. 50c.
Argumentation. Ed. bv G. P. Baker, Harvard. vii-(-i86 pp. 50c.
SPECIMENS OF ENGLISH VERSE.
Ed. by Raymond M. Alden. 459 pp $i«2S
UPXIPV \Ar\\ T ^1 rC\ 29 west 23d street, New York
nClNrvY nULl CXV^U.STS Wabash Avenue, ChicafO
>» • 0 .
ik*.«.#
-i.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11