(p h^C'on tin- iiiiiuortiil Declaration ; aail l«» comi-t any anoih Congresses and Courts; not lo overt hn»w the Constitution; Imt to overthrow the men who pen'ert the ConstituticMi. " — /*. .'t07. And "If there is anything which it is the «luty of the whole jieople to never entrust to any hands imt their own, that thing is the po-servation ami perpetuity of their own lilierties and institutions." — /*. 24. A Hi.r>l may Im- Haid as to ilie arrangement of this edition of the S|ie«H-ln'« and Debates. The aim has been, ( 1 ) To bring together Hurh luatU-T ft*i would cover the whole ground, giving a history of Ihp itituation, in the NmalleHt compass iM)Ssible for eoiivenienee; and (2) S jH.intM, every other eililion has piovi-d defeetivr. One edition printM only the Joint I>ehrtteH. Another prints tiic .I.iiiit iV'tmtcii and cfrtaiu other siKHH-hea lK«for« and after tiie del»at<'s, hul VKinning only with Lincoln's nomination for Senator, and atopping nhort of hiw inaugumi Thene iMith are unsatisfactorv in thai they do not begin H4M»n enough and end Uhj soon. Another PREFACE. V I)riuts ouly certain leading speeches of Lincoln. This is unsatis- factory because it gives only one side of the case. And yet others print the Joint Debates and all of Lincoln's speeches, letters etc., of every sort, Ijesides. These are unsatisfactory, because they are too bulky, contain too much that is not needed, and are too high- priced for popular use and wide circulation. This edition begins with Lincoln's Speech at Peoria, in 1854, which, in itself, gives the whole history of the question up to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in that year. This is followed by Lincoln's Speech at Springfield, June 26, 1857, which carries the history up to the Dred Scott decision in that year. Then fol- lows Lincoln's speech at Springfield, to the Convention that nomi- nated him for Senator, with which begins the close contest between him and Senator Douglas that continued till Lincoln's election and inauguration. And the book closes practically with Lincoln's first inaugural •, though it has been thought best to add the Gettys- burg speech and his second inaugural. This arrangement, it will be seen, gives a fairly full history of the whole question involved, practically a political history of the country, up to the breaking out of the war. This arrangement covers the whole ground in a book of convenient size, and at a price that puts it within easy reach of every man who cares to study. To the student, another serious defect in previous editions is the total lack of any helpful system of headings to either pages or speeches — the book-title being put at the top of every page from beginning to end of the book, and the place and date of the speeches, with the name of the speaker, at the beginning only of each speech; so that, when a passage is wanted, even though the particular speech is remembered, it is impossible to find it without a tedious turning of leaves, first to find that speech or debate, then to find, if in a debate, the particular speech desired, and then again to find the passage wanted. In this edition it will be seen that the place, date, and name of ^ PREFACE. the speaker, «>f e:u-»i partk-ular hik-ccIi, ;ire wl :it Uif lop nt" llie pAges, BO tliHt wlKTi-vt-r till" l)F < (iNTKNTS. Extract kiimm TiiUMnuLi/s Alton Si'K.kcii 325 KXTHATT KKo.M DdfU I.ASS .1 ACKS< »N V I M.K Sl'KKCII 331 Finn Joint Deuatk, Gai.ksburo, October 7, 1858 337 DoUtlLAS'S Ol'ENlNU Sl'KECIl 33 < Lincoln's Rki'LY •^^" DouoLAs'8 Rejoinder 307 Sixth .Iuint Dkhate. Qiincy. Orn.itKii i:'., 1S5K 375 Lincoln's Oi'Enin(» Si'kkch 3-y Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, Washinoton, D. ("., March 4, 1801 •• ^•^*' Address ok President Lincc.ln at the (Iettysburo Na- tional Cemetauv, N.>v. lit, i^r.n '>39 Lincoln' Second Inaimmuai, Address, Washinoton. D. C., March 4. 1805 540 POLITICAL SPEECHES AND DEBATES. THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. Delivered at Peoria, 111., October IG, 1S54. [On Monday, October, 10, 18r)4, SenMtor Douglas, by appointment, ad- dressed a large audience at Peoria. Wiien he closed, he was greeted with six hearty cheers, and the band in attendance played a stirring air. The crowd then "began to call for Lincoln, who, as Judge Douglas had an- nounced, was, by agreement, to answer him. Mr. Lincoln then took the stand and said : — ] Fellow-Citizens : I do not rise to speak now, if I can stipu- late with the audience to meet me here at half-past six or at seven o'clock. It is now several minutes past five, and Judge Douglas has spoken over three hours. If you hear me at all, I wish j-ou to hear me through. It will take me as long as it has taken him. That will carry us beyond eight o'clock at night. Now every one of you who can remain that long, can just as well get his supper, meet me at seven, and remain an hour or two later. The Judge has already informed 30U that he is to have an hour to reply to me. I doubt not but you have been a little surprised to learn that I have con- sented to give one of his high reputation and known ability this ad- vantage of me. Indeed, my consenting to it, though reluctant, was not wholly unselfish, for I suspected, if it were understood that the Judge was entirely done, you Democrats would leave and not hear me ; but by giving him the close, I felt confident you would sta}^ for the fun of hearing him skin me. [This proposition was agreed to and at 7 o'clock p. m. he made the following speech: — ] The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the propriety of its restoration, constitute the subject of what I am about to say. As I desire to present my own connected view of this subject, my remarks will not be specifically an answer to Judge Douglas; yet [1] 2 SPEECH or LINCOLN, HM I pnxH-i'il, till' m:iin i>oiiit« ho has presented will arise, and will riHH'ive such n-siH-clful attention as 1 may be al.le to give them. I wish further to say that I do not propose to (juestion the patri- otism, or asHjiil the motives of any man or class of men, but rather to iM.nline mvsrlf strictly to the naked merits of the question. 1 also wish to be no less than national in all the positions T may t«ko, and whenever I take ^rr„und which others have thought, or may think, narrow, sectional, and dangerous to the Union, I hope to give a reason which will appear sulllcient, at least to some, why I think ditferently. And as this subject is no other than part and parcel of the larger gcnend .juestion of domestic slavery, 1 wish to .m.vke and to kekp the distinction between the kxistino institution and the extension of it. so broad and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dislumest one successfully misrepresent me. In order to a clear understanding of what the Mtssouri Com- promisi- is, a short history of the preceding kindred subjects will be projK'r. TIIK NORTHWESTERN TKRlUTOllV. When we esUibiished our independeiue, wt- did not own or claim the country to which this compromi.se applies. Indeed, strictly speaking, the Confederacy then owned no country at all; the States rt?«i)eclively owned the country within their limits, and some of them owned territory beyond their strict State limits. Virginia thus owned the Northwestern Territory — the country out of which the principal part of Ohio, all Indiana, all Illinois, all Michigan, and all Wiscon- sin, have since Ix-en formed. She also owned (perhaps within li.r then limit,s) what has since been fonned into the State of Kentucky. North Carolina thus owned what is now the State of Tennessee; and South Carolina and Georgia owned, in separate parts, what are now MiK-HiHsippi and Alabama. Connecticut, I think, owned the little n-maining part of Ohio — iR'ing the same where they now send (Jid- «lingH to Congress, and iK-at all creation at making cheese. T.iew Territories, t«»gether with the States them.selves constituted nil the country omt which tin- Confederacy then claimed any sort of Jiirimliclion. We were then living unch-r tin' Articles of Confedera- tion, which were 8U|>erceded by the Constitution several years after- wanl. The (|Ui*stion of ct-ding th«'s»' Territories to the (liiieral <;..veninient was wt on f.i l.imlioii of lnd<|Miidence, nud othi-rwise a chief actor in the lU'Volutiun, then a delegate In Congress; afterward, twice President; PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 3 who was, is, and perhaps wiH continue to be, the most distinguished politician of our history; a Virginian by birth and continued resi- dence, and withal, a slaveholder— conceived the idea of taking that occasion to prevent slavery ever going into the Northwestern Terri- tory. He prevailed on the Virginia Legislature to adopt his views, and to cede the Territory, making the prohibition of slavery therein a condition of the deed. Congress accepted the cession with the con- dition;! and in the first ordinance (which the acts of Congress were then called) for the government of the Territory, provided that slav- ery should never be permitted therein. This is the famed "Ordi- nance of '87," so often spoken of. Thenceforward for sixty-one years, and until 1848, the last scrap of this territory came into the Union as the State of Wisconsin, all parties acted in quiet obedience to this ordinance. It is now what Jefferson foresaw and intended — the happy home of teeming mil- lions of free, white, prosperous people, and no slave among them. % AUTHOR AND ORIGIN OF THE POLICY. Thus, with the author of the Declaration of Independence, the policy of prohibiting slavery in new territory originated. Thus, away back of the Constitution, in the pure, fresh, free breath of the Revolution, the State of Virginia and the National Congress put that policy in practice. Thus, through more than sixty of the best years of the Republic, did that policy steadily work to its great and beneficent end. And thus, in those five States, and five millions of free, enterprising people, we have before us the rich fruits of this policy. But now, new light breaks upon us. Now Congress declares this ought never to have been, and the like of it must never be again. The ' < sacred right of self-government is grossly violated by it. " We even find some men, who drew their first breath, and every other breath of their lives, under this very restriction, who now live in dread of absolute suffocation, if they should be restricted in the "sacred right" of taking slaves to Nebraska. That perfect liberty they sigh for — the liberty of making slaves of other people — Jefferson never thought of; their own fathers never thought of; they never thought of themselves, a year ago. How fortunate for them they did not sooner become sensible of their great misery ! 0, how difficult it is to treat with respect such as- saults upon all we have ever really held sacred. 1 See this more fully explained on page 4T1 . As it stands here it is not strictly correct. ^ SPEECH <»F LINCOLN. TlIK LollSIANA TLUBITORY. Ihii to rflnm to history. In 1803 we purchased what was th.n called LouiBUum. of France. It in.lu.K.d the present States of lluisiuna. ArkauHas. Missouri, aud Iowa; also the TerrUory of M.n- ues<.l« and the present Ume of contention, Kansas and Nebraska. Shivery already existed amon- the Fren- agitation in the nation. The controversy laste.l several months, and Ix-carae very angry and exciting; the House of lU'i.re- Bentatives voting steadily for the prohibition of slavery m Missouri, and the Senate voting as steadily against it. Threats of breaking up the rnion were freely made; and the ablest public men of the day became seriously alarmed. , THE COMPROMISE. At length a compromise was made, in which, as in all compro- mises, iM.th sides yielded something. It was a law passed ou the 6th day of March. 1820. providing that Missouri might come into the Iniun Nsiih >l:tv.Tv, but il.ai in all the remaining part of the territory purchased of France, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, slavery should never be per- mitted. This provision of law is the Missouri Compromise. In ex- eluding shivrrv north ..f the line, the same language is employed as in the'ordinance of '87. It directly ai.i.lied to b.wa, Minnesota and the preHc-nl l>one of contention, Kansas and Nebraska. Whether Uiere should or should not be slavery south of that line, nothing wai» said in the law. Hut Arkansas constitute.! the principal re- maining part, south of the line; an.l it has since bei-n admitted as a Slave Slate. liy still another rapi.l move, Texas, claiming a boun- dary much farther west than when we parted with her in 1811), was bn.ughl bark to the I'nited States, and admitted into the Union as a SlaTc Suit*-. Then there was little or no settlement in the northern pari of Texan, a consiilerabh' |M)rtion of which lay north of the Mis- miuri line; an«l in the ri'solutions admitting her into the Union, the MiHiMJuri reHtrielion w:m expressly extended westward acro.ss her ler- rilor)'. Thin was in 1>pulation of nearly a hundred thousand ; hud called a convention, formed a State Constitution excluding hlavery ; and was knocking for admission into the Union. The Pniviso men, of course, were for letting her in ; liut the Senate, ulwavH true to the other side, would not consent to her ailmission. And then? California Ht<>ot:intially uu uninliabiUHl country, but now emiLcrulioii t<», and settlement witliin, it lte:e as the presi-ut I'luted Stales, and its iinportauee, so long over- kH)ked. begins to come into view. The restriction of slavery l)y the Missouri Com proini.se direetly ai)plies to it — in fact was first made, and has since Ik'cm :n liiitained. expressly for it. In IS.'):}, a bill to j;ive it a Territoriid government was passed by the House of llepri.'- st'utatives, and, in the hands of Judge Douglas, failed of passing (»nly for want of time. This bill contained no repeal of the Mi.s.souri Compromise. Indeed, when it was assailed because it diil contain such repeal, Jutlge Douglas defended it in its existing form. On January 4, 1854, Judge Douglas introduces a new bill to give Ne- Itraska a territorial government. He accomi)anies tlds bill with a report, in which last he expressly recommends that the Missouri Compromise shall neither be affirmed nor repealed. Before long the l)ill is so moilifled as to make two Territories inst<*ad of one, calling the .southern one Kansas. Also, about a month after the introduction of the hill, on the Judge's own motion, it is so amended as to declare the Missouri Compromisi' inoperative and void ; and, substantially, that the people who go and st-ttle there may establish slavery, or exclude it, as they may .see fit. In this shape, the bill passed both liranches «»f Congress and became a law. This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The history may not be preei>ely :u institutions, with plausibility to taunt us us hyiKKTites ; causes the real fri«'n:e our Itretliren ..f tlie South. When tliev remind us of tiieir constitutional ri;^lits, I :ickiii>\vl- .•dL'«- tliem not •irudiiin^ly. 1)U( fully and fairly ; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not ia its striagency be more likely to carry a free man into clavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one. IJut all this, l«» my jud^mtMt, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to «io into our own free territory, than it would for revivinor the African slave trade l»y law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them into Nebraska, can hardly be dis- tinguished on any moral principle; and tlu- repeal of the former iduld tind (luite as plausible excuses as that of the latter. AIKif.MENTS K(»R TIIK IIEI'K.M,. The ar^^uments by which the repeal of tin- Missouri Compromise is sou<:lit l«i l»e justilied, are these : — rii>l. Tlial the Nebraska eountry needed a Territorial uovern- inent. .^ecoiid. Tliat in varicMis ways, the pul>lii' bad repudiated tliat Compromise, and demanded the repeal, antl thiTefore. should not now complain of it. And lastly. That the repeal establishes a principle whieh is intrinsically ri^ht. ANSWKR. i will attempt an answer to each of them in its turn. First tljen. If that country was in ii«-ed of a Territorial ort;ani- zatioii, could it not liave had it us well without as with the repeal? Iowa and Minnesotji, to both of which the Missouri restriction applied, had, without its repeal, each in succession. Territorial orjianizations. And even the year before, a l)ill for Neiiraska its«'lf was witiiin an ace of passin}{, without tlie repealinj; clause ; and this in tlie liands of the same men who are now the champions of re|>«al. Why no netessity (li'ii f«ir tlu' repi'al? \U\\ still lat* r. when thin very hill whh first l>rou<;lit in, it contained no repeal I'.nt. •oy they, Ix'CuUHc the [H-ople had deniandctl, or ratlu'r commanded, PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 11 the repeal, the repeal was to accompany the organization, whenever that should occur. Now, I deny that the public ever demanded any such thing — ever repudiated the Missouri Compromise, ever commanded its repeal. I deny it, and call for the proof. It is not contended, I believe, that any such command has ever been given in express terms. It is only said that it was done in principle. The support of the Wilmot Proviso is the first fact mentioned, to prove that the Missouri restriction was repudiated in principle, and the second is, the refusal to extend the Missouri line over the country acquired from Mexico. These are near enough alike to be treated together. The one was to exclude the chances of slavery from the whole new acquisition by the lump, and the other was to reject a division of it, by which one-half was to be given up to those chances. Now, whether this was a repudiation of the Missouri Compromise line, in principle, depends upon whether the Missouri law contained any principle requiring the line to be extended over the country ac- quired from Mexico. I contend it did not. I insist that it contained no general principle, but that it was, in every sense, specific. That its terms limit it to the country purchased from France, is undenied and undeniable. It could have no principle beyond the intention of those who made it. They did not intend to extend the line to country which they did not own. If they intended to extend it, in the event of acquiring additional territory, why did they not say so ? It was just as easy to say that "in all the country west of the Mississippi which we now own or may hereafter acquire, there shall never be slavery," as to say what they did say ; and they would have said it, if they had meant it. An intention to extend the law is not only not mentioned in the law, but is not mentioned in an}' contemporaneous history. Both the law itself and the histor}' of the times are a blank as to any principle of extension ; and by neither the known rules for construing statutes and contracts, nor by common sense, can any such pi'inciple be inferred. Another fact showing the specific character of the Missouri law — showing that it intended no more than it expressed ; showing that the line was not intended as a universal dividing line between Free and Slave Territory, present and prospective, north of which slavery could never go — is the fact that, by that very law, Missouri came in as a Slave State, north of the line. If that law contained any prospective principle, the whole law must be looked to in order to ascertain what the principle was. And b}' this rule, the South 12 SPKECII OF LINi DLX. coulil fairly (HHiti-ml that iiiasiuuch as tlu\' g<»l one Slave State north of the line iit the inception of the law, they have a right to have another given them north of it occasionally, now and then, in the indelinite westwanl extension of the line. This tlemonstrates the ahsunlity of attempting to detluce a i)rospective principle from the Missouri Compromise line. When we votml for the Wilmot Proviso, we were voting to keep slavery out of the whole Mexican acipiisilion ; and little did we think that we were thereby voting to Ut it into Nebraska, lying several hundred miles dist.ml. When we voted against extending the Missouri line, little did we think that we were voting to destroy the old line, then of n«'ar thirty years" staniling. To argue that we thus repmliated the Missouri Compromise is no less absurd than it wt)ulil be to argue that because we have so far forlK)riie to actjuire Cuba, we have thereby, in principle, repu- diated our former acquisitions, and determined to throw them out of the I'nion. No less absurd than it would be to say that, because I have ri'fused to build an addition to my hoilse, I thereby have decided to ilestroy the existing house! And if I catch yon setting fire to my house, you will turn upon me and say I i.nstructed you to do it ! The most conclusive argument, however — that while voting for the Wilmot Proviso, and while voting against the extensio.n of the Mis.souri line, we never thought of disturbing the original Missouri Compromise — is found in the fact that there was then, and still is, an unorganized tract of line country, nearly as large as the State of Missouri, lying injmediately wi-st of Arkansas, and south of the Mi.ss«juri Compromise* line ; and that wo never at- tenipteil U) prohibit slavery as to it. I wish particular attention to this. It adjoins the original Missouri Compromise line by its northern Ixiundary. and consecpienlly is part of the country into which, by implication, slavery was permitted to go by that Com- promise. There it has lain open ever since, and there it still lies ; and yet no elFort has bei-n made at any time to wrest it from the Smth. In all our struggh's to prohibit slavery within our Mexican arf{nisitionH, we never so much as lift<'d a finger to prohibit it as to this tract. Is not this entirely conclusive that, at all time.a, we have held tin* MiswMiri Compromise as a Ha<-red thing, even when iigaiuMt ours4-lveH as well as when for us? Senator Douglas sonietinies says the Missouri line itself, was, in principle, only an exteuHion of the line of the onlinanec of "87 — PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBEIl IG, 1854. 13 that is to say, an extension of tlie Ohio river. I think this is weak enough on its face. I will remark, however, that, as a glance at the map will show, the Missouri line is a long way farther south than the Ohio, and that if our Senator, in proposing his extension, had stuck to the principle of jogging southward, perhaps it might not have been voted down so readily. But next it is said that the Compromises of '50, and the ratifica- tion of them by both political parties in '52, established a new principle, which requires the repeal of the Missouri Cfjmpromise. This, again, I deny. I deny it, and demand the proof. I have already stated fully what the Compromises of '50 are. The par- ticular part of those measures from which the virtual repeal of the Missouri Compromise is sought to be inferred, (for it is admitted they contain nothing about it, in express terms,) is the provision in the Utah and New Mexico laws, which permits them, when they seek admission into the Union as States, to come in with or without slavery as they shall then see fit. Now I insist this provision was made for Utah and New Mexico, and for no other place whatever. It had no more direct reference to Nebraska than it had to the territories of the moon. But, say they, it had reference to Nebraska, in principle. Let us see. The North consented to this provision, not becaiuse they considered it right in itself, but because thej^ were compensated — paid for it. They, at the same time, got California into the Union as a Free State. This was far the best part of all they had struggled for by the Wilmot Proviso. They also got the area of slavery somewhat nar- rowed down in the settlement of the boundary of Texas. Also, they got the slave-trade abolished in the District of Columbia. For all these desirable objects, the North could afl'ord to yield something; and they did yield to the South the Utah and New Mexico provision. I do not mean that the whole North, or even a majority, yielded, when the law passed; but enough yielded when added to the vote of the South, to carry the measure. Now can it be pretended that the principle of this arrangement requires us to permit the same provision to be applied to Nebraska, without any equivalent at all ? Give us another Free State; press the boundary of Texas still further back; give us another step toward the destruc- tion of slavery in the District, and you present us a similar case. But ask us not to repeat, for nothing, what you paid for in the first instance. If you wish the thing again, ptiy again. That is the principle of the Compromises of '50, if indeed they had any princi- 14 SPEFXH or LINCOLN. pies beyond their six'cific terms — it was tlie system of equivalents Ajiain : If l'on«jivss, at that time, intended that all future terri- tories should, when atlmitteil as States, come in with or without slav- erj", at their own option, why did it not say so ? With such a universal provision, all know the bills cn. Tlie one part}' first appropriates her own share, beyond all jiower to be disturbed in the possession of it, and then seizes the share of the other party. It is as if two starving men had divided their only loaf ; the one had hastily swallowed his half, and then grabbed the other's half just as he was putting it into his mouth. .\ I'AIIl iiK MLLAIUKS. lift uie liere drop llie main argument, to iiDlice \vh;it 1 consider rather an inferior matter. It is argued that slavery will not go to Kansas and Nebraska, in any event. This is a palliation — a lullaby. I have some hope that it >\ill not ; but let us not be too confident. As to climate, a glance at the map shows that there are five Slave States — Delaware, Maryhunl, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and al.so the District of C'olumiiia, all north of tlie Mi.ssouri Compromise line. The census returns of l>^r»0 show that, wiliiin thesi', there are eight hundred and sixty-seven thousand two hundred and seventy-six slaves-- Ijeing more than one-fourth of all the slaves in the nation. It is not cliniatc', then, that will keep slavt-rv ()nt of thcx- Terri- tories. Is there anything in the pei-idiar n:itiire of the country".'' MinyoMrl adjoins tlic'f 'I'crritc»ries liy her entire western boundarv, ant govern himself? Wheh the white man governs himself, that is self-government ; but when he governs himself, and also another man, that is more than self-government — that is des- potism. If ill'- negro is a man, why, tlicii my ancient faith tcaclics me that "all men are created equal;" .and tliat there can be no monil right in connection with (»ne mans making a slave of anotiicr. .Judge Douglas fre(|uenlly, with bitter irony and sarcasm, para- phraHfg our argunu-nt by saying: 'Tlic while people of Nebraska are good enough to govern themselves, l»ut tlicy are not good cMiough U) govern a few miseralih* negroes ! " Well, I doubt not that the people of Neltraska are, and will i-on- tinue to Im- as g(M»d as the average of people clsewliere I iId n KIVING TUEIU JUST POVTERS PROM THE CONSENT OP THE GOVERNED." I have quoted so much at this time merely to show that ac- cording to our ancient faith, the just powers of governments are derived from the consent of the governed. Now, the relation of master and slave is 2^''o tduto a total violation of this principle. The master not only governs the slave without his consent, but he governs him by a set of rules altogether different from those which he prescribes for himself. Allow all the governed an equal voice in the government ; and that, and that only, is self-government. Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of po- litical or social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary. lam not now combating* the argument of necessity, arising from the fact that' the blacks are already among us ; but I am combating what "is set up as moi-al argument foi allowing them to be taken where they have never yet been — arguing against the extension of a bad thing, which, where.it already exists, we must of necessitj' manage as we best can. THE REVOLUTIONARY FATHERS. In support of this application of the doctrine of self-govern- ment, Senator Douglas has sought to bring to his aid the opinions and examples of our Revolutionary fathers. I am glad he has done this. I love the sentiments of those old-time men, and shall be most happy to abide by their opinions. He shows us that when it WMS in contemplation for the colonies to break off from Great Britain and set up a new government for themselves, several of the States instructed their delegates to go for the measure, providing each State should be allowed to regulate its domestic concerns in its own way. 1 do not quote; but this in substance. This was right. I see nothing objectionable in it. I also think it proljable that it has some reference to the existence of slavery' among them. I will not deny that it had. But had it any reference to the carr3nng of slavery into new countries ? That is the question, and we will let the fathers themselves answer it. L'2 SPEP:rH OF LINCOLN, The same };«MHT:iti(»i» of mt-ii, aiul mostly tlie sainr iiidivuhials "f thf tm{;;la.s thinks tliey were very ineonsistent in this. 1 1 is a (jnes- r.on of iliserimination between them ami him. Hut there is not an ineli of jjronnd left for his elaiminn that their opinions, their example, their authority, are on his side in this eontrovci^y. Afiain, is not Nelmiska, while a Territory, a part of us ? IK) we not own the eountry ? And if we surrender the control of it, do we not surrender the ri<;ht of self-government ? Jt is part of o.ir- selvcs. If you say we shall not control it, because it is only part, the same is true of every other ]>m\ ; a:id when all the parts are L'one, what has become of the whole ? What is then left (»f us? What use for the (leneral (Jovemment, when there is nothing left to govern ? Hut you say this (piestion should l>e left to the i)eople of Ne- braska, because they are more particularly interested. If this be the rule, y<»u must leave it to each individual to say for himself whether lie will have slaves. What better moral right have tiiirtv- one citi/ens of Nebraska to say, that the thirty-second shall not hold slaves, than the pe<»ple of thirty-one States have to say that slavery shall not go into the thirty-second State at all ? liut if it is :i sacn-d right for the people of Nebraska to take and hold slaves there, it is etjually their sacred right to buy them where tln-y can buy them cheapest ; and, that, undoiditedly, will be on the coast of Africa, provided you will consent not to hang them for going Iheiv to buy them. Von must remove this restriction, t«M», from " the sacred right of self-govennnent. " 1 am aware, von say, that talking slaves from the States to Nt'braska does not make slaves of freemen ; but the African sl.ive trailer can sav jusl as HMK-h. lie (Iocs not catch free n«*gn»es and bring them hen-. lie Ibnls them already slaves in the hands of their black caidors, and In honestly buys them at the rale of about a red cotton handkerchief a head. This ;s very cheap an», that it enables the lirst few to deprive the PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 10, 1854. 23 succeeding many of a free exercise of the right of self-government. The first few ma}- get slavery in, and the sul)sequent many can not easily get it out. How common is the remark now in the Slave States : "If we were only clear of our slaves, how much better it would be for us." They are actually deprived of the privilege of (joverning themselves as they would, by the action of a very few in the beginning. The same thing was true of the whole nation at the time our Constitution was formed. A NATIONAL QUESTION. Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new Territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these Territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove from ; not to remove to. New Free States are the places for poor people to go to, and better their con- dition. For this use the nation needs these Territories. Still further: there are constitutional relations between the Slave and Free States, which are degrading to the latter. We are under legal obligations to catch and return their runaway slaves to them, a sort of a dirty, disagreeable job which I believe, as a general rule, the slave-holders will not perform for one another. Then again, in the control of the Government — the management of the partnership affairs — they have greatly the advantage of us. By the Constitu- tion each State has two senators, each has a number of representa- tives, in proportion to the number of its people, and each has a number of Presidential electors equal to the whole number of its senators and representatives together. But in ascertaining the number of the people for this purpose, five slaves are counted as being equal to three whites. The slaves do not vote ; they are only coimted and so used as to swell the in- fluence of the white people's votes. The practical effect of this is more aptly shown by a comparison of the States of South Carolina and Maine ; South Carolina has six representatives, and so has Maine. South Carolina has eight Presidential electors, and so has Maine. This is precise equality so far ; and, of course, they are equal in senators, each having two. Thus in the control of the Gov- ernment, the two States are equals precisely. But how are they in the number of their white people ? Maine has 581,813, while South Carolina has 274,567 ; Maine has twice as many as South Caroliija, L'4 SPEECH OF LINCULX. siml 32,079 over. Thus, vnvh white man in South Carolina is more than ilouhli' any man in Maine. This is all becanse South C'aii»lina, hesiiles her free people has ;;84,!ISi sUives. The iSoulli Carolinian has preeisely the siuue mlvanL:ige over tlie white man in every other Free SUite as well us in Maine. lie is more than the double of any one of us in this erowd. 'I'he same advantajze, but not to the same extent, is held by all the eitizens of the Slave States over those of the Tree; and it is ai;i absolute truth, without an exception, that there is no voter in any Slave State but who has more le«;al power in the Government than any voter in any Free State. There is no instance of exact etpiality; and the disadvantxige is against us the whole chapter through. This principle, in the agirre<;ate. eople are to deciile the (piestion of slavery for themselves; but wIhii they are to decide; or how they are t(» decidt'; or whether when the (juestion is once decided, it is to remain so or is to be subject to an indefinite succession of new trials; the law does not say. Is it to be decided by the first dozen settlers who arrive there, or is it to await the arrival of a hundred? Is it to be decided by u vote of the people'!' or a vote of the Legislature"/ or, indeed by a Vole of any .sort? To these questions the law gives no answer. There is a mystery about this; for when u member proposed to give • the L«'gislature express authorit}' to exclude slavery, it was hooted down by the friends of the bill. This fact is worth remembering. Some Yankees, in the H.-ist, are sending emigrants to Nebraska, to exclude slavery from it: and, so far as I can juilgc. they expect the ({uestion to be decided by voting in some wa}' or other. But the Mis.Hourians are awake loo. They are within a stone's throw of the eonU'sh'd ground. They hold meetings, and pass resolutions, in which not the slighU'st allusion to voting is made. They resolve that Slavery already exists in the Territory ; that more shall go there; that Ihey, n'lnaining in .Missouri, will protect it; and that AlHilitioniMlH shall Ik- hung or driven away. Through all this, iKiwie-knives and six-shooters are seen plainly enough ; but nevi-r a glimpKe of the ballot Ikix. And, n-ally, what is t<. be the result of this? Kach parlv within, having numerous and determined backers without, is it not prolmble thai the cV 'ril.VT ST.WDS KKillT. Some men, mostly Whigs, who condemn the repeal of the Miiiwiuri Coujpromise, nevertheless hesitate to go for its n-sloration, lent they Ik* thrown in colitionisl. Will iIkv dlow UK', as an old Wliitr. to tell tlniu, good luiinorcilly. th:it 1 tliiiiU •liis i^ very Hilly ? Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goc3 wrong. .Stand with the AlM)lilioni.>^t in restoring the .Nli.ssuuri t'ompKtuiisc, PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 29 and stand against him when he attempts to repeal the Fugitive-Slave law. In the latter case you stand with the Southern disunion iot. What of that ? You are still right. In both cases you are right. In both cases you oppose the dangerous extremes. In both you stand on middle ground, and hold the ship level and steady. In both yon are national, and nothing less than national. This is tiie good old Whig ground. To desert such ground because of any com- pany is to be less than a Whig — less than a man — less than an American. I particularly' object to the new position which the avowed prin- ciple of this Nebraska Iitw gives to slavery in the body politic. I object to it because it assumes that there can be moral right in the enslaving of one man by another. I object to it as a dangerous dalliance for a free people — a sad evidence that feeling prosperity, we forget right — that liberty, as a principle, we have ceased to re- vere. THE FATHERS OF THE REPUBLIC. I object to it because the fathers of the republic eschewed and rejected it. The argument of "necessity" was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery ; and so far, and so far only, as it carried them did they ever go. They found tlie institution existing among us, which they could not help, and they cast blame upon the British king for having per- mitted its introduction. Before the Constitution they prohibited its introduction into the Northwestern Territory, the only country we owned then free from it. At the framing and adoption of the Constitution, they forebore to so much as mention the word " slave," or "slavery," in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a " person held to service or labor." ^ In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave-trade for 1 In the convention which originated the Constitution, the clause first read, a " person le- gally held to service or labor," etc. But the word " legally " was stricken out; thus refusing the national sanction even to the legality of slavery, and " making it clear that, in the mean- ing of the Constitution, slavery was local and not federal." And the makers of the Consti- tution were even more careful than this, that no recognition should be allowed to slavery in that instrument. From the " committee of detail " the clause first read, a " person legally held to serritude or labor;" but in convention the word "servitude " w;is unanimously changed to " service," because " servitude " was thought "to express the condition of slaves, 'service' an obligation of free persons."— See Bancroft's "History of the Constitution," Vol. II, pp. 211, 215; or his " History of the United States," Vol. VI, pp. ojO, 3(52, edition of W92.— [a. t. j.] ;iU SPEECH ()E LINCOLN, iwt'iity yt'urs. thai track* is spoken of as " The luignition or impoita- liou of siu-h jHTsous as any of the States now exi>stin«5 shall think proper to ailinit," etc. These are the only provisions alluding to blavi-ry. Tluis the thinjjf is hid away in the Constitution, ]ust as an attliited mm hides awav a wen or eaneer, whieh he dares not cut out at once lest he lileed t<» ileath ; with the promise, nevertlieless, that the eutling inav iK'jjin at the end of a certain time. liess than this our fathers eould not ilo ; and more they would not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther they would not go. lint this is not all. The earliest Congre.ss under the Constitu- tion took the same view of slavery. They liedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity. In 17!U, they prohiluted an out-going slave-trade — that is, the takuig of slaves from the United States to sell. In 17HS, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa into the Mississippi Territory — this Territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was ten years iR'fore they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the Constitution. In 1S0(». they prohiltitcd American citizens from tr;iding ui slaves between foreign countries, as, for instance, from Africa to Hrazil. In lS(i:5. they pas.sed a law in aid of one or two Slave Stale laws, in restraint of the internal slave-trade. In IS(»7, in apparent hot haste, they pa.ssed the law nearly a year in advance, to take elfeet the lirst day of 1808 — the very first day the Con.stitution woidd permit — pndidiiling the African slave- trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties. In I'^liH, fintling these provisions inelfectuai. they declared the slave-trade piracy, and annexed to it the extreme penalty of death. Wliile all this was passing in the (Jeneral (lovernnient. live or six of the original Slave Slates had adopted systems of gradual emancipa- tion ; by whieh the inslituti(»n was rapidly becoming e\tin< t within tlu'M' liniitH. Thus we see the plain, unmistakable spirit of that age, toward Blaverv. wan hostility to the principle, and toleration only by necessity UIK .\M> TIIK NKW K.MTII. But now It is to be transformed into a "sacred right." Xc- bratka brings it forth, ploces it on the high road to extension and PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 31 perpetuity; and with a pat on its back, says to it, "Go and (iod sj)eed 30U. " Henceforth it is to be the chief jewel of the nation — the ver}^ figure-head of the ship of State. Little by little, but steadily as nuin's march to the grave, we have been giving up the old for the new faith. Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal, but now from that begin- ning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles cannot stand together. They are as opposite as God and Mammon ; and whoever holds to the one must despise the other. When Pettit, in connection with his support of the Nebraska hill, called the Declaration of Independence "a self-evident lie," he only did what consistency and candor require all other Nebraska men to do. Of the forty odd Nebraska Senators who sat present and heard him, no one rebuked him. Nor am I apprised that any Nebraska newspaper, or an}- Nebraska orator in the whole nation has ever yet rebuked him. If this had been said among Marions men. Southerners though they were, what would have become of the man who said it? If this had been said to the men who cap- tured Andre, the man who said it would probably have been hung sooner than Andre was. If it had been said in Old Independence Hall, seventy-eight years ago, the very door-keeper would have throttled the man and thrust him into the street. Let no one be deceived. The spirit of seventy-six and the spirit of Nebraska are utter antagonisms ; and the former is being rapidly displaced by the latter. Fellow-countrymen: Americans South as well as North, shall we make no effort to arrest this? Already the liberal party throughout the world express the apprehension "that the one retrograde in- stitution in America is undermining the principles of progress, and fatally violating the noblest political system the world ever saw."' This is not the taunt of enemies, but the warning of friends. Is it quite safe to disregard it — -to despise it? Is there no danger to liberty itself, in discarding the earliest practice, and first precept of our ancient faith? In our greedy chase to make profit of the negro, let us beware lest we " cancel and tear to pieces " even the white man's charter of freedom. Our Republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust. Let us re-purify it. Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not in the blood, of the RcA-olution. Let us turn slavery from its claims of •'moral right" back upon its existing legal rights and its arguments 32 SPEECH »>1^ I.IXcol.N. of '• m'rt'ssity." Ia-I lis nturu it to the position our fathers <;:ive it, :iiiil ilitTc h't it n-st in pt-ai-c. Let us readopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it the practices and palicy which harmonize with it. Ia'I Nortli and South — Itt all Americans — let all lovers of liberty everywhere — join in the i^real and y stating I had assumed all the way through that the princii)le of the Nebraska Itill would have the effect of extending slavery. He denied tiiat this was intended or that this effect would follow. I will not reopen the argument upon this point. That such was the intention, the world Iielieved at the start, and will continue to Ix'lieve. This was the countenance of the thing; and both friends and enemies instantly recognized it as such. That countenance cannot now be changed by argument. You can as easily argue the color of the negros skin. Jjike the "bloody hand," you may wash it and wash it, the red witness of guilt still sticks, and stares hor- ribly at you. Next he says, Congre.ssional intervention never prevented slavery anywhere — that it did not prevent it in the Northwestern Territory, nor in HIinois — that, in fact, Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State ~ that the principle of the Nel)raska bill expelled it from Illinois, from several old States, from everywhere. Now this is mere (juibbling all the w:iy through. If the oniin ance of '87 did not keep slavery out nf the Northwest Territory. Iiow liapiM'iis it that the nortliw«'st slutie K LINCOLN. If till' N('hni-^k:i hill is the ivul author of these beuevuleat worU^^, it is rather ileploralde that it has for so long a time ceased working' altogether. Is there not some reason to suspeet that it was the prineiple of the devolution and not the principle of the Nel)raska bill, tliat led to emancipation in these old States? Leave it to the people of these old emancipation States, and I am (juite certain that thev will decide that neither that nor any other good thing ever did or ever will come of the Nebraska bill. In the course of my main argument, Judge Douglas interrupted me to say that the principle of the Nebraska Itill was very old ; that it originated when God made man, and placed good and evil before him, allowing him to choose for himself, being responsible for the choice he should make. At the time, I thought this was merely playful ; and I answered it accordingly, But in his reply to me, he renewed it as a serious argument. In .seriousness, then, the facts of this proposition are not true as stated. God did not place good and evil before man. telling him to make his choice. (Jn the contrary, he ditl tell him there was one tree, of the fruit of which he should not eat, upon pain of certain death. 1 should scarcely wish so strong a prohibition against slavery in Nebraska. Hut this argument strikes me as not a little remarkable in an- other particular — in its strong resemblance to the old argument for the • Divine right of kings." By the latter the king is to do just as he pleases with his white subjects, being respon- siljle to (I\\\. And so, tlu-re is still no the provisions of this act." Now it is perceived from the reading of this, that there is noth- ing express upon the suliject; but that Hie aulhority is sought to be implied merely, for the general provisions of "all rightful suiijects of legislation. " In reply to this I insist, as a legal rule of construc- tion, as well as the plain popular view of the matter, that the ex- press i)rovision for Utah and New Mexico coming in with slavery if thcv choose, when they shall form Constitutions, is an exclusion of all implied authority on the same subject; that Congress having the subject distinctly in their minds, when they made the express pro- \ision. tlicy therein expressed their whole meaning on that subject. OIIKCOV AM» AVASIIINOTON. The Judge ral.ier insinuated that T had found it convenient to forget the Washington Territorial law passed in 1853. This was a division of Oregon, organizing the northern part as the Territory of Washington. He asserted, that by this act the ordinam-e of 87, theretofore existing in Oregon, was repealed; that nearly :ill the nienilicrs of Congress voted for it. beginning in the House of liepre- sentalives with Charles Allen, of Massachusetts, and ending with Kichard Vates of Illinois; and that he could not understand how those who now opp[>o.se the Neinaska bill, so voted there, unless it was because it was then too soon after both the great political part- ies ha«l ratified the Compromises of 1S50, and thi' ratification there- fore too fresh to be tlu'U repudiated. Now I had seen the Washington act before; and I have carefully examinetl it since; and I aver that there is no repeal of the ordin- ance of 'S7 or of any proliiliitioii of slavery in it. In express terms, there is absolut<*ly nothing in the whole law ii|MHi the subject; in fact, nothing to lead a reader to think oi tiu' subject. To my judgment it is etpially free from every- thing from which repeal can be legally implied; Vnit, however this may U-, are men now to bi* cntrappcul where have I assailed them? For what is it that their life-long enemy shall now make profit liy assuming to defend tiu'in against me, their life-long friend? I go against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; did they ever go for it? They went for the Compro- mises of 1850; did I ever go against them? 'i'iuy were greatly de- voted to the rnion; to the small measure of my ability was I ever le.ss so? Clay and Weltster were dead before this (piestion arose; by wlu'.t authority shall our Senator say tiiey would esimuse his side of it, if alive? .Mr. Clay was the leading spirit in making the .Missouri Compromist-; is it very crediltle that if now alive, he would take the lead in the breaking ;lit. partly l»y tin- invitation of some of you. and partly by luy own inclination. Two wct'ks a«io. Jiulgi- Douglas spokf litTt' on the several subjects of Kansas, the Dred Seott decision, and Utah. I listened to the speech at the time, and have read the report of it since. It was intended to con- trovert opinions which I think just, and to assail (pf>litically, not personally ) those men who, in common witli me, entertain those opinions. For this reason I wished then, and still wish, to make some answer to it, which I now take the opportunity of doing. UTAH. I l>egin with Utah. If it prove to be true, as is probable, that the people of UUdi are in open rebellion to the United States, then Jutlge Douglas is in favor of repealing their Territorial organization, and attaching them to tlii» adjoining States for judicial purposes. I say, too, if they are in rebellion, they ought to be somehow coerced to ol)edience; and I um not now prepared to admit or deny that the Judge's mode of coercing them is not as good as any. The Kepub- licans can fall in with it, without taking back anything they have ever said. To be sure, it would lie a considerable backing down liy Judge Douglas from his much-vaunted doctrine of self-government for the Territories; but this is only additional proof of what was very plain from the beginning, that that doctrine was a mere deceit- ful pretence for the iM-nefit of slavery. Tho.se who could not see that much in the Nebraska act ilself, which forced governors and secretaries, and judges, on the pi-ople of tlii' Territories, without their choice or consent, i-onld not In- made to see, though one should ri.se from the dead. iJut in all this, it is very plain the .ludge evades the only ((Uestion the I'epnblicans have ever pressed upon the iK'mocracy in regard to Utali. That (pieHtion tiie Judge well knew to be this: " If the petiple of Utah shall peacefully form a State Constitution tolerating |K)lygamy. will the Democracy admit them into the Union? ' Thi-re ifl notliin^ in the United States Constitution «ir law against p«»lygamy ; und why is it not a part(»f the Judge's " sacred right of self-govern- [•>"1 SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNE 26, 1857. 41 ment" for the people to have it, or nither to kcci) il, if the}' choose? These questions, so far as I know, the Judge never answers. It might involve the Democracy to answer them either way, and thev go unanswered. KANSAS. As to Kansas. The substance of the Judge's speech on Kansas is an effort to put the Free-State men in the wrong for not voting at the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. He says :— "There is ever}' reason to lioix' and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide in- habitant the free and (juiet exercise of the elective franchise." It appears extraordinary that Judge Douglas should make such a statement. He knows that, by the law, no one can vote who has not been registered ; and he knows that the Free-State men place their refusal to vote on the ground that but few of them have been regis- tered. It is possible this is not true, but Judge Douglas knows it is asserted to be true in letters, newspapers, and public speeches, and borne by every mail, and blown by every breeze to the eyes and ears of the world. He knows it is boldly declared that the people of whole counties, and many whole neighborhoods in others, are left unregistered ; yet he does not venture to contradict the declaration, or to point out how they can vote without being registered ; but he just slips along, not seeming to know there Is any such question of fact ; and comi^lacentl}' declares : — "There is everj- reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartiality executed, so as to insure to everj' bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise." I readily agree that if all had a chance to vote, they ought to have voted. If, on the contrary, as they allege, and Judge Douglas ventures not to particularly contradict, few only of the Free-State men had a chance to vote, they were perfectly right in staying from the polls in a bod}'. By the way, since the Judge spoke, the Kansas election has come off. The Judge expressed his confidence that all the Demo- crats in Kansas would do their duty — including " Free State Demo- crats" of course. The returns received here, as yet, are very incom- plete ; but so far as they go, they indicate that only about one-sixth of the registered voters have really voted ; and this, too, when not more, perhaps, than one-half of the rightful voters have been regis- 42 i^PEECH OF I.lNlOIA". li'iv«l, thus showin;.' llu- tliiii;j:etlH'r tho most exquisite farce ever enarted. I am watehiiij^ witli i-onsideniljle in- terest, to ftscertaiu what ligure '• tiie Free-Stale Democrats ' cut in the concern. Of course they voted — all Democrats do their duty — ami of course tliey did not vote for Shive-State caiidi(hites. We soon sliall know how many delegates they elected, how many candi- dutcs they had |)ledged to a Free State, and how many votes were cast for them. All<»w me to haivly wliLspcr my .sns[)icions that there were no such things in Kansas as " Free-State Democrats " — that they were altogether mythical, good only to figure in newspapers and speeches in the Free Stiites. If there .should prove to be one real living Free-State Democrat in Kansas, I suggest tkat it might be well to catch him, and stulf and preserve his skin as an interesting speci- men of that soon to be extinct variety of the genus Democrat. THE IHIKK SCOTT DECISION. And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two proi>ositi(jns — tirsl that a negro can not sue in tlie United States ("•nirl.s ; and secondly, that Congress can not prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made liy a divided court — dividing diti'erently on the different points, .fudge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision ; and in that respect, I sliall follow his example, lie- lieving I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis, tiian he could on Taney. lie denounces all who (|uesti(»M the correctness of that decision, a-s olfering violent resistance to it. Hut who resists it ? Who has. In spite of the decision, declared Dretl Scott fn-e. and resisted the authority of iiis master over him ? Judicial decisions have two uses first, to absolutely determine the case decided ; and secondly to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called " precedents " and •• authorities." We believ«' as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps more) in obedi- ence to, une disturbe, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and enemies of the Constitution — the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws." Why, this same Supreme Court once decided a national bank to be constitutional; but General Jackson, as President of the United States, disregarded the decision, and vetoed a bill for a re-charter, partly on constitutional ground, declaring that each public function- ary must support the Constitution, "as he understands it." But hear the general's own words. Here they are, taken from his veto message : — "It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its constitution- ality in all its features, ought to be considered as .settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be re- J J SPEECH OP LINCOLN. fjHrded as lU'ciiliiig questions of tonstitutiidial jxiwcr, cxcoi)! wlu're tli.- uc- <|iii«'srriic<' of tlu' iM'ople iinU tlie Stuli-s can br coabidiTi-d as well as si-lll.-d. So Inr from this brin^' tlu* case on this subject, an ar;,'umi'iil a^'ainst tiie b.mU tni^'lil bo based un precedent. One Conf^ress in 1 TiM, decided in lavor t»fa bank- lumllier in 1811, decided ai,'aiiisl it. One Co:i;;n'SS in 1815 de- cided u^rainsl a bank; another, in 181(5, decided in its favor. Prior to tlje pri'sent Conu'ress. tlienfore. the precedents drawn from that source were e(|nal. if we resort to tlu^ Slates, the expressions of legislative, judicial, anil e.\>'cutive opinions against the bank have been probably to iliose in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, tlierefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of tlie act before me." I drop the quot^ition iiierel}' to remark, that all there ever was, iu the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the points tlierein deeidi'tl, has been against that decision. But hear General .lacksDU furtlier: — "If tlie opinicm of tlie Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Govern- ment. The Congress, the executive, and the Court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinions of the Constitution. Each public otlicer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will supiHjrt it as he understands it, and not as it is undi-rstood by others." And again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that hank decision, and applaud General Jackson for disregarding it. It would i»e interesting for him to look over his recent speech, and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us, for resisting Supreme Court decisions, fall upon his own head. It will call to mind a long and fierce iMjlitical war in this country, upon an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was "a distinct issue hetweeii tlu^ friends and the enemies of the Con.stitution ;" and in which war he fought in the ranks of "the enemies of the Constitution." I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in part, based on assumed historical facts which were not really true; and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this. I therefore give an instance or two, which I think fully sustain me. Chief .Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great length that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of hnh'peiidence, or the Constitution of the rnited StateH. On the contrary, .hulge C'urtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows tliat in five of the tlien tliirteen Stati's, to-wit: New ilauipshire, SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNK 2(), 1857. 45 Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina, free negroes were voters; and, in pr()i)oition to their numbers, had the same part in making the Constitution that tlie wliite people had. He shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth, and as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the followin*"- language : — "The Constitution was ordained and established by liie people of lb" United States, through the action, in each State, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of the State. In some of these States, as we have seen, colored persons were among these qualified by law to act on the subject. These colored persons were not only included in tbe body of the United States, by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but in at loast five of tiie States, they had the power to act, and, doubtless, did act, by their sufi'rages, upon the question of its adoption." Again, Chief Justice Taney saj's : — " It is dilikult, at this day, to realize the state of public opinion in re- lation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Inde- pendence, and when tht; Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted " And again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says: " Tlie general words above quoted would seem to include the whole hu- man family, and if tliey were used in a similar instrument at tiiis day, would be so understood." In these words the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it wt\s in the days of the Revolu- tion. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars, the condition of that race has been ameliorated ; but as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way ; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hope- less as in the last three or four j'ears. In two of the .five States — New Jersey and North Carolina — that then gave the free negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away; and in a third — New York — it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single additional State, though the number of the States has more than doubled. In those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their own slaves; but since then, such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation, as to amount almost ir, SPKECIl OK LINCOLN, t«) proliiliilioM. In those days, LfgiHlatun's liclil tin- '.iiujiifsiioiictl |H)\vi'r to iil)olish slavery in their respective SUites; hut now it is In - eoniinj; (juite fushionahic for State Constitutions to withhohl thai pow* r from the Le<;ishitures. In those (hiys, by comujon eonsent, the spread of the Ijhiek man's hon(la<;e to the new countries was prohihiled. hut now, Congress decides that it will not continue tlie pn»hihition; and the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it would. TIIK DKPLARATION OK INUKPKNDEXCE. In those days, our Declaration of Independence was lield sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid iu n)aking the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed, and sneered at. and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the jx)wers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him. ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison- house; they have searched his pereon, and left no prying instruments with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors ui)on him; and now they have him, as it were, Itolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred dif- ferent men, and they scattered to a hundred dilTerent and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the do- minions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossi- bility of his escape more compli-te than it is. It is grossly incorrect to say or assume that the public estimate uth one another. And this is the staple argument of both tlie Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain, unmis- takable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to in- clude all men ; luit they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacit3^ They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal — equal with "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they 48 SPEFX'Il OF LINCOLN, sn'ul. and this tht-y im-aiit. Tlit-y ilul ii<»t mean to assert the obvi- ous uutruth, that ail were then actually enjoyiuj^ that ecjuality, nor yet that they were ai>out to confer it imiuetliately upon them. In faet, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to deeh'.re the riart of the Declaration of Independence which declares that '•all men are created e(iual." Now lit us bear Judge Douglas's view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is: — "No man can viiKlicatc t)»e chnractor, motives, .•iiid conduct of the sijjiH'rs of the Drclaralioii of IiuU-pcudence, e.xcepl upon tlie hyi>othosis tliat Iht'V refi-rri'd to tlie while race alone, and not to the African, when tliey (leclare«l all men to have been created equal — that they were speaking of Itrilish subjects on this continent l>«'in^'e(|ual to Hritisli subjects born and residing in (Jreat Kritain — tliat tliey were enlitlfd to the .same inalij Ihfm wi-re enumeratrd life, liberty, and the pursuit of ha|»|iin<'.ss. Tlw Deehiration was adoptest> of justifyintr tin- rnlunists in the eyes of the oivili/.ed world in withdrawing their alleirianci- from the IJritisli CHiwn and dissoh in;,' llicir eunneetion with tlie nu>tlier country." My goonder wi^ll U|M»n it — see what a mere wreck — mangled ruin, it makes of our once glorious Declaration. " They wen- speaking of Hritish subjects on this continent be- ing etpia I to British subjects borii and residing in Great Britain ! '' SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNE 26, 1857. 49 Why, according to this, not only negroes, but white people outside of Great Britain and America were not spoken of in that instru- ment. The English, Irish, and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure, but the French, Germans, and other white people of the world are all gone to plot along with the Judge's in- ferior races. I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that we < should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condi- tion ! According to that, it gave no promise that, having kicked off the king and lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own in these United States. I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere ; but no, it merely "was adopted for the purpose of justif^dng the colonists in the ej^es of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country." Wh}', that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now — mere rubbish — old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won. I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth" to-morrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present ; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose 3'ou will celebrate ; and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose, after 30U read it once in the old-fashin-savei>i "' for doing so ; and call the indofinite outspreading of his l>ondage ''a sacred rigiit of self-government. " The i)lainest print cannot he read through a gold eagle ; an 1 it will ev«T he hanl to lind many men who will send a slave to JiilK'ria. and j)ay his passage, while they can send him to a new country — Kansas for instance — and sell him for fifteen hundred dollars, and the rise. THE '-IlOrSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF" SPEECH, Af Springfield, June 16, 1S58. [Tho fi)llowin;r speech was delivered at Sprinpfield, 111., at the dose of tiio Ut'i)ublican State Convention iield at that time and place, and by wliiclj Convention Mr. Lincoln liad been named as thrir candidate for Uniti'd Slates Senator. Mr. |)ou<;laswas not present] Mk. Prksidk.vt .vni) (Iknti.k.mkn ok tuk Conventio.n' : If we could lirst khow where we are, and whither we are tending, we could lietter judge what to do, and how to do it. AVe are now far into the (ifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Un- der the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not cea.sed, liut has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until ii crisis shall have been reaclnd and passed. " A liou.se urt met again, did not announce tlnir decision. Imt ordered a re-argument. The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the Court ; l>ut the incoming Pri'sident, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted thi' pcopli' to abide l)y the forthcoming decision, whatever it might l»e. Then, in a few days, came the decision. The n-puted author of the Nebrask:i bill linds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouiK'ing all opposition to it. The new President, t«Mt, si'izes the early occasion of the Sillim:in letter to indorse and strongly construe that (U'cision, and to express his astonishment tliat any dilFerent view had ev»'r been entertainedl At length a srpiabble springs up between the President ami the author of the Nebri'.ska bill, on tlie mere (piestion of /'.xV, whether the Lecompton Constitution was or was not in any just sense made by the people of Kansas; and in that tpiarrtl the latter declares that all her wants is a fair vote for the peoplr. and that he cares not whether slaverv br. It will throw atlditional lijilit on the latter, to go back and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less chirk au'l mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. Tiie people were to l)e left "perfectly free,' ''subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiilers could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Died 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 declaring the right of the people, voted down ? Plainly enough now, — the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott de- cision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Sen- ators individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential elec- tion ? IMainly enough now : the speaking out then would have damaged the '-perfectly free '" argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing Presidents felicitation on tlic indorsement ? Why the delay of a re-argument ? Why the in- coming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision ? The.se things look like the cautious patting and petting of a si)irited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is tlreadetl that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the deci.>^ion by the Prcsiilent and others? We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adajjtations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which w«' know have been gotten out at diHercnt limes and places and l)y ditfcrcnt workmen, — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance, — and when we see these timbers joineil together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the dilfcrent pieces exactly adapted to their re- Bpective places, and not a piece too many or too few, — not omitting even aculfolding, — or. if a single piece be lacking, we sec the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in, — in such a case, we liiiil it imp<»ssible not to bi-lievc that Stephen and Franklin and iloger ami James all nndcr.stood one an- other from tin- beginning, and all worki'd upon a common plan or draft drawn un iMfon- the lirst blow was struck. SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNE 10, 18.J8. 57 <'WITY MENTION A STATE? ' It should not be overlooked that l)y the Nelmiska bill the people of a State as well as Territory were to be left •• perfectly free," •'subject ouh' to tlie Constitution." Why mention a State ? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Cer- tainly the people of a State are and ought to bo subject to the Con- stitution of the United States; but whj' is mention of this lugged into this merely Territorial law? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their rela- tion 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 concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly, this is a mere omis- sion; 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 such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska bill, — I ask, who can be quite sure that it w^ould not have been voted down in one case as it had been in the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska Act. On one occasion, his exact language is, ' ' Except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the sub- ject of slavery within its jurisdiction." In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the Territories, was left open in the Nebraska Act. Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its 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 sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. 58 SPEECH or LINCOLN. Sufli :i (Kcision is all that slavery now lacks of i)einossibly sh<»w that it is less a sacred right to buy tliem where they can be l»ought cheapest ? And unquestionably they can i»e bought cheap<*r in Africa than in A'irginia. He luis done all in hi.s power to reduce the wh(»Ie (piestion of slavery to one of a mere riglit of property; and. as such, how can heoppo.se the foreign slave trade? H<»w can he refuse that trade in that " properly "' shall be "per- fectly free," uidess he docs it as a |)rotection to the home produc- tion ? And as the home producers will probably not ask llu' jirolci'- tion. Ih* will be wholly witli<»ul a ground of opposition. Si'uator Doiigl.Ms h<»lds, we know, that a man may rightfidly be wiser today ihan In* w.as yesterday; that he may rightfully change when he finds iiiniself wrong. But can we. for Ihat rea.soii. run aiiead, and infer that he will make any parlieidar change, of wiiich SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNE 16, 1858. 59 he himself has given no inlimation ? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference ? Now, as ever, T wish not to mis- represent Judge Douglass position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle, so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly he is not now with us; he does not pretend to be, — he does not promise ever to be. Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends, — those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who ao care for the result. Two years ago the Repub- licans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements w«e gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the con- stant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enem}'. Did we brave all then, to falter now, — now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent ? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail — if we stand firm, we sh
l" DolCLAS. Ii:iv»' tin- lijilil to (U'c'iiU' for llicmsi'lves whethiT slavi-rv sluill or 8halt not exist within their limits. I \\:i\v seen tlie tinje wIkm that prineiple was eontroverted. I have si-t-n tlie time when all parlies did nc»t reeosziiize the ri^ht of a pfo[tlf to have slavery or freedom, to tolerate «>r prohihit slavery as they deiin hest, hut elaimed that power ft»r the Conj^ress of the United States, re<>;ardless of the wishes of the people to be affeeted by it ; and when I found upon the Crittfudcn-Moiitiiomery bill the Republicans and Americans of the North, anil 1 may say, too, some glorious Amerieans and Old- line Wliijjs from the South, like Crittenden and his patriotic associ- ates, join«Ml with a i)ortion of the Democracy to carry out and vindicate the rii^ht of the people to decide whether slavery should or should not exist within the limits of Kansas — I was rejoiced within my secret soul, for I saw an indication that the American people, when they come to understand the principle, would give it their cordial support. The Crittenden-Montgomery Itill was as fair and as perfect an exposition of the doctrine of popular sovereignty as could be carried out by any bill that man ever , aft -r the passage of the Compromise measures of that ye:ir, when I retunn-d to my home there was great dissalisfacti(»n expressed at iny course in supporting tlui.se measures. I appi'ared l)ef«M"e the |M'opIe of Chicago at a mass meeting, and vindicated each antl every one of tlio.si- measures ; and by n-fereiice to my speech on that occnsion, which was printol and cireul:ited Itroadcast through- out tin* Stat«' at the time. Vou will find that I then ami there s.aid CHICAGO, ILI.., .ITLY !), 1858. 63 thut those measures were till foiuKled upon the great principle that every people ought to possess the right to form and regulate their own (loiuestic institutions in their own way, and that that right being possessed liy the people of the States, I saw no reason why the same principle should not be extended to all of tlie Territories of the United States. A general election was held in this State a few mouths afterward, for members of the Legislature, pending which all these questions were thoroughly canvassed and discussed, and the nominees of the different parties instructed in regard to the wishes of their constituents upon them. Wiien that election was over, and the Legislature assembled, they proceeded to consider the merits of those Compromise measures, and the principles upon which the}' were predicated. And what was the result of their action ? They passed resolutions, first repealing the Wilmot Proviso instructions, and in lieu thereof adopted another resolution, in which they declared the great principle which asserts the right of the people to make their own form of government and establish their own institutions. That resolution is as follows : — "■Re^wked, Tliat our librrty and independence are based upon the right of the people to iorm lor tliemselves such a government as they maj' ehoose; that this great i)rinciple, the birthright of freemen, tlie gift of ll.',;\en secured fo us by the blood of our ancestors, ought to be secured to future generations, and no limitation ought to be applied to this power in the organization of any Territory of the United States, of either Ter- ritorial Government or State Constitution, ])rovided the Government so established shall be Republican, and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States." That resolution, declaring the great principle of self-government as applicable to the Territories and new States, passed the House of Representatives of this State by a vote of sixty-one in the affirma- tive, to only four in the negative. Thus you find that an expres- sion of public opinion — enlightened, educated, intelligent public* opinion — on this question by the Representatives of Illinois in 1851 approaches nearer to unanimity than has ever been obtained on an}' controverted question. That resolution was entered on the journal of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, and it has remained there from that day to this, a standing instruction to her Senators, and a request to her Representatives in Congress, to carr}^ out that prin- ciple in all future cases. Illinois, therefore, stands pre-eminent as the State which stepped forward early and established a platform applicable to this slavery question, concurred in alike by Whigs and 04 SPEECH <>1' l)t»r(iLAS. PtMUOcrats. in which il was ilcrhin'(l to hi- tht- wish of our p('oi)k' that thiTfaflt-r Ihr |)t'oj)k* of the Tcrritorit's should hi- k*ft perfeclly frt'i* to form ami rt'j^uhitc tht'ir tloiui'stic institutions in tht'ir own way. and that no limitation should be placed upon that right in any form. lii-nei'. what was my duly in IS.')!, wlicn it became necessary to bring forward a bill for tlie organisation of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska? Was it not my duty, in obedience to the Illinois platform, to your standing instructions to your senators, adopted with almost entire unanimity, to incorporate in that bill the great principle of self-government, declaring that it was "the true intent and meaning of the Act not to legislate slavery into an}' State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States'"? I did incorporate that principle in the Kansas-Xebraska Itill, and perhaps I did as much as any living man in the enactment of that bill, thus establishing the doctrine in the public policy of the country. 1 then defended that princii)le against the assaults of one section of the Union. During, this last winter it became my duty to vindicate it against assaults from the other section of the Fnion. I vindicated it boldly and fearlessly, as the people of Chi- cago can bear witness, when it was assailed l)y Frce-soilers ; and during this winter I vindicated and defended it as boldly and fear- lessly when it was attempted to be violated by tiic almost united South. I pledged myself to you on every stunii» in Illinois in 1S54, 1 ph*dg«'(l myself to the jjcople of other States. North and South, wherever I sj)oke ; anil in the United States Senate and elsewhere, in every form in which 1 coiiM reacii tiii- pultlic mind or the public i-ar, 1 gave the pledge that 1. so far as the power should be in my hands, wouhl vindicate the principle of the right of the pet>p!e to f«)rm their own institutions, to establish Free States or Slave States as they ch(»se, and that that principle should never be violated either by frauil, by violence, by lircumvention, or by any other means, if it was in my power to prevent it. I now submit to you, my fellow-citi/.cns, whether 1 have not redeemed that pledge in gcK)d faith. Yes, my friends. 1 iiave redeemed it in good faith ; and it Ih a matter of heart-felt gratilication to me to see these as- wmbled thousands here t«)-night hearing their testimony to tlu'liilel- ity with which I have advocated thai priniij)!*'. and redeemed my pledges in coniiecti(Mi with it. CHICAGO. ILL.. JULY 9, ISoS. 65 T will l»e entirely frank with you. My object was to secure the right of the people of each State and of each Territory, North or South, to decide the question for themselves, to have slavery or not^ just as they chose ; and my opposition to the Lecompton Constitu- tion was not predicated upon the ground that it was a pro-slavery constitution, nor would my action have been different had it been a Free-soil constitution. My speech against the Lecompton fraud was made on the 9th of December, while the vote on the slavery clause in that constitution was not taken until the 21st of the same month, nearly two weeks after. I made my speech against the Lecompton monstrosity solely on the ground that it was a violation of the fun- damental principles of free government ; on the ground that it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas ; that it did not em- body their will ; that they were averse to it ; and hence, I deny the right of Congress to force it upon them, either as a Free State or a Slave State. I deny the right of Congress to force a slave-holding State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a Free State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a good thing upon a people who are unwilling to receive it. The great principle is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to adopt it ; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, the right of free judgment, upon the ques- tion is dearer to every true American than any other under a free government. My objection to the Lecompton contrivance was that it undertook to put a constitution on the people of Kansas against their own will, in opposition to their wishes, and thus violated the principle upon which all our institutions rest. It is no answer to this argument to say that slavery is an evil, and hence should not be tolerated. Yon must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is a good or an evil. You allow them to decide for them- selves whether they desire a Maine liquor law or not ; you allow them to decide for themselves what kind of common schools they will have, what S3'stem of banking they will adopt, or whether they will adopt any at all ; you allow them to decide for themselves the relations between husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, — in fact, you allow them to decide for themselves all other questions ; and why not upon this question ? Wheirever you put a limitation upon the right of any people to decide what laws they want, you have destroyed the fundamental principle of self- government. (56 SPEECH OF I H)r(; LAS, In c-oiiiH-rtiun with this siiltjfct. i)i'rh:ip.s it will not lie iiniinipiT for wt' on this occasion to alhulc to the position of those who liave chosen to arniijin my condnct on this same siil)ject. 1 liave ol)- served from tlie piililic prints tliat ImiI a few days a«!;o the Hepultli- can partvof the State of Illinois assenil)led in convi-ntion at Siiiinji- lieM, and not only hiid down their platform, but nominated a candi- ihite fitr the United States Senate, as my successor. I take great pleasure in sayin*; that I have known, personally and intimately, for altout a (piarter of a century, the worthy gentleman who lias tieeu nominateil for my placi-, and I will .say that 1 rej^ard him as a kind, amiable, and intelligent <;entlenian, a gootl cili/en and an honorable op|M)nent ; and whatever issue 1 may have with him will lie of prin- ciple, and not involving personalities. Mr. Lincoln made a speech before that Republican Convention which unanimously nominated him for the Senate, — a speech evidently well prepared and carefully written, — in which he states the basis upon which he proposes to carry on the campaign during this summer. In it he lays down two distinct i)ropositions which 1 shall notice, and upon which 1 shall take a direct and bold issue with him. His first and main proposition 1 will give in his own language, seripture (piotations and all 1 laughterj ; I give his exact language : '•'A liouse ilivided against itself cannot stand.' 1 believe this Government cannot endure, permanently, half shar and hi\\[/rerty ami imtsoiuU fit'cdom. Fni- foriuity is tlu' part'iil uf despotism the world over, not only in poli- ties. I)nt in relijiion. Wherever the doetrine of uniformity is pro- elainu'tl. that all the States must be free or all slave, thai all labor must l)ewliite or all blaek, that all the citizens of the different States must have the same privileges or be governed by the same regula- tions, you have destroyed the greatest safeguard which our institu- tions have thrown around the rights of the citizen. How couUl this uniformity be accomplished, if it was desirable and possible ? There is but one mode in which it could be obtained, and that must be by abolishing the State Legislatures, blotting out State sovereignty, merging the rights and sovereignty of the States in one consolidated empire, and vesting Congress with the plenary power to make all the police regulations, domestic and local laws, uniform throughout the limits of tin- liepublic. When you shall have done this, you will have uniformity. Then the States will all be Slave or all be Free; then negroes willvote everywhere or nowhere; then you will have a Maine liquor law in every State or none; then you will have uniformity in all things, local or domestic, by the authority of the Federal (Jovernment. Hut when you attain that uniformity, j-ou will have converted these tiiirty two sovereign, uidependent States into one consolidated empire, with the uniformity of disposition reigning triumphant throughout the length and Invadth of the loud. From this view of the case, my friends, I am driven irresistibly to tiie conclusion that diversity, tlissimilarily, variety, in all our local and «lomestic institutions is the great safeguard of our liberties, and that the framers of our mstitutions were wise, sagacious, and patriotic when they made this Government a confederation of sover- eign States, with a legislature for each, and conferreil upon each iegislatiin' the power to make all local and domestic institutions to suit the people ii represented, without interference from any other State or from the general Congress of the Fnion. If we expect to muintani our liberties, we must preserve the rights and sovereignty of the Sl.iles; we must maintain and vmvv out that great principle of Helf-governnn'nt iucorporati-d in the Coinpromise measures of iwr>l), indv, coiiHihtent with the good of the society in which he liveil. But you may ask me. What an* these rights aneopIe of Illinois heretofore. I stand by the Democratic organization, yield obeilience to its usages, and support its regular nominations. I in; him, and was otherwise very cour- teously treated by him and by his friends, and for which I thank him and then«. nurinji the course of his remarks my name was mentioned in such a way as, 1 suppo.se, renders it at least not im- proper that I shoidd make some sort of a reply to him. 1 shall not attempt l<< follow him in the pn-cise order in which he addressed the tt.sMembl«'inj^ lit'yontl lli:il, l>y wiruli tliiTt* is coulrilttition <»f iiioncy or sntTiik-e of i)riiiciple on the oiu' side or tlu' otlu-r, so far as the U('i)iil)li('aii parly is concerned, — if then* be any such thinji, i protest that I ndthfT know anythint^ of it. nor d») I hciieve it. 1 w*dl, however, say, as I think tiiis itrancli of the ar<.;iiinent is lut!;nee tell nie of an ar1' LINCOLN, to be 80. All that space' of liiiie thai runs fmiu the beginning of the settlement of llie Territory until there is sullicieuey of people to make n State constitntion, — -all that portion of time Popular Sovereignty is given up. The seal is abolutely put down upon it liy th' eourt derision, and .Judge Douglas puts his own upon the top of that; yet he is appealing to the people to give him vast credit for his devotion to Popular Sovereignty. [Applause.] Again, when we get to the question of the right of the people to form a State Constitution as they please, to form it with slavery or without slavery, — if that is anything new, I confess I do nt know it. Has there ever been a time when anybody said that any other than the people of a Territory itself should form a constitution? What is now in it that Judge Douglas should have fought several years of his life, and pledge himself to fight all the remaining years of bis life, for? Can Judge Douglas find anybody on earth that said that anyijodyel.se should form a constitution for a jjcople? [A voice, ''Yes. "1 Well, I should like you to name him; 1 should like to know who lie was. [Same voice, "John Calhoun. ""] Mr. Lincoln. — Xo, sir, I never heard of even John Calhoun say- ing such a thing. He insisted on the same principle as Jutlge Douglas, but his mode of ai)plying it, in fact, was wrong. It is enough for my purpose to ask this crowd whenever a Republican said anything against it. They never said anything against it, l)ut they have constantly ^l)oken for it; and whoever will undertake to examine the platform, and the speeches of responsible men of the party, and of irresponsible men, too, if you please, will be unable to find one word from anybody in the Kepublican ranks opposed to that Popular Sovereignty which .Iudg«' Douglas thinks that he has invented. I suppo.se that Judge Douglas will claiiu. in a little while, that he is llu* invt-ntor of the idea that the |)cople should govern themsidves; that nobody ever thought of such a thing until he brought it forward ! We do not remember that in that old Declaration of Independence it is said that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created ei|Ual; that they are endowed liy their Creator with lerlain inalienable rights; that amcmg the.se are lif<'. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; tliat to secure these rights, governments are instituti'd among men, deriving their jnsf pECOMPT()N CONSTITUTION. The Locompton Coustitutioii connects itself Avitli this question, tor it is in this matter of the Lecompton Constitution that our friend Judge Douglas claims such vast credit. I agree that in opi)osing the Lecompton Constitution, so far as I can perceive, he was right. I do not deny that at all; and, gentlemen, you will readily see why I could not deny it, even if I wanted to. But I do not wish to; for all the Repuijiicans in the nation opposed it, and they would have opposed it just as much without Judge Douglas's aid as with it. They had all taken ground against it long before he did. Why, the reason that he urges against that Constitution, I urged against him a year before. I have the printed speech in my hand. The argu- ment that he makes, why that Constitution should not be adopted, that the people were not fairly represented nor allowed to vote, I pointed out in a speech a 3ear ago, which I hold in my hand now, that no fair chance w^as to be given to the people. ["Read it. Read it."] I shall not waste 3'our time by trying to read it. [''Read it. Read it."] Gentlemen, reading from speeches is a very tedious business, particularly for an old man that has to put on spectacles, and more so if the man be so tall that he has to bend over to the light. A little more, now, as to this matter of Popular Sovereignty and the Lecompton Constitution. The Lecompton Constitution, as the Judge tells us, was defeated. The defeat of it was a good thing, or it was not. He thinks the defeat of it was a good thing, and so do I, and we agree in that. Who defeated it ? ..4 Voice. — Judge Douglas. Mr. Lincoln. — Yes, he furnished himself, and if you suppose he controlled the other Democrats that went with him, he furnished three votes; while the Republicans furnished twouglas did it. Tlio jji-oportiici «)f opposition to that lui'asure is aiiout livt- to oni'. A Voice. — Why dont they coiue «jut on it V .}fr. Liiici'tii. — You don't know what you are tidkin^ al)out, my friiMnl. I am (piite willing; to answer any gentleman in the crowd who asks an int'l/iifnt (piestion. Now, who in all this e«)untry has ever found any oi' our friends of Judge Douglas's way of tlunking, autl who have acted upon this main (juestion, that has ever thought of uttering a word in hehalf of Judge Truml)ull ? .1 Voice. — We have. JAr. Lincoln. — I defy you to show a {printed resolution passed in a Democratic meeting — I take it upon myself to defy any man to show a printed resolution of a Democratic meeting, large or small — in favor of Judge Trumbull, or any of the five to one Republicans who beat that bill. Everything must be for the Democrats ! They did everything, and the live to the one that really did the thing, they snub over; and they do not seem to rememl)er that they have an exisU'nce upon the face of the earth. rrentlemen, I fear that I shall become tedious. I leave this branch of the suliject to take hold of another.' I take up ihat part of Jud.;e Douglas's speech in which he respectfully attended to me. THE IS.SUKS OF THE C.VMPAKJN. Judge Douglas made two points upon my recent speech at Springlkld. lie says they are to be the issues of this campaign. The lirst one of these points he l>ases upon the language in a speech which I delivereil at Springfield, which 1 believe lean (juote correctly from memory. I said tluri' that 'Mve are now far into the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowetl object, and witlj the confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agiUition; under the oiKjration of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but lias constantly augnu'iitcd." " I believe it will not cease until a cri- sis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itscdf cannot stand.' I believe this Government cannot endure per- manently of half Slave and half Free. " "I do iu)t expect the Tnion to be dissolved," - I am (putting from my speech, - "I do not ex- pect the house t«» fall, but 1 do expect it will cea.se to be divided. Il will become ail on<' thing or all the other. Kither tli(> opponents CHICAGO, IJ>L., .ITLY 10, 1858. 81 of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and phice it where the public uiiud shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ulti- mate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, Xortli as well as South.'" That is the paragrapli. In this paragraph, which I have (juotcd in 3-our hearing, and to which I ask the attention of all, Judge Douglas thinks he discovers great political heres}-. I want your attention particularly to what he has inferred from it. He says I am in favor of making all the States of this Union uniform ni all their internal regulations; that in all their domestic concei'ns I am in favor of making them entirely uniform. He draws this in- ference from the language I have quoted to you. He says that I am in fa'\'or of making war by the North upon the South for the extinction of slavery; that I am also in favor of inviting (as he expresses it) the South to a war upon the North for the purpose of nationalizing slavery. Now, it is singular enough, if you will care- fully read that passage over, that I did not say that I was in favor of anything in it. I only said what I expected would take place. I made a prediction only, — it may have been a foolish one, perhaps. I did not even say that I desired that slavery shouM be put in course of ultimate extinction. I do say so now, however, so there need be no longer any difficulty about that. It may be written down in the great speech. Grentlemen, Judge Douglas informed you that this speech of mine was probably carefull}^ prepared. I admit that it was. I am not master of language; I have not a fine education; I am not cap- able of entering into a disquisition upon dialectics, as I believe you call it; but I do not believe the language I emploj'ed bears any such construction as Judge Douglas puts upon it. But I do n't care about a quibble in regard to words. I know what I meant, and I will not leave this crowd in doubt, if I can explain it to them, what I really meant in the use of that paragraph. I am not, in the first place, unaware that this Government has endured eighty-two years half Slave and half Free. I know that. I am tolerabl}' well acquainted with the history of the countiy, and 1 know that it has endured eighty-two years half Slave and half Free. 1 believe — and that is what I meant to allude to there — I believe it has endured, because during all that time, until the introduction of the Nebraska bill, the public mind did rest all the time in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. That was what 6 S2 ^I'KK.t H OF I.IXCDLN, jxavi' us till* rt'sl thai \vi' luul llirourin«;in«r ahout an amalgamation of all the other little things in the I'nion. Now, it so hajipens — anil there. I presume, is the foundation of this mistake— that the Judge thinks thus ; and it so happens that there is a vast portion of the American people that do not look upon that matter as being this very little thing. Thev look upon it as a vast moral evil ; they can prove it as such by the writings i»f those who gave us the blessings of liberty which we enjoy, and that they so looked upon it, and not as an evil merely conlining itself to tlie States where it is situated ; and while we agree that, by the Consti- tution we assented to, in the States where it exists, we have no right to interfere with it, because it is in the Constitution ; and we are by both duty and inclination to stick by that Constitution, in all its letter and spirit, from beginning to end. So much, tlien, as to my disposition — my wish — to have all the State Legislatures blotted out, and to have one consolidated Govern- ment, and a uniformity of domestic regulations in all the States, — by which I suppose it is meant, if we raise corn here, we must make sugar-cane grow here too ; and wc must make those things wliich grow North grow in the South. All this I suppose he understands I am in favor of doing. Now, so much for all this nonsense ; for I must call it so. The Judge can have no issue with me on a rpies- tion of establishing uniformity in the domestic regulations of the States. THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. A little now on the other jjoint. — the Dred Scott decision. An- other of the issues he says that is to Ik' made with me is upon liis devotion to the l)red Scott ch'cision. and my opposition to it. I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposition to the Dred Scott decision ; but I should be allowed to state the nature of that opposition, and I ask your indulgence while I do so. What is fairly implied by the term Judge Douglas has used. •• resistance to the decision "? I do not resist it. If I wanted to take Dred Scott from his master, I would be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty that Judge Douglas speaks of. of interfering with property, would arise. But I am doing no such thing as that, but all that I am doing is refusing to obey it as a political rule. If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether CHICAGO, ILL., JULY K), l«."i8. 85 slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should. That is what I should do. Judge Douglas said last night that before the decision he might advance his opinion, and it might be contrary to the decision when it was made ; but after it was made he would abide by it until it was reversed. Just so ! We let this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse that decision. [Applause. J We will try to put it where Judge Douglas would not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. Somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made, and we mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably. What are the uses of decisions of courts ? They have two uses. As rules of property they have two uses. First, they decide upon the question before the court. They decide in this case that Dred Scott is a slave. Nobody resists that. Not only that, but they say to everybody else, that a person standing just as Dred Scott stands, is as he is. That is, they say that when a question comes up upon another person, it will be so decided again, unless the court decides in another way, unless the court overrules its decision. Well, we mean to do what we can to have the court decide the other way. [Re- newed applause.] That is one thing we mean to try to do. The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws around this decision is a degree of sacredness that has never been before thrown around any other decision. I have never heard of such a tiling. Why, de- cisions apparently contrary to that decision, or that good lawyers thought were contrary to that decision, have been made l)y that ver}- court before. It is the first of its kind ; it is an astonisher in legal history. It is a new wonder of the world. It is based upon falsehood in the main as to the facts ; allegations of facts upon which it stands are not facts at all in many instances, and no de- cision made on any question — the first instance of a decision made under so many unfavorable circumstances — thus placed, has ever been held by the profession as law, and it has always needed con- firmation before the lawyers regarded it as settled law. But Judge Douglas will have it that all hands must tuke this extraordinary decision, made under these extraordiuary circumstances, and give their vote in Congress in accordance with it, yield to it, and obey it in every possible sense. Circumstances alter cases. Do not gentlemen here remember the case of that same Supreme Court, some twenty-five or thirty years ago deciding that a National Bank was constitutional ? I ask, if somebody does not remember that a 86 SIM'.KCII y>V 1.1N( ol.N. N-itional Hank was .l.-daml to l)o constUutioual ? SiuU is ihe truth wlu-Uu-r it hv nM.u-ml.crcHl nr not. The Bank charter ran oi.t, and a re-chart.r was ^ranUnX by Contrress. That n-c-harU-r was hua lK-f..ro (Jeneral .lac-kson. It was ur-e.l u|,..n him, when he denied the e..nstitnti<.nality of the Uank. that the Supreme Court ,,,,l ae.ided that it was eonstituti<.nal ; and that (Jenera Jackson then said that the Supreme Court had no right to hiy down a rule to govern a co-ordinate branch of the Government, the mem- bers of which had sworn to support the Constitution; that each member had sworn to support the Constitution as he understood it. I will venture here to say that 1 ha v. h.-ard -lu.lge Douglas say that he ,pproved of General Ja.-ks<.n for that act. What has now become of •ill his tirade about "resistance to the Supreme Court ? My fellow-citizens, getting back a little,- for I pass from these points,- when Judge Douglas makes his threat of anM.lulat.on l.pon the '• alliance,- he is cautious to say that that warfare of las is to fall upon the haw ivstless, nml tin- tiim- will foim* w)i«mi thfv will coiuf biifk again ami n*organi/A', if not by tiie same jiaun*, at ii-asl upon llu' same prini-ipk-s as llii'ir party now has. It U l»et- tiT, tlu'n, to savf tin* work while it is Itegiin. Ynce, at least, — in the course of Judge Douglas's speech last night, reminded tiiat this Government was made for white men; that he believed it was made for white nu-n. Well, that is putting it into a shape in which no one v.ants to deny it; Init the Judge then goes into his passion for drawing inrrrciiccs tiiat are not warranlt-d. I i)rotest now and forever, against that counterfeit logic which presumes that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that 1 need not have her for either, but, as (Jod made us separate, we can leave one another alone, and do one another much good thereby. There are wliite men enough to marry all the white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women; and in Gods name let them be so married. 'J'lie Judge regales us with the terrible enormities that take place by the mi.\ture of races; that the inferior race bears the superior down. Why, Jmlge, if we do not let them get together in the Territories, the y won't mix there. A ]'t>iri. — "Three cheers for Lincoln." (The cheers were given with a hearty good will.) Mr. JJiudIh. — 1 should say at least that that is a self-evident truth. Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, some- time about the fourth of July, for some rea.son or other. These fourth of July gatherings I suppo.se have their uses. 1 f you will inibdge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them. \\\' are n<»w a mighty nation; we are thirty, or about thirty millioUH of people, and we own and iidiabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry lar)d of the wlnde earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for aljout eighty -two ye.ns, and we discover CHICAGO, ILL., JULY 10, lS.-)8. 89 that we were then :i very smull people iu point of numljers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country, with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men; we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men; they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity which we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done iu this process of time, of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves, we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age and race and country in which we live, for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men descended by blood from our ancestors among us, perhaps half our people, who are not descendants at all of these men; they are men who have come from Europe, — German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian, — men that have come from Europe them- selves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glori- ous epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us; but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that ' ' We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal;' and then they feel that that moral sentiment, taught in that day, evidences their relation to tlicse men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declara- tion [loud and long-continued applause] ; and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patri- otic and liberty-loving men together ; that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.] Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of «(0 SPF.Kcn t)l' I,IN(()|,\. »• do n't cMiv if slavi-ry is ve arguiiK'iils that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as niiieh allowance as they arc capable of enjoying ; tliat as mmh is to be done for them as iheir condition will allii have extended me, and hy tlie kind and complimentary sentiments yuii have expressed toward me, is Itut a feehle expression of the feelini>;s of my heart. I appear before you this evening for the purpose of vindicating the course which I have felt it my duty to pursue iu the Senate of the United States upon the great public questions which have agi- tated the country since 1 last addressed 3'ou. I am aware that my senatorial course has been arraigned, not only by political foes, but by a few men pretending to belong to the Democratic p:irty, and yet acting in alliance with tlie enemies of that party, for the i)urpose of electing Republicans to Congress in this State, in place of the pre- sent Democratic delegation. 1 desire your attention whilst I address you, anil then I will ask your verdict whether I have not in all things aeteil in entire good faith, and honestly carried out the prin- ciples, the professions, and the avowals wiiicli I made iiefore my constituents previous to my going to the Senate. During tlie last session of Congress the great question of con- troversy has been the admission of Kansas into the I'nion under the Leeompton Constitution. 1 neeil not infoi'm you that from the be- ginning to the end I took bold, determined, and unrelenting ground in opposition to that Lecomi)t()n Constitution. My reason for that coinhf is contained in the fact that that instrument was not the art and ileetj of the people of Kansas, and did not einlmdy tiieir will. I hold it U) be a fundamental principle in all free govi-rnuK'nts — a |jrinci(»le a.sserte(l in tiie Declaration of liuh'pt'ndence, and unilerly- ing tlie Constitution of the Cnited States, as well as the Constitu- tiL()()M'X(i'r()X, il.L., .ITLV Ki, l.s:)8. !»:> holding State, let them have it; and if they want a Free State they have aright to it; and it is not for the people of Illinois, or Mis- souri, or Xew York, or Kentucky, to complain, whatever the decision of tlie people of Kansas may be upon that point. But ^Yhile I was not content with the mode of submission con- tained in the English bill, and while I could not sanction it for the reason that, in my opinion, it violated the great principle of equality among the ditferent States, yet when it became the law of the land, and under it the question was referred back to the people of Kansas for their decision, at an election to be held on the first Monday in August next, I bowed in deference, bemuse whatever decision the people shall make at that election must be final, and conclusive ' of the whole question. If the people of Kansas accept the propo- sition submitted by Congress ; from that moment Kansas wiil become a State of the Union, and there is no way of keeping her out if you should try. The act of admission will become irrepealable ; Kansas would be a State ; and there would be an end of the controversy On the other hand, if at that election the people of Kansas shall reject the proposition, as is now generally thought will be the case, from that moment the Lecompton Constitution is dead, and again there is an end of the controversy. So you see that either way, on the 3d of August next, the Lecompton controversy ceases and termi- nates forever ; and a similar question can never arise unless some man shall attempt to play the Lecompton game over again. But, my fellow-citizens, I am well convinced that that game will never be attempted again ; it has been so solemnly and thoroughly rebuked during the last session of Congress that it will find but few advocates in the future. The President of the United States, in his annual message, expressly recommends that the example of the Minnesota case, wherein Congress required the Constitution to be submitted to the vote of the people for ratification or rejection, shall be followed in all future cases ; and all we have to do is to sustain as one man that recommendation, and the Kansas controversy can never again arise. My friends, I do not desire you to understand me as claiming for myself any special merit for the course I have pursued on this question. I simply did my duty, — a duty enjoined by fidelity, by honor, by patriotism ; a duty which I could not have shrunk from, in my opinion, without dishonor and faithlessness to my constitu- ency. Besides, I only did what it was in the power of any one man to do. There were others, men of eminent ability, men of wid^ :m; spkkcii <>i" i)(»r(;i.As, rc|iut:iti*)n, ivnowm-tl all (tvt-r Anu'iica, who K'd tin- van, and arc cn- titli'il to the «i;reaU*at shaie of tlu' i-ivdil. Koremo.sl among Ihem all, as lie was head and shoulders above them all, was Kentucky's great and gallant statesman. John J. Crittenden. Hy his course upon this (juestion he has shown himself a worthy successor of the im- mortal Clay, and well may Kentucky l»e proud of him. I will not withhold, either, the meed of praise due the Uepulilican party in Congress for the course which they pursued. In the language of the New York Tn'/iinn, they came to the Douglas jjlatform, altan- doning their own, believing that under tlu- pei-uliar circumstances they would in that moile lieyt sul)serve the interests of the country. My friends, when I am battling for a great principle, I want aid and support from whatever quarter I can get it, in order to carry out that prini-iple. I never hesitate in my course when I lind those who ou all former occasions diH'ered from me upon the principle fuially coming to its sujjport. Nor is it for mo to in(iuire into the motives which animated the Kepublican members of Congress in supporting the Crittenden-Montgomery bill. It is enough for me that in that case they came sorti'rs. He is as siU'Ul as tin- «:ravi' upon that subji-ct. HehuUl Mr. Lincoln courting' JjCfoinpton voli-s, in onk-r that he may iXo to the Senate as the representative of Hcpuhliean principles ! Vou know that the alliance exists. I think you will lintl that it will 007A' out before the contest is over. Kvery llepuhliean paper takes ground willi my Lecouiptou ene- mies, encouraging them, stimulating thein in their oi)positioM to me, and styling my friends l)olters from the Democratic i)arty, and their Lecompton allies the true Democratic party of the country.' If they thiidv that they can mislead and deceive the people of Illinois, or the Democracy of Illinois, hy that sort of an unnatural and unholy alli- ance, I think they show very little sagacity, or give the people very little cnMlit for intclli^r,.,ic('. It must be a contest cf principle. Either the radical Abolition principles of Mr. Lincoln must be main- tained, or the strong, constitutional, national Democratic principles with which I am identified must be carried out. CONDITION (»K TllK l'.\KTV. There can be but two great political parties in this country. The contest this year and in ISGO must necessarily be between the De- mocracy and the Repultlicans, if we can judge from iiresciit indica- tions. My whole life has been identified with the Democratic party. I have devoted all of my energies to advocating its principles and sustaining its organization. In this State the party was never bet- ter united or more harmonious than at this time. The State Con- vention which a.sserabled on the 2d of April, and nominated Fondey and French, was regularly called liy the State Central Committee, appointed by the i)rcvious State Conventicm for that purpose. The meetings in each county in the State for the appointment of delegates to the Conventicm were regularly calld by the county committi-cs, and the proceedings in every county in the State, as wi-ll as in the Stale Convention, were regular in all respects. No convention was ever more harmonious in its action, or showed a more tolerant and just spirit toward brother Democrats. The leaders of the i)arty there assembled, declared their unalterable attachment to the time- honored principles and org.ini/atioii of the Democratic party, and to th.- Cincinnati platform. They declan-d thai that platform was the only uuth(tritative exposition of Democratic principles, and that it must so slaiKl until changed Ity anothi-r National Convention : lli;ii ill the mean time they wouii" i)nr(;i,As. v\n-r to tlu'si- ^Tt'iil fiiiuUiiiM-ntul nriiic-u.Us uix.n \vliich our (icvt-rn- im-iil is foumlfd is tin- triK- iii(.r the Hubject of slavery in Kintiicky. or Virginia, or any ollur Sl.itt" ..f HLooMlNtiToX, ILL., JULY K). ;,s.-..s. jqI tkis Union? How, then, is :jr. Lincoln goi„g to carry out that principle which he says is essential to tlie existence of this Union to wit: That slavery must be abolished in all the States of the Union, or must be established in them all? You convince the South that they must either establish slavery in Illinois, and in every other Free State, or submit to its al)olition in every Southern State and you invite them to make a warfare upon the Northern States in order to establish slavery, for the sake of perpetuating it at home. Thus Mr. Lincoln invites, by his proposition, a war of sections, a war between Illinois and Kentucky, a war between the Free States and the Slave States, a war between the North and the South for the purpose of either exterminating slavery in every Southern State or planting it in every Northern State. He tells you that the safety of this llc-public, that the existence of this Union, depends upon that warfare being carried on until one section or the other shall be entirely subdued. The States must all be Free or Slave, for a house divided ao-ainst Itself cannot stand. That is Mr. Lincoln's argument upon that question. My friends, is it possible to preserve peace between the i\orth and the South if such a doctrine shall prevail in either section of the Union? Will you ever submit to a warfare waged by the Southern States to establish slavery in Illinois? What man in Illinois would not lose the last drop of his hearts blood liefore he would submit to the institution of slavery being forced upon us by the other States, against our will? And if that be true of us, what Southern man would not shed the last drop of his heart's blood to prevent Illinois or any other Northern State, from interferin<>- to abolish slavery in his State? Each of these States is sovereign under the Constitution; and if we wish to preserve our liberties, the reserved rights and sovereignty of each and every State must be maintained. I have said on a former occasion, and here I repeat, that it is neither desirable nor possible -to establish uniformity in the local and domestic institutions of all the States of this Confederacy. And why? Because the Constitution of the United States rests upon the right of eveiy State to decide all its local and domestic institutions for itself. It is not possible, therefore, to make them conform to each other; unless we subvert the Constitution of the United States. No, sir, that cannot be done. God forbid that any man should ever make the attempt. Let that Constitution ever be trodden under foot and destroyed, and there will not be wisdom \{\2 ^VKFAll or l)()r(iLAS, and patriotism fiiou'ili Ifft to make aiiotlit-r that will work iialf so will. Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Consti- tution of the United States as our fathers made it, inviolate, at iIk' same tiiiu- iiiaiiilaiuinL^ the rcsfi\c«l riLrlits and tlu' sovcrciirnt y of each Stixte over its local and domt'stic institutions, against Federal authority, or any outside interference. The ditference between Mr. Lincoln and myself upon this point is, that he goes for a combination of the Northern States, or the organization of a sectional political party in the Free States, to make war on the domestic institutions of the Southern States, and to prosecute that war until they shall all be subdued, and made to conform to such rules as the North shall dictate to them. I am aware that Mr. Lincoln, on Saturday ni<,dit last, made a speech at (Miicago for the pnrpo.se, as he .said, of explaining his position on this (jueslion. I have read that speech with great care, and will do him the justice to say that it is marked by eminent ai)ility, and great success in concealing what he did mean to say in his Si^ring- field speech. His answer to this point, which I have been arguing, is, that he never did mean, and that I ought to know that he never intended to convey the idea, that he wished the •' people of the Free States to cittrr into the Southern States and interfere with slavery." Well, I never did sujipose that he ever dri'anicd of i-ntcring into Kentucky to make war upon her institutions ; nor will any Abolitionist ever enter into Kentucky to wage such war. Tluir mode of making war is not to enter into those States where slavery exists, anil there interfere, and render themselves responsil)le for the consequences. Oh, no ! They stand on this side of the Oiiio River and shoot across. They stand in Uloomington, and shake their fists at the people of Jicxinglon . they threaten South Carolina from Chicago. And they call that liravery ! Hut they are very particu- lar, as Mr. Lincoln says, not to enter into lliose States for tin- purpose of interfering with the institution of slavery there. I am not only opposed to entering into the Slave Slates, for the purpo.se of interfering with their institutions, but I am opj)osed to a secti«»nal agitiiti;. Ksiusas-Nebraska bill, perfi't-tly f !>••.• lo i"i)rin and rt'<:al:ite Us insti- tutions in its own way. That was the principle upon which this Ht'pul)lic WHS founded, and it is under the operation of that princi- ple that we iiave been able to preserve the Union thus far. Untler its operations, slavery disappeared from New Hainpsliire, from Rhode Island, from Connecticut, from New York, from New Jersey, from Pennsylvania, from six of the twelve original slaveholding States; and this «xrausiness and left our neighbors alone. Hut the moment the Al)olition societies were organized throughout the North, preach- ing a violent c-rusade against shivery in the Southern States, this combination necessarily caused a counter-combination in the South, and a sectional line was drawn which was a Ijarrier to any further emancipation. Hear in mind that emancipation has not taken place in any one State since the Free-soil party was organized as a political party in this country. Emancipation went on gradually in State after State so long as the Free States were content with managing their own afTairs and leaving the South i)erfeclly free to do as they plea.sed; l)ut the moment the North said. Wf are powerful enough to control you of the South; the moment the Norlh i)roclaimed itself the de- termined master of the South; that moment the South combined to resist tiie attack, and thus sectional parties were formed, and grad- ual emancipation ceased in all the Northern slaveholding States. And yet Mr. Lincoln, in \ iew of these historical facts, proposes to keep up this sectional agitation; band all the Northern States to- gether in one political party; elect a l^resiilent by Northern votes alone; and then, of coui*sc, make a cabinet composed of Northern men, ami adniinisti-r the (Jovernmeiit by Northern men only, deny- ing all the Southern States of this t'nion any participation in the administration of jilfairs whatsoever. I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, whether such a line of policy is consistent with the peace and harmony of the country ? Can the Union endure under such a system of policy ? He has taken his position in favor of sectional agitation and sectional warfare. I have taken mine in favor of securing peace, harmony, and good-will among all the States, by permitting each to mind its own itusiness, and diseoimtenaneing any attempt at iMterl\'renee on the part of one Slate with the tlomestic concerns of the others. BLOOMIXGTOX, ILL., .ITLV i,;. ]S58. ]05 NO APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COfRT. Mr. Lincoln makes another issue with me, an.l he wishes to con- fine the contest to these two issues. I accept the other as readily as the one to wliich I have already referred. The other i.ssue is a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States, because of Its decision in the Dred Scott case. xAIy fellow-citizens, I have no issue to make with the Supreme Court. I have no crusade to preach against that august body. I have no warfare to make upon it I re- ceive the decision of the Judges of that Court, wheu pronounced, as the final adjudication upon all questions within their jurisdiction. ' It would be perfectly legitimate and proper for Mr. Lincoln, myself or any other lawyer, to go before the Supreme Court and argue any question that might arise there, taking either side of it, and enforc- mg it with all our ability, zeal, and energy; but when the decision is pronounced, that decision becomes the law of the land, and he and you, and myself, and every other good citizen, must bow to it,' and yield obedience to it. Unless we respect and bow in deference to the final decisions of the highest judicial tribunal in our country, we are driven at once to anarchy, to violence, to mob law, and there IS no security left for our property or our civil rights. Wiiat pro- tects your property but the law, and who expounds the law but the judicial trilninals; and if an appeal is to be taken from the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in all cases where a per- son does not like the adjudication, to whom is that appeal to be taken ? Are we to appeal from the Supreme Court to a county- meeting like this? And shall we here re -argue the question and reverse the decision ? If so, how are we to enforce our decrees after we lune pronounced them ? Does Mr. Lincoln intend to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court to a Republican caucus, or a town meeting ? To whom is he going to appeal ? ["To Love- joy," and shouts of laughter.] Why, if I understand aright, Lin- coln and Lovejoy are co-appellants in a joint suit, and inasmuch as they are so, he would not certainly appeal from the Supreme Court to his own partner to decide the case for him. Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Well, suppose he is ; what IS he going to do about it ? I never got beat in a law suit in my life that I was not opposed to the decision; and if I had it before the Circuit Court I took it up to the Supreme Court, where, if I got km; siM'^j-:(II m- itonii.As, hral n^aiii, I tljotiixlit it lictttr to say no iiiorr about it. as I did not kaow of any lawful mode of reversing the decision of the highest tribunal on earth. To whom is Mr. Lincoln j;oiii»j; to appeal ? M'liy, lie says he is •xoiujj to appi-al to L'on<.^rc'SS. Jii't us see how liu will appeal to Congress. \lv tells us that on the Hth of Maivh, ISliO, Con^jress passed a law calli'd the Missouri Coinprouiise, prolilhiting slavery forever in all the territory west of the Mississijipi au>e he does re-enact liie same law which the Court has pronounced unconstitu- tional, will that make it constitutional ? If the Act of ISiiO was unconstitutional in consequence of Congress having no power to pass it, will Mr. Jiincoln make it constitutional by })assing it again? What clause of the Constitution of the United States provides for an app«'al from the decision of the Supreme Court to Congress? If my reading of that instrument is correct, it is to the etiect that that Constitution and all laws made in pursuance of it are of tlii' supreme l.iw of the land; anything in the Constitution or laws of a .Slate to the contrary notwithstanding. Hence, you will lind that only such A(!t8 of Congress are laws as are made in pursuance of the Constitu- tion. When Congress 1ms pns.sed an Act, and put it on the statute book as hiw, wlio is to tlecide whether that .\ct is in conformity with the Constitution or not? The Constitution of the United Slates tells you. It has pro vided that the judicial power of the Unit* il ."^tales shall be vesti'd in BLOOMIXUTON. ILL., ,ICLV l(i, 1858. 10^ . a Supreme Court, aiul such inferior Courts as Cone (jiiite sure that he gels a Itepuliliean President at the saiiu' time to appoint them. He wants to have a Kepiililican I'resi- (U-nt eleeted hy N'ortliern votes, not a St)uthern man participating, and eh-eted for tlie jiurpose of phieing none hut Hi'puhlieans on the beneh; and, conseciuently, if he succeeds in eU'cting tiiat President, and succeeds in persuading the present Judges to die, in order that their vacancies may l>e liUed, that the President will then appoint tiieir successors. And by what process will he ai)i)oint them? He lirst looks for a man who has the legal (lualificatious, perhaps he takes Mr. Lincoln, and sa}"^, "Mr. Lincoln, would j'ou like to go on the Supreme heiicii? " "Ves." replies Mr. Lincoln. "Well," returns the Ki'puljlican President. "I cannot appoint you until you give me a pledge as to h(»w you will decide in tiie event of a par- ticular (juestion coming before you." What would you think of Mr. 1/nicoln if he would consent to give that pledge? And yet he is going to prosecute a war until he gets the present Judges out, and then catechise each man and require a pledge before his ap- pointment as to how he will decide each question that may arise upon points allecting the Itepublican i)arly. Now, my friends, suppose this scheme was practical, I ask you what confidence you would have in a Court thus constituted, — a Court c<»niposed of |)artis.in Judges, appointed on political grounds, selected with a view to the decision of (piestions in a particular wav, and ple(lgcd in rcg.-ird to a (lrri>i(>n before tlie argument, and without reference to the peculiar stale of the facts. Would such a Court command the respect of the country? If the Uepub- lican party cannot trust Democratic Juflges, how can llicy I'x- peet us to trust Republican Judges, when they have liccii selected in advance for the purpose of i)acking a decision in Ihc event of a case arising? M\' f«'llow-citi/i'ns, wlu'uever partisan politics shall be c:irricd on to th«' bench; whcncxfr the Judges shall be arraigned upon the slump. an.. .iit.y ic. is-is. 109 Court afs it was pronounced. Whatever my individual opinions may be, I, as a good citizen, am bound by the laws of the land, as the Legislature makes them, as the Court expounds them, and as the executive officers administer them. I am bound by our Constitu- tion as our fathers made it, and as it is our duty to support it. I am bound as a good citizen, to sustain the constituted authorities, and to resist, discourage, and beat down, by all lawful and peace- ful means, all attempts at exciting mobs, or violence, or any other revolutionary proceedings against the Constitution and the consti- tuted authorities of the country. SLAVEKY I\ THE TERRITORIES. Mr. Lincoln is alarmed for fear that, under the Dred Scott de- cision, slavery will go into all the Territories of the United States. All I have to say is that, with or without that decision, slavery will go just where the people want it, and not one inch further. You have had experience upon that subject in the case of Kansas. You have been told by the Republican party that, from 1854, when the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed, down to last winter, that slavery was sustained and supported in Kansas by the laws of what they called a " bogus ■' Legislature. And how many slaves were there in the Territory at the end of last winter ? Not as many at the end of that period as there were on the day the Kansas-Nebraska I)ill passed. There was quite a number of slaves in Kansas, taken there under the Missouri Compromise, and in spite of it, before the Kan- sas-Nebra.ska bill passed; and now it is asserted that there are not as many there as there were before the passage of the bill, notwith- standing that they had local laws sustaining and encouraging it, enacted, as the Republicans say, by a "bogus" Legislature, im- posed upon Kansas by an invasion from Missouri. "Why has not slavery obtained a foothold in Kansas under these circumstances ? Simply because there was a majority of her people opposed to slavery, and every slaveholder knew that if he took his slaves there, the moment that majority got possession of the ballot-boxes, and a fair election was held, that moment slavery would be abolished, and he would lose them. For that reason, such owners as took their slaves there, brought them back to Missouri, fearing that if they remained there tliey would be emancipated. Thus you see that under the principle of popular sovereignty, slavery has been kept out of Kansas, notwithstanding the fact that for the first three years they had a Legislature in that Territory 11(1 'SPEE<'H OF lM>r(;!.AS. favorable to it. I ttll you, my friends, it is imjwssihle under our institutions to force shivery on an unwilling people. If this princi- ple of jKipular soven'igTity asserted in the Nebraska bill 1k» fairly carrietl t»ut, by letting the jK'ople decide the question for them- selves, by a fair vote, at a fair election, and with honest returns, slaver}- will never exist one day, or one hour, in any Territory against the unfriendly legislation of an unfriendly |)eople. I care not how the Dred Scott decision may have settled the abstract (juestion so far as the practical result is conceme«l: for, to use the language of an eminent Southern Senator on this verj' ques- tion: — "I do not care a fi? which way the decision sh:\\\ ho, for it is of no particular consequence; slavi-ry cannot exist a day or an hour, in any Territory or State, unless it has affirmative laws sustaining; and support- ing it. furnishinfT police regulations and remedies: and an omission to furnish them would be as fatal as a constitutional prohibition. Without affirmative legislation in its favor, slavery could not fxist any longer than a n*'W-born infant could survive undtT the heat of the sun. on a barren rock, without protection. It would wilt and die for the want of support." Hence, if the people of a Territory want slavery, they will en- courage it by passing affirmative laws, and the necessary police regulations, patrol laws, and slave code; if they do not want it, they will withhold that legislation, and by withholding it slavery is as dead as if it was prohibited by a constitutional prohibition, es- ficcially if, in addition, their legislation is unfriendly, as it would \}Q if they wen- opi)osed to it. Tiiey could pass such local laws and |x>lice regulations as would drive slaver}- out in one day. or one hour, if they were opjM)sed to it: and therefore, SO far as the ques- tion of slavery in the Territories is concerned, so far as the principle «»f jMtpular HAt-reiuiity is eonctnud. in its practical operation, it matters not how the Dred Scott case may be decided with reference to the Territories. My own opinion on tliat law point is well known. It is shown lend uy)on whether the people arc for or again.-t it; and whichever way they shall decide it in any Terri- t<»rv or in :iny State, will )w entirely satisfactory to lue. Hut I mu.st now U'stow a few wonls uix>n Mr. Lincoln s main objection to the Dntl Scott « for tlu- i\ i(U'iici' of tlial f:i(l. Al the tinu' Iht- Dec-lara- lion of Iiulopcnaeuce was put forth, dechiriug the ecjuality of all luiMi. evi-ry one of the thirti-en colonies was a slaveholding colony, anil every man who si-rned that Deelaratlon represented a shivehold- ing constituency. Did they intend, when they put their si;^r„:itnres to that instrument, to declare that tlieir own slaves were on an eciuality with them; that they were made their equals by divine law. and that any human law reducing them lo an inferior position was void, as l.eiuir in "violation of divine law? Was that the meaning of the signers of tlie Declaration of Independence? Did JetTersou and Henry and LtH', — did any of the signers of that instrument, or all of them, on the'dav they signed it, give their slaves freedom? History records that they did not. Did they go further, and put the negro on an e(iuality with the white man throughout the country? They did not. And yet if they had understood that declaration as including the negro, which Mr. Lincoln holds they did, they would have l>een hound, as conscientious men, to have restored the negro to that i'(iuality which he thinks the Almighty intended they should occupy with the white man. They did not do it. Slavery was abolishe.l in oidy one State before the adoption of the Constitution in ITS'.t, and then in otliers gradually, down to the time this Abolition agita- tion began ; and it has not l>een abolished in one since. The history <.r the country shows that neither the signers of the Declaration, iK.i- tlic framers of the (.'oustitiition, ever supposed it p()ssil)le that their language would be u.sent conceding to the Indian and negro, and all in- ferior races, all the rights and all llie privileges tiu-yconld enjoy consistent witli tin- safety of the s«»ciety in which they livt-d That is my opinion now. I told you that humanity, pliilan- iLropy, justice, and sound policy recpiired that we slutuld give the I5L()()MI.\;iT()N, ILL.. .iLLV Ki. isr.s. jj- negro every right, every privilege, every immunity, consistent with the safety and welfare of the State. The question then naturaliy arises, What are those rights and privileges, and What i.s the nature and extent of them? My answer is, that that is a question whieh each State and each Territory must decide for itself. We have de- cided that question. AA'c have said that in this State the iieombs over the line from her own side, which she had a right to do. Would that explanation satisfy us? Sp it is with Mr. Lincoln. He is not go- ing into Kentucky, but he will plant his batteries on this side of the Ohio, where he is safe and secure for a retreat, and will throw his bombshells — his Abolition documents — over the river, and will carry on a iK>litical warfare, and get up strife between the North and the .^outh, until he elects a sectional President ; reduces the S4nith to the condition of dependent colonies ; raises the negro to an ecpiality ; and forces the South to submit to the doctrine that a house divided against itself cannot stand ; that the Union divided into half Slave States and half Free, cannot endure; that they must all Ix' Slave or they must all be Free ; and that as we in the North are in llie majority, we will not permit them to be all Slave, and therefore they in the South must consent to the States all being Vrvv. Now, fellow-citi/.ens. I submit t« you whether these doctrines are c<)nsistent with the peace and harmony of this Union ? I sub- mit to you whether they are cimsistent with our duties as citizens of a comuKKi Confederacy ; whether they are consistent with the principles which ••ughl to govern brethren of the same family? I n-c<.gni/.c all the p«-«>ple of thece States, North and South, East and West, vW\ or new, Atlantic or I'acific, as our brethren, flesh of our BLCK^MIXGTOX. ILL., JULY IC. 1S.5S. n; flesh, and I will do no act unto them that I would not he willincr they should do unto us. I would apply the same Christian rule to the States of this Union that we are taught toapply to individuals,— ■ Do unto others as you would have others do unto you : " and this would secure peace. Why should this slaven- agitation be kept up? Does it J>enefit the white man or the slave? AVho does it benefit, except the Republican politicians, who use it as their hobby to ride into office? Why. I repeat, should it be continued? Why cannot we be content to administer this Government as it was m*ade,_a confederacy of sovereign and independent Slates? Let us recognize the sovereignty and independence of each State, refrain from inter- fering with the domestic institutions and regulations of other States, permit the Territories and new States to decide their institutions for themselves, as we did when we were in their condition ; blot out these lines of North and South, and resort back to these lines of State lx)undaries which the Constitution has marked out and en- graved upon the face of the countri- ; have no other dividing lines but these, and we will te one united, harmonious people, with fra- ternal feelings, and no discord or dissension. These are my views, and these are the principles to which I have devoted all my energies since 1850, when I acted side by side with the immortal Clay and the god-like Webster in that memorable struggle, in which Whigs and Democrats united upon a common platform of patriotism and the Constitution, throwing aside partisan feelings in order to restore peace and harmony to a distracted coun- try. And when I stood beside the death-bed of Mr. Clay, and heard him refer, with feelings and emotions of the deepest solicitude, to the welfare of the country-, and saw that he looked uix)n the prin- ciple embo<:lied in the great Compromise measures of 1850, the prin- ciple of the Nebraska bill, the doctrine of leaving each State and Territory free to decide its institutions for itself, as the only means by which the peace of the country- could Ije presened and the Union perpetuated.— I pledged him, on that death-bed of his, that so long as I lived, my energies should be devoted to the vindication of that principle, and of his fame as connected with it. I gave the same pledge to the great exix>imder of the Constitution, he who has been called the -'god-like Webster." I looked up to Clay and him as a son would to a father, and I call upon the people of Illinois, and the people of the whole Union, to bear testimony that never since the sod has been laid upon the graves of these eminent states- men have I failed, an any occasion, to vindicate the principle with \ 1 j; SPEECH OF IKX'GLAS, whirli tlu' hist great frowning acts of their lives were ie done, and the Union will be pei^etual; let that be done, and this Republic, which began with thirteen States, and which now numbers thirty-two, which, when it began, only extended from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, but now reaches to the Pacific, may yet expand. North and South, until it covers the whole Continent, and becomes one vast ocean- bound confederacy. Then, my friends, the path of duty, of honor, of patriotism, is plain. There are a few simple principles to be preserved. Bear in mind the dividing line between SUite rights and Federal authority; let us maintain the great principles of sover- eignty, of State rights, and of the Federal Union as the Constitu- tion has made it, and this Republic will endure forever. I thank you kindly for the patience with which you have listened to me. 1 fear I have wearied you. I have a heavy day's work before me to-moiTow. I have several speeches to make. .My friends, in whose hands I am, are taxing me beyond human en- tlurance;but I shall take the helm and control them hereafter. I am i)rofoundly grateful to the people of McLean for the reception they have given me, and the kimlness with which they have listened to me. I nMneraber when I first came among you here, twenty-five vears ago, that I was prosecuting attorney in this district, and that my earliest elforts were maile here, wluii my deficiencies were too apparent, I am afraid, to be concealed from any one. 1 remenil>er the courtesy and kindness with which 1 was uniformly treated by ytm all; and whenever I can recognise the fare of one of your old citizens, it is like meeting an old an«l cherished friend. I come among you with a heart filled with gratitude for past favors. I have iHH-n wiih you but little for the past few yeare. on account of my ofli< ial duties. I intentl t«) vi^it you again before the cam- paign \h over. 1 wi>,h to speak to your whole people. I wish them SPRIX(;FIELI). ill., JULY 16. 1858. no to pass judgment upon the correctness of my course, and the sound- ness of the principles which 1 have proclaimed. If you do not approve my principles, I cannot ask your support. If you believe that the election of Mr. Lincoln would contribute more to preserve the harmony of the country, to perpetuate the Union, and more to the prosperity and the honor and glory of the State, then it is your duty to give him the preference. If, on the contrary, you believe that I have been faithful to my trust, and that by sustaining me you will give greater strength and efficiency to the principles which I have expounded, I shall then be grateful for your support. I renew my profound thanks for your attention. SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS. Delivered July 17, 1S5S, at Springfield, III. (Mr. Lincoln was not present.) Mr. Chairman and Fellow-Citizens of Springfield and old Sangamon: My heart is filled with emotions at the allusions which have been so happily and so kindly made in the welcome just ex- tended to me, — a welcome so numerous and so enthusiastic, bringing me to my home among my old friends, that language cannot ex- press my gratitude. I do feel at home whenever I return to old Sangamon and receive those kind and friendly greetings which have never failed to meet me when I have come among 3'ou; but never be- fore have I had such occasion to be grateful and to be proud of the manner of the reception as on the present. While I am willing, sir, to attribute a part of this demonstration to those kind and friendly personal relations to which you have referred, I cannot conceal from myself that the controlling and pervading element in this great mass of human beings is devotion to that principle of self-government to which so many years of my life have been devoted ; and rejoice more in considering it an approval of my support of a cardinal principle than I would if I could appropriate it to myself as a personal com- pliment. You but speak rightly when 3'ou assert that during the last session of Congress there was an attempt to violate one of the lliO SPEECH OF DorciLAS. fmulaim'ntal iiriiu-ipU'S uimhi wliiili our free institutions rest. Tho attempt to force the Leoouipton Constitution uik>u tlie people of Kansas against their will, would have been, if successful, subversive «»f the great fundamental principles upon which all our institutions rest. If tlu-re is any one principle more sacred and more vital to the existenie of a free government than all others, it is the right of the people to form and ratify the Constitution under which they are to live. It is the cornerstone of the temple of lil)erty; it is the foundation upon which the whole structure rests; and whenever it can l)e successfully cvadcil. self-government has received a vital stab. I deemed it my duty, as a citizen and as a representative of the State of Illinois, to resist, with all my energies and with what- ever of ability I could command, the consummation of that effort to force a constitution upon an unwilling people. I am aware that other ([uestious have been connected, or at- tempted to be connected, with that gretit struggle; but they were mere collateral questions, not affecting the main point. My oppo- sition to the Lecomptou Constitution rested solely upon the fact that it was not the act and deed of that people, and that it did not emliody their will. I did not object to it upon the ground of the slavery clause contained in it. I sluniltl have resisted it with the same energy and determination even it it had been a Free State in- stead of a slave-holding State; and as an evidence of this fact I wish you to bear in mind that my speech against the Lecomptou Act was made on the 'Jth day of December, nearly two weeks before the vote was taken on the acceptance or rejection of the slavery clause. I did not then know, I could not have known, whether the slavery clause would be accepted or rejected; the general impression was that it would be rejected; and in my speech I assumed that im- l)ressi«)n to be true; that probably it would be voted down; and then I said to the United States Senate, as I now i»roclaim to yon, my constituents, that j'ou have no more right to force a Free Stati- upon an unwilling people than you have to force a Slave State upon tlu-m against their will. Vt>ii have no right to force either a good or a bad thing up(»n a people who do not choose to receive it. And then, again, the highest privilege of our people is to determine for themselves what kind of institutions are good and what kind of in.stltutions an- bad; and it may be true that the same pe(tple, situateil in a diirerent latitude and dilferent climate, and with dif- erent productions and diirennl interests, might decide the same question one way in the Norlli and another way in the South, in SPRIXGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. l2l order to adapt (l.eir institutions to the waut.s and wishes of the people to be attected Iiy tlieni. You all are familiar with the Leeompton strugak.^ and I will oecui.y no more time upon the subject, excei^ to remark that when we drove the enemies of the principle of popular sovereignty from the etiort to force the Leeompton Constitution upon the people of Kansas, and when we compelled them to abandon the attempt -nu] to refer that Constitution to that people for acceptance or rejection we obtamed a concession of the principle for which I had contended throughout the struggle. When I saw that the principle was con- ceded, and that the Constitution was not to be forced on Kansas agamst the wishes of the people, I felt anxious to give the proposi- tion my support; but when I examined it, I found that the mode of reference to the people and the form of submission, upon which the vote was taken, was so objectionable as to make it unfair an.l un- just. Sir, it is an axiom with me that in every free government an un- fair election is no election at all. Every election should be free should be fair, with the same privileges and the same inducements for a negative as for an afHrmative vote. The objection to what is called the " English" proposition, by which the Leeompton Consti- tution was referred back to the people of Kansas, was this: that if the people chose to accept the Leeompton Constitution they could come in with only 35,000 inhabitants; while if they determined to reject it in order to form another more in accordance with their wishes and sentiments, they were compelled to stay out until they should have 93,420 inhabitants. In other words, it was making a distinction and discrimination between Free States and Slave States under the Federal Constitution. I deny the justice, I deny the right, of any distinction or discrimination between the States ^orth and South, Free or Slave. Equality among the States is a fund.:- mental principle of this Government. Hence, while I will never consent to the passage of a law that a Slave State may come in witli 35,000, while a Free State shall not come in unless it have 93,000, on the other hand, I shall not consent to admit a Free State with a population of 35,000, and require 93,000, in a slaveholding State. My principle is to recognize each State of the Union as independ- ent, sovereign, and equal in its sovereignty. I will apply that prin- ciple, not only to the original thirteen States, but to the States which have since l)een brought into the Union, and also to every State that shall hereafter be received, ' ' as long as water shall run, 122 S;rF.K( H iH' Dorci.AS. ami t;n»ss grow, I'or lli«'Sf reasons I IVlt compt'lk-il, l»y a sense of tlutv, l»y u c'ouviction of printiple, to record luy vote against wliat is ealUnl the Kng)ish bill; but yet the bill bceanie a law, anil under that law an eleetion has been ordered to be la-Id on the first Mon- day ill August, f<»r the purpose of determining the (juestion of the :ui-eptanee or rejeeti;)n of the propositir the acceptance of the Con- gressional proi)osition, Kansas from tiiat moment becomes a. State of the I'nlou, the law admitting her becomes irrepealable, and thus the controvei-sy terminates forever; if, on the other hand, the peo- ple of Kansas shall vole down that proposition, as it is now gener- ally admitted they will, by a large majority, then from that instant the Lecompton Constitution is dntil^ — dead beyond the power of resurrection: and thus the controversy terminates. And when the monster shall die, I shall be willing, and trust that all of j'ou will be willing to accpiiesce in the death of the J^ecompton Constitu- tion. The controversy may now l)e considered as terminated, for in three wci'ks from now it will be linally settled, and all the ill-feeling, all the embittered feeling whi<-h grew out of it shall cease, unless an attempt should be made in the future to repeal the same outrage n\Hyn pojjular rights. \V.\RNIN(i .\NI) EXAMPLE. I need not tell you that my past course is a sufllcient guarantee that if till' occasion shall ever ari.se again while I occupy a seat in the T'nited States Senate, you will find me carrying out the same principle that 1 have this winter, with all the energy and all the |H)wer I may be able to command. 1 have the gratilication of say- ing to you that I do not believe that that controversy will ever arise again: first, because the fate of bccuniptoil is a irnnii'in/ to the j)eo- ple of every 'rcrritury and of every Slate to be <'autitius liow llic example is repcaleF l)()L'(JLAS. lii'U I)! tht-m tt) ivford anothiT resolution upon the journal, with which you must all Iil- familiar, -- u rt'solution brought forward l»y Mr. Ninian K«lwarils, and adopttMl Iiy the House of Kepresentatives l»y a vote of {\l in the allinuative to 4 in the negative. That reso- lution I can ipiote to you in almost its precise language. It de- clare«i that the great principle of self-government was the l)irthrigl»t of freemen, was the gift of Heaven, was achieved by the Mood of our revolutionary fathers, and must lie continued and carried out in the organization of all the Territories and the admission of all new States. That became the Illinois platform by the united voices of tin- |)emocratic party and of the Whig party in IS.'il ; all the \Vhigs and all the Hemocrats in the iiCgislature uniting in an allirmative vote upon it, and there being only four votes in the negative, — of Abolitionists, of course. That resoluti<»n stands upon tin- journal of your Ijcgislature to this day and hour unrepealed, as a standing, living, perpetual in- struction to the Senators from Illinois in all time to come to t-arry out that iirim-iple of self-government, and allow no limitation upon it in the organization of any Territories or the admission of an}' new States. In 1854, when it became my duty as the chairman of tlu- committee (m Territories to bring forwaid a l)ill for the organization of Kansas and Nebraska, I incorporated that principle in it. and Congress passed it, thus canying the principle into practical effect. I will not recur to the scenes which took j)lace all over the country in lHr)4, when that Nebraska bill passed. I could then travel from Hoston to Chicago l)y the light of my own elligies, in conseciucnce of having stood up for it. I leave it to you to say how I met that storm, and whetlu'r 1 (juailed under it: whether I did not "face the music," justify the principle, and pledge my life to carry it out. A friend here reminds me. to(», tliat when making speeches then, justifying the Neltraska l»ill and llu- great principle of self- governmcid, I predicted that in le.ss than live years yon would liax*- to get out a se.irch-warrant to lind an anti Nebraska man. Well. I believj' I dii| make that preilict ion. I did not claim the power of a prophet, but it oeciiricd to me that among a free people, and an honest people, and an intclligi'ut p«'ople. live yt-ars was long enough for them to come to an understanding that the great prin- ciple of Helf-governmt lit was right, not only in the States, but in the Territorii'H. 1 rejoiced this year to see my prediction, in that n-spect, carrie»l out and fullllled by the unaidmous vote, in «»ne r«»rni or another, of both Houses of ("ongn'ss. SPRINGFIELD, ILL., .ILLY 17, 1858. 125 If yoii will remember that pending this Lecompton controvers}- tluit gulhuit old Roman, Kentucky's favorite son, the worthy suees- sor of the immortal Clay, — I allude, as you know, to the gallant John J. Crittenden, — brought forward a l)ill, now known as the Crittenden-Montgomery bill, in which it was proposed that the Lecompton Constitution should Ije referred back to the people of Kansas, tobe decided for or against it, at a fair election, and if a majority of the people were in favor of it, that Kansas should come into the Union as a slaveholding State, but that if a majority were against it, that they should make a new constitution, and come in with slavery or without it, as they thought proper. [Voice : "That was right."] Yes, my dear sir, it was not only right, but it was carrying out the principle of the Nebraska bill in its letter and in its spirit. Of course I voted for it, and so did every Republican Senator and Representative in Congress. I have found some De- mocrats so perfectly straight that they blame me for voting for the principle of the Nebraska bill because the Republicans voted the same way. [Great laughter. And "What did they say?"] What did they say? Why, many of them said that Douglas voted with the Republicans. Yes, not only that, but with the l)l(u:k. Republicans. Well, there are different modes of stating that proposition. The New York Trihune says that Douglas did not vote with the Republicans, but that on that question the Re- publicans went over to Douglas and voted with him. M)^ friends, I have never yet abandoned a principle because of the support I found men yielding to it, and I shall never abandon my Democratic principles merely because Republicans come to them. For what do we travel over the country and make speeches in every political canvass, if it is not to enlighten the minds of these Repub- licans, to remove the scales from their eyes, and to impart to them the light of Democratic vision, so that the}^ mtiy be able to carry out the Constitution of our country as our fathers made it. And if by preaching our principles to the people we succeed in convincing the Republicans of the errors of their Avays, and bring them over to us, are we bound to turn traitors to our principles merely because they give them their support ? All I have to say is that I hope the Republican party will stand firm, in the future, by the 'Vote they gave on the Crittenden-Montgomery bill. I hope we will find, in t lie resolutions of their Count}^ and Congressional Conventions, no declarations of "no more Slave States to be admitted into this Union, " but in lieu of that declaration that we will find the princi- i2t; si'i:i:< 11 ni-- doiim.as, pie that the people of every State ami every Teirilorv shall t(iiiie into the I'nuni with slavery or without it, just as they please, with- out any interft-reiiee on the part of ("ouj^iess. My frieiuls, whilst 1 was at Washiii|::ton, engaged in this great hattle for s<»un(l eonstitutional prineiples, I fuul from the newspa- jKTs that the Uepuldiean party of this State assembled in this capi- tal in State Convention, and not only nominated, as it was wise and proper for them to do, a man for my successor in the Senate, hul laid down a platform, and tluir nominee made a speech, carefidly written and pn-pared, and well delivered, which that Conyention ac- cepted as containing THE REPUBLICAN CREED. T have nf> coinment to make on that part of Mr. Lincoln's speech in which he represents me as forming a conspiracy with the Supreme Court, and with the late Presitlent of the United States, and the present chief magistrate, having for my object the passage of the Nebraska bill, the Dreil Scott decision, and the extensitm of slavery. — a scheme of political tricksters, composed of Chief Justice- Taney and his eight associates, two Presidents of the United States, and one Senator of Illinois. If Mr. Lincoln deems me a conspirator of that kind, all I have to say is that I do not think so badly of the President of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United Stat«'s, the highest judicial tribunal on earth, as to believe that they were capable in their action and decision of enter- ing into political intrigues for partisan purposes. I therefore shall only notice those parts of Mr. Lincoln's speech in which he lays • lovvn his platform of principles, and tells you what he intends to do if he is elecli'd to the Senate of the I'nited States. [ An old gentleman here arose on the platform and said, '>Be particular now, .Iuii,ffiis. — My venerable friend here says he will be grati- ne«l if I will be particular; and in order that 1 may be so, I will read the language of .^Ir. Lincoln as n-porled liy himself and piih- lislu'd to the country. Mr. Lincoln lays down his main proposition in these words: — '•'A hoiiHi* (lividcil apiinst ilsclf ejoiini) slaiid.' I liojii'vc tin's Ciiioii I'uiinnt i-iitbiri- |HTtiiaiiciilly, lialf I'm and lialf S|avi>. I do not r.xpret thr I'nion will Im- dissolvi'd, 1 d') not •■\)H-rt the hiitiso to fall; liiit I cl il to ccaiko l*j be dnidcd. Il will brouine all c»no thing or all the other." SPIXGFIEL]). ILL.. JULY 17. 1858. 127 Mr. Lincoln does not think this Union can continue to exist composed of half Slave and half Free States ; they must all be Free, or all Slave. I do not doubt that this is Mr. Lincoln's conscientious conviction. I do not doubt that he thinks it is the highest duty of ever}- patriotic citizen to preserve this glorious Union, and to adopt these measures as necessary to its preservation. He tells you that the only mode to preserve the Union is to make all the States Free, or all Slave. It must be the one, or it must be the other. Now, that being essential, in his estimation, to the preservation of this glor- ious Union, how is he going to accomplish it ? He says that he wants to go to the Senate in order to carry out this favorite patriotic policy of his, of making all the States Free, so that the house shall no longer be divided against itself. When he gets to the Senate, by what means is he going to ac- complish it? By an Act of Congress? Will he contend that Con- gress has any power under the Constitution to abolish slavery in any State of this r'nion, or to interfere with it directly or indirectly? Of course he will not contend that. Then what is to be his mode of carrying out his principle, by which slavery- shall be alx)lished in all of the States? Mr. Lincoln certainly does not speak at random. He is a lawyer, — an eminent lawyer. — and his profession is to knov,- the remed}- for every wrong. What is his remedy for this imagin- ary wrong which he supposes to exist? The Constitution of the United States provides that it may be amended by Congress passing an amendment by a two-thirds majority of each house, which shall be ratified by three-fourths of the States: and the inference is that ^Ir. Lincoln intends to carry this slavery agitation into Congress with the view of amending the Constitution so that slavery can be alx)lished in all the States of the Union. In other words, he is not going to allow one portion of the Union to be slave and another portion to be free, he is not going to permit the house to he divided against itself. He is going to remedy it by lawful and constitutional means. What are to be these means? How can he alx>lish slavery in those States where it exists? There is but one mode by which a political organization. com^KJsed of men in the Free States, cun abolish slavery in the slaveholding States, and that would be to a1x)lish the State Legis- latures, blot out of existence the State sovereignties, invest Congress with full and plenary power over all the local and domestic and police regulations of the different States of this Union. Then there would be uniformity in the local concerns and domestic institutions of t!ie 128 SPKKlM OF Dor ('.LAS, ditfi-rvnt States; tbeii tin- liouse would he no longer divideil against itM'lf ; tlu'U the States would all 1)0 Free, or they wonld all l>e Slave ; then v«»u would have uniformity prevailing llirougliout this whole land in the loeal and tloinestie institutions: hut it would i>e a uni- ft)riuily, not of lil)erty. l)ul a uniformity of despotism that would triumph. I suhmit to you. my fellow-citizens, whether this is not the logical conseiiuence of Mr. Lincoln's proposition. I have called on Mr. Lincoln to explain what he did mean, if he did not mean this, and he has made a speech at Chicago in which lie attempts to explain. And how does he explain? 1 will give him the henelit of his own language, precisely as it was rep()rted in the Repuhlican papers of that city, after undergoing his revision: — ■' I huvo said a humlri-tl timt'S, and have now no iiu'lination to take it back, tliat I h.-licvf thtTi- is no ri^'hl and oUf.dil to bo no inclination in the |¥'oplc' of till' Frt-i' Stati-s to enter into tho Slave States and interfere with the (luestiun of slavery at all." lie helieves there is no right on the part of the free people of the Free States to enter the Slave States and interfere with the ([ues- tion of slavery, hence he does not propose to go into Kentucky and stir up a civil war and a servile war between the blacks and the whites. All he proposes is to invite the people of Illinois and every other Free State to band together as one sectional party, governed anil diviiled by a geographical line, to make war u|K>n the institution (»f slavery in the slaveholding States. He is going to carry it «iut by means of a political party that has its ad- herents only in the Free States, — a political party that does not pre- tend that it can give a solitary vote In the Slave States of the Union; and by this secti, prohibiting shivery in all of the Terri- torifs north of ;U»° '.W, was unconstitutional and void, and hence did not havf efFt-et in emancipating a slave brought into that Terri- torv. And he will imt siilnnit to tli:it decision. He says that he will not fight the Judges or the Uuited States Marshals in order to liberate Dred Scott, but that he will not respect that decision, as a rule of law binding on this country, in the future. Why not? Be- cause, he says, it is unjust. How is he going to remedy it? Why, he says he is going to reverse it. How? He is going to take an appeal. To whom is he going to appeal? The Constitution of the United States provides that the Supreme Court is the ultimate tribunal, the highest judicial tribunal on earth; and Mr. Lincoln is going to appeal from that! To wlioni? 1 know hi' appi-aU'd t<» tlu' licpulilican State Convention of Illi- nt»is. anil I hi-lii've that Convi-ntion reversed the decision; but I am not aware that lliey have yet carried it into elFi-et. How are they going to make that reversal efTectual? Why, Mr. Lincoln tells us in his late Chicago spi-eeh. lie explains it as clear as light. He says to tile people of Illinois that if you elect him to the Senate he will introtlucc a bill to re-enact the law which the court pronounced uneonstitutional. [Shout."-; of laughter, and voices, " ,Sy>/«^ the law."] Yes, lie is going to spot the law. The court pronounces that law prohibiting slavery, unconstitutional and void, and Mr. Lincoln is going to pass an Ail ri'Vi'r.">ing that decision and making it valid. I never heard before of an api)eal Ijeing taken from the Supreme Court to the Congress of the CnitiMl States to reverse its decision. I havi' heard of appeals bi'ing taken from Congress to the Supreme Court to iledare a statute void. That has lieen done from the earliest days of Chief Justice Marshall down to the present time. The Supreme Court of Illinois do not hesitate to pronounce an Act of the Legislature void, as being repugnant to the Constitution, und the Suprwme Court of the Cnited States is vested Ity the Consti- tution with that very |>ower. The Constitution says that the judi- cial |M)wer of the I'nited States shall be vested in the Supreme Court und such inferior courts as Congress shall, from lime to lime, onlain and establish. Hence it is the province and duty of the Supreme Cotirl Ut pronounce judgment on the validity and constitu- SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, Isr.S. 133 tionality of an Act of Congress. In this case they have done so, and Mr. Lincohi will not snbniit to it, and he is going to reverse it b}' another Act of Congress of the same tenor. My opinion is that Mr. Lincoln ought to be on the Supreme Bench himself, when the Republicans get into power, if that kind of law knowledge qualifies a man for the l)ench. But Mr. Lincoln intimates that there is another mode by which he can reverse the Dred Scott decision. How is that? Why, he is going to appeal to the people to elect a President who will appoint judges who will reverse the Dred Scott decision. Well, let us see how that is going to be done. First, he has to carry on his sec- tional organization, a party confined to the Free States, making war upon the slaveholding States until he gets a Republican President elected. [Voice: " He never will, sir."] I do not believe he ever will. But suppose he should; when that Republican President shall have taken his seat (Mr. Seward, for instance), will he then pro- ceed to appoint judges? No! he will have to wait until the present judges die before he can do that; and perhaps his four years would be out before a majority of these judges found it agreeable to die; and it is very possible, too, that Mr. Lincoln's senatorial term would expire before these judges would be accommodating enough to die. If it should sp happen; I do not see a very great prospect foi Mr. Lmcoln to reverse the Dred Scott decision. But suppose they should die, then how are the new judges to be appointed? Why, the Republican President is to call upon the candidates and catechise them, and ask them, "How will you decide this case if I appoint you judge ? " Suppose, for instance, Mr. Lincoln to be a candidate for a vacancy on the Supreme Bench to (ill Chief Justice Taney's place, and when he applied to Seward, the Litter would say, "Mr. Lincoln, I cannot appoint you until I know how you will decide the Dred Scott case ? " Mr. Lincoln tells him, and he then asks him how he will decide Tom Jones's case, and Bill Wilson's case, and thus catechises the Judge as to how he will decide any case which may arise before him. Suppose you get a Supreme Court composed of such Judges, who have been appointed by a partisan President upon their giving pledges how they would decide a case ])efore it arose, — what confidence would you have in such a court ? Would not your court be prostituted beneath the contempt of all mankind ? What man would feel that his liberties were safe, his right of iierson or property was secure, if the Supreme Bench, that august tribunal, the highest on earth, w^as brought down to i:u sPKF.rii OF ixtrnT.As. lljat low, ilirly jxHtl whiTfiii the Judgi-s are to give pledges in advance how they will decide all the questions which may be Itroiight Ix'fore them ? It is a proposition to make that court the corrupt, unscrupulous t(M>l of a political party. But Mr. Linc-oln cannot conscientiously sulmiit, he thinks, to the decision of a court c(»m|K>seil of a majority of Democrats. If he cannot, how can he expert us to have contidence in a court composed of a majoiity of lie|)ulilieaiis, selected for the purpo.se of deciding against the l)em«)cracy, and in favor of the Kepuhlicans ? Tiie very proposi- tion carries with it the demoralization and tU'gradation destructive of the judicial department of tlie Federal (iovernment. sri'KKMK COURT DECISION FIN'AI,. I say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no warfare to make upon ihe Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott decision. I have no com- plaints to make against that Court because of that decision. My private opinions on .st>me points of the ca.se may have been one way; and on other points of the case another; in some things concurring with the Court, and in others dissenting; but what have my private opinions in a question of law to do with the decision after it has been pro- nounced by the highest judicial tribunal known to the Constitution ? You, sir [addressing the chairman], as an eminent lawyer, have a right to entertain your opinions on any (juestion that comes before the court, and to appear before the tribunal and maintain them lM)ldly and with ti^'nacity until the final decision shall have been pronounced; and then, sir, whether you are sustiuned or overruled, your duty as a lawyer and a citi/.i'ii is to bow in deference lo that deeision. I intend to yield obedience to the decisions of the highest tribunals in the land in all cases, whether their opinions are in conformity with my views as a lawyer or not. When we refuse to abide by judicial decisions, what protection is there left for life and property ? To whom shall you appeal ? To mob law, to partisan caucuses, to town meetings, to revolution ? Where is the jemedy when you refuse obedience to the constituted authorities? I will not stop to inquire whether I agree or disagree with all the opin- ions expressed by Judge Taney or any other judge. It is enough for me to know that the decision has been made. It has been made by a tribunal appointed by the Constitution to make it; it was a point within their jurisdiction, and I am bound by it. Hut, my friends, Mr. T/incoln says that this Dri-d Scott deeision •leslroyH the doctrine of popular sovereignty, for tiie reason that the SPIUXtJFIELD. IT>T. . JULY 17, "S.IS. 135 Court has decided that Congress had no power to prohibit slaverj' in the Territories, and hence he infers that it would decide that the Territorial IcLlihilatu'.es could not prohiliit slavery there. I will not stop to inquire whether the Court will carry the decision that far or not. It would be interesting as a matter of theory, but of no importance in practice ; for this reason, that if the people of a Ter- ritory want slavery they will have it, and if they do not want it they will drive it out, and you cannot force it on them. Slavery cannot exist a day in the midst of an unfriendly people with unfriendly laws. There is truth and wisdom in a remark made to me by an eminent Southern senator, when speaking of this techni- cal right to take slaves into the Territories. Said he, " 1 do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, for it is of no particular consequence; slavery cannot exist a da}' or an hour in an}' Territory or State unless it has affirmative laws sustaining and supporting it, furnishing police regulations and remedies; and an omission to furnish them would be as fatal as a constitutional prohibition. Without affirmative legislation in its favor, slavery could not exist any longer than a ncAV-born infant could survive under the heat of the sun, on a barren rock, without protection. It would wilt and die for the want of support." So it would be in the Territories. See the illustration in Kansas. The Republicans have told j'ou, during the whole histor}' of that Territory, down to last winter, that the pro-slavery party in the Legislature had passed a pro-slavery code, est.iblishing and sustain- ing slavery in Kansas, but that this pro-slavery Legislature did not truly represent the people, but was imposed upon them by an inva- sion from Missouri; and hence the Legislature were one wa}', and the people another. Granting all this, and what has been the result? With laws supporting slavery, but the people against, there are not as many slaves in Kansas to-day as there were on the day the Nebraska bill passed and the Missouri Compromise was repealed. Why? Sim])!}' because slave-owners knew that if they took their slaves into Kansas, where a majority of the people were opposed to slaver}', that it would soon be abolished, and they would lose their right of property in consequence of taking them there. Fcr that reason they would not take or keep them there. If there had been a majority of the people in favor of slavery, and the climate had been favorable, they would have taken them there; but the climate not being suitable, the interest of the people being opposed to it, and a majority of them against it, the slave-owner did not find it 13G SPEE( II OF DoriiLA;^. profltnMe to t:ike his slaves thoiv, and consequently there are not as many slaves there to-thiy as on the day the Missouri Comproiuisi; was repealed. This shows clearly that if the people do not want slavery they will keep it out; and if they ilo want it, they will pro- tect it. You have a good illustration of this in the Territorial history of this Stale. You all remember that by the Ordinance of 1787 slav- ery was prohibited in Illinois; yet you all know, particularly you olil settlers who were here in Territorial times; that the Territorial Legislature, in defiance of that Ordinance, passed a law allowing you to go into Kentucky, buy slaves, and bring them into the Territory, having them sign indentures to serve you and your posterity ninety-nine years, and their posterity thereafter to do the same. This hereditary slavery was introduced in defiance of the Act of Congress. That was the exercise of popular sovereignty, — the right of a Territory to decide the question for itself in defiance of the Act of Congress. On the other hand, if the people of a Territory are hostile to slavery, they will drive it out. Conse- (jiiiiitly, this theoretical question raised upon the Dred Scott de- cision is worthy of no consideration whatsoever, l'*ed as a hobby upon which to ride into oflice, or out of which to manufacture political capital. LEGAL EFFECT OF THE DECISION. But Mr. Lincoln's main objection to the Dred Scott decision I have reserved for my conclusion. His principal objection to that decision is that it was intended to deprive the negro of the rights of citizenship in the diirerent States of the Union. Well, suppose it was. — and there is no doubt that that was its legal effect,— what is his obje have either political rights or his freedom, and hence she mak ""■ - ' ■-"->. not mine. It is bt The sovereignty of .\ and that alone, can decide that question; and when she decides tlK-re is no power on earth to which yon can appeal to reverse : Therefon'. lesvo Kvalucky as the Constitution has left her. a so-- er\'iiru. • i^ Slate, with the exclusive right to have slaverj or not a> >... .., v'>es. and so long as I hold power I will maintain and defend her rights against any assaults, from whatever quarter the\ lie. I t r stop to inquire whether I approve or disapprove - the domestic institutions of a State. I maintain her sovereign rights. I defemi ' - reignty from all assault, in the h*>pe that she will join in ■ _' us when we are assaileii by any outside power. How are we to protect our sovereign rights^ to keep slav- ery out, unless we protect the sovereign rights of every other State to devide the question for itself? Let Kentucky, or South Carolina, or any other State attempt to interfere in Illinois, and tell us that we shall establish slaver}', in orvier to make it uniform, according to Mr. Lincoln's proposition, throughout the Union; let them come at we must - have slavery. — and I will ow me. and > . ist tln.>pof our hearts" blood in repelling the invasion and chastising their insolence. And if we - - _ wer in our own - . _ : State. .VRE .\.LL MEN' CREATED EViC-VL ? Hence, yoa find that Mr. Lincoln and m\-self come to a direct issue on this whole doctritH> of slavery. He is gv^ing to wage a war aiTainst it evervwhere. not onlv in Hlinois. but in his native to be self-eriiient, that all men are created equal; that tbev are t : ~ ~ - A s whether that mstnimcnt doos not declare that all men are created ' ^'- ' - . .- . •- V that that cbuse of the iv- ies. [Voice, '• I say not Wrii, It \utt askV tkut, i do laui iiuttk VOU vill TOte foT 3ir. Liocol: SPRINGFIELD. ILL.. .JULY 17, 1858. 13!) Mr. Lincoln goes on to argue th;it the language "all men " inchuled the negroes, Indians, and all inferior races. In his Chicago speech he says, in so many words, that it includes tile negroes, that they were endowed l)y the Almighty with the right of equality with the white man, and tiierefore that that right is di- vine, ^ — a right under the higher law; th;it the law of (!o(l makes them ccjual to the white man, and therefore that the law of the white man cannot deprive them of that right. This is Mr. Lincoln's argument. Tie is conscientious in his belief. I do not question his sincerity; I do not doubt that he, in his conscience, believes that the Almighty made the negro equal to the white man. He thinks that the negro is his brother. I do not think that the negro is any kin of mine at all. And here is the difference between us. I l)e- licA'e that the Declaration of lnde[)endence, in the words, "all men are created ecpial," was intended to allude only to the people of the United States, to men of European birth or descent, being white men; that they were created equid, and hence that Great 13ritain had no right to deprive them of their political and religious privi- leges; but the signers of thaX jjaper did not intend to include the Indian or the negro in that declaration; for if they had, would they not have been bound to abolish slavery in every State and colony from that day ? Remember, too, that at the time the Declaration was put forth, every one of the thirteen colonies were slaveholding colonies ; every man who signed that Declaration represented slaveholding constitu- ents. Did those signers mean I)y that act to charge themselves and all their constituents with having violated the law of God, in hold- ing the negro in an inferior condition to the white man ? And yet, if they included negroes in that term, they were bound, as conscien- tious men, that day and that hour, not only to have abolished slav- ery throughout the land, but to have conferred political rights and privileges on the negro, and elevated him to an equality with the white man. [Voice, " They did not do it. "] I know they did not do it; and the very fact that they did not shows that they did not understand the language they u.sed to include any but the white race. Did they mean to say that the Indian, on this continent, was created ecpial to the white man, and that he was endowed by the Almighty with inalienable rights, — rights so sacred that they could not be taken away by any constitution or law that man could pass ? Why, their whole action toward the Indian showed that they never dreamed that they were bound to i)ut him on an equality. I am not 140 SPEECH oK Don; LAS, only opposi'd to lU'gn) fiiualily, l»ut I am opixjsed to Indian cciuality. 1 urn opiKJsed to putlin*!; tlie Coolies, now importing into this oountiy, on nu fijiiality willi us, or puttinjj the Chinese or any inferior race on an ei|uality with us. 1 hold that the white race, the Kuropean race, I care not whether Iri.sh, German, French, Scotch, English, or to what nation they be- long, so they are the white race, to be our equals. And I am for placing them, as our fathers ilid, on an etjuality with u.s. Emi- grants from Europe, and their di'scendants, constitute the people of the United States. The Declaration of Independence only included the white people of the United States. The Constitution of the Iniled Stales wa^ framed liy liu- wliite people; it ought to be ad- ministered by them, leaving each State to make such regulations concerning the negro as it chooses, allowing him political rights or not, as it chooses, and allowing /tiin civil rights or not. as it may determine for itself. Let us only carry out those principles, and we will have peace and harmony in the dill'erent States. But Mr. Jjincolns conscienti- ous scruples on this point govern his aetions, and I honor him for following them, although I ablior the doctrine which he preaches. His conscientious scruples lead liim to believe th:it the negro is en- titled by divine right to the civil and political privileges of citizen- ship on an etjuality with the white man. For that reason be sa^'s he wishes the Dred Scott decision re- versed. He wishes to confer those privileges of citizenship on the negro. Let us see how he will do it. He will first be called upon t4> strike out of the Constitution of Illinois that clause which pro- hil)it.s free negroes and slaves from Kentucky or any other State coming into Illinois. When he blots out that clause, when he lets «lown the dcx^r or opens the gate for all tlu; negro population to How in and cover our prairies, until in midday tlu-y will look dark and lilack as night, — when he shall have done this, his mission will yet Ik- unfuHilled. Then it will be that he will apply his [)rinc-iples of negro ('(juality; that is, if he can get the' Dred Scott decision re- versed in the mean time. lb- will then change the Constitution again, and all<»w negroes to vote and hold ollice, and will make them eligilile to the Legislature, so that thereafter they can have the right n>en f«»r I'nited States Senators. !!»• will allow them to vote to elect the Legislature, the Judges, and the (iovernor, and will make them eligible to the olllce of Judge or (lovernor, or to the Legislature. Mr will put tlii-m on .•ui e(|uality with the white man. Wliat then? SPRINGFIELD. ILL., JULY 17, 1858. Ul Of course, after making them eligible to the judiciary, when he gets Curtee elevated to the bench, he certainly will not refuse his judge the privilege of marr3'ing an}" woman he may select! I submit to you whether these are not the legitimate conse- quences of his doctrine ? If it be true, as he says, that by the Dec- laration of Independence and by divine law, the negro is created the equal of the white man; if it be true that the Dred Scott decis- ion is unjust and wrong, because it deprives the negro of citizenship and equality with the white man, — then does it not follow that if he had the power he would make negroes citizens, and give them all the rights and all the privileges of citizenship on an equality with white men ? I think that is the inevitable conclusion. I do not doubt Mr. Lincoln's conscientious conviction on the subject, and I do not doubt that he will carry out that doctrine if he ever has the power : but I resist it because I am uttterly opposed to any political amalgamation or any other amalgamation on this continent. We are witnessing the result of giving civil and political rights to inferior races in Mexico, in Central America, in South America, and in the West India Islands. Those J'oung men who went from here to Mexico to fight the battles of their country in the Mexican war can tell you the fruits of negro equalit}' with the white man. They will tell you that the result of that equality is social amalgamation, demoralization, and degradation below the capacity for self-govern- ment. My friends, if we wish to preserve this Government we must maintain it on the basis on which it was established; to wit, the white basis. We must preserve the purity of the race not only in our politics, but in our domestic relations. We must then preserve the soA'ereignty of the States, and we must maintain the Federal Union by preserving the Federal Constitution inviolate. Let us do that, and our Union will not only be perpetual, but maj' extend until it shall spread over the entire continent. THE RESPECTIVE CANDIDATES. Fellow-citizens, I have already detained you too long. I have exhausted myself and wearied j'ou, and owe 30U an apology for the desultory manner in which I have discussed these topics. I will have an opportunity of addressing you again before the November election comes off. I come to 3'ou to appeal to your judgment as American citizens, to take your verdict of approval or disapproval upon the discharge of my public duty and my principles as com- 112 SPi:i:< II OF 1K)UGLAS. pared with lliose of Mr. I^im-olu. If you couscicntiously lu-lieve that his principles are more in harniouy with the feelings of the American people ami the interests and honor of the Hepuhlic. elect him. If, on the contrary, you believe that my principles are more consistent with those great principles upon which our fathers framed tills (lovernmenf, then 1 shall ask you to so express \our opinion at the polls. 1 am aware that it is a bitter and severe contest, but I do not doubt what the decision of the people of Illinois will be. I do not anticipate any personal collision between Mr. Lincoln and my.self. You all know that I am an amialile, good-natured man, and 1 take great pleasure in bearing testimony to the fact that Mr. Lincoln is a kind-hearted, amiable, gooil- natured gentleman, with whom no man has a right to pick a quarrel, even if he wanted one. He is a worthy gentleman. [ have known him ft)r twenty-five years, and there is no belter citizen and no kinder- hearted man. He is a line lawyer, possesses high ability, and there is no objection to him, except the monstrous revolutionary doctrines with which lie is ideutihed and which lie conscientiously entertains, anil is determined to carry out if he gets the power. He has one element of strength upon which he relies to accom- plish his object, and that is his alliance with certain men in this State claiming to be Democrats, whose avowed object is to use their power to prostrate the Democratic nominees. He hopes he can se- cure the few men claiming to be friends of the Lccompton Constitu- tion, and for that reason you will find he does not say a word against the LecomptsitionH of the two jiersoiis who stand .x lore tiic State as candi- d:it«'s for the Senat*-. Senator Douglas is of world-wide renown. All the anxious politicians of his party, or who have been of his SPRINGFIELD. ILL.. JULY IT. 15.J?. 145 party for years past, have been looking upon him as certainly, at no distant day. to be the President of the United States. They have seen in his round, jolly, fruitful face, post-offices, land-offices, marshal- ships, and cabinet appointments, chargeships and foreign missions, bursting and sprouting out in wonderful exubemnce. ready to be laid hold of by their greedy hands. And as they have been gazing upon this attractive picture so long, they cannot, in the little dis- traction that has taken place in the party, bring themselves to give up the charming hope: but with greedier anxiety they rush about him, sustain him. and give him marches, triumphal entries, and receptions beyond what even in the days of his highest prosperity they could have brought alK)ut in his favor. On the contrary, nobody has ever expected me to be President. In my poor, lean, lank face, nobody has ever seen that any cab- bages were sprouting out. These are disadvantages all. taken to- gether, that the Republicans labor under. We have to fight this battle upon principle, and upon principle alone. I am. in a certaua Sense, made the standard-bearer in behalf of the Republicans. I was made so merely because there had to be some one so placed, — I being in nowise preferable to any other one of the twenty-five, perhaps a hundred, we have in the Republican ranks. Then I say I wish it to be distinctly understood and borne in mind that we have to fight this battle without many — perhaps without any — of the external aids which are brought to bear against us. So I hope those with whom I am snrroTinded have principle enough to nerve themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can be fairly done to bring aoout the right result. After Senator Douglas left Washington, as his movements were made known by the public prints, he tarried a considerable time in the city of New York ; and it was heralded that, like another Napo- leon, hf was Iving bv and framing the plan of his campaign. II was telegraphed to Washington City, and published in the Union, that he was framing his plan for the purpose of going to Illinois to pounce upon and annihilate the treasonable and disunion speech which Lincoln nad made here on the 16th of June. Now. I do suppose that the Judge really spent some time in New York maturing the plan of the campaign, as his friends heralded for him. I have been able, by noting his movements since his arrival in Illinois, to discover evidences confirmatory of that allegation. I think I have been able to see what are the material points of that plan. I will, for a little while, ask your attention to 140 SPEECH (»F LINCOLN some of llii'iii. What 1 shall point out, though not sliowiug the whoK' plan, art*, neverthfless, the main points as 1 suppose Thev are not verv numerous. The first is popular sovereignty. The seeoml and third are attaeks upon my si>eeeh made on tlie Kith of June. Out of these three points — drawing within llie range of pu\iTiMUiit v thr iiufstioi) (if the Lfeouiptoii ( "oiislitutioi! — he makes his principal assault. Upon these his successive speeches are substantially one and the same. On this matter of popular sover- eiuntv 1 wish to l»e a little earefid. Auxfliarv to these main points to l)e sure, are their thunderings of eannon, their marehing and musie, their lizzle-gigs and fireworks; hut 1 will not waste lime with them. They are Itut the little trappings of the eampaign '•Wli.VT IS THE M.VTTKIl OK I'OPri.AR SOVERKIGNTV ? " Coming to the substance, — the first point, — "popular sover eignty." It is to be lalielled upon thi' cars in which he travels, put upon the hacks he ritles in; to lie tlaunleil upon the arches he passes uniler, and the l)anners which wave (jver him It is to be ilisheil up in as many varieties as a French cook can produce soujjs from potatoes. Now, as this is so great a staple of the plan of the cam- paign, it is worth while to examine it carefully; ami if we examine oidy a very little, and do not allow ourselves to be misled, we shall l>e able to see that the whole thing is the most arrant Qiiixotisir. that was ever enacted before a community. What is the matter of popular sovereignty ? The first thing, in order to understand it, is to get a good definition of what it is, and after that to see how it is applied. 1 suppose almost every one knows that, in this controversy, whatever has been said has had reference to the (pieslion of negro slavery. We have not been in a controversy about the right of the people to govern them.selves in the nn/iiittn/ matters of domestic concern in the States aii lu' exptct to stand up in ma- jestic dignity, and go through his ajxif/iensis and become a god. in the maintaining (>f a principle whicii neither man nor mouse in ail (lod's creation is opposing? Now something in regard to the Lecompton Constitution more specially ; for I pass from this other question of popular sover- eignty as the most arrant humbug that has ever been attempted on an intelligent community. WHO DKFE.VTED THE LECO.MPTON COXSTlTI'TloN ? As to tlu' Lecoujptoii Constitution. 1 ha\i' already said that on the (juestion of fact as to whether it was a fair emanation of the people or n«»t. Judge Doiii^las, with tlie Hcpublicans ami some Aml I'onie up here and say : "I um the oal}' just person; and you are tiie ninety-nine sinners ! " /'e.irs l»y two spj'cches I have heard him deliver SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. 151 since his arrival in Illinois, he gave special attention to a speech of mine, delivered here on the 16th of June last. He sa3's that he carefully read that speech. He told us that at Chicaijo a week ago last night, and he repeated it at Bloomington last night. D()iil)tles>:, he repeated it again to-day, thougli I did not hear him. In the two first places — Chicago and liloomington — I heard hini ; to-day I did not. He said he had carefully examined that speech, — wlini, he did not sa}' ; but there is no reasonable doubt it was when he was in New York preparing his plan of campaign. I am glad he did read it carefully. . He says it was evidently prepared with great care. I freely admit it was prepared with care. I claim not to be more free from errors than others, — perhaps scarcely so much ; but I was very careful not to put anything in that speech as a matter of fact, or make any inferences which did not appedr to me to be true and fully warrantable. If I had made any mistake, I was willing to be corrected ; if I had drawn any inference in regard to Judge Douglas, or any one else, which was not warranted, I was fully prepared to modify it as soon as discovered. I planted myself upon the truth and the truth only, so far as I knew it, or could be brought to know it. THE "HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF" SPEECH, Having made that speech with the most kindly feelings toward Judge Douglas, as manifested therein, I was gratified when I found that he had carefully examined it, and had detected no error of fact, nor any inference against him, nor any misrepresentations, of which he thought fit to complain. In neither of the two speeches I have mentioned did he make any such complaint. I will thank any one who will inform me that he, in his speech to-day, pointed out anything I had stated respecting him, as being erroneous. I presume there is no such thing. I have reason to be gratified that the care and caution used in that speech left it so that he, most of all others interested in discovering error, has not been able to point out one thing against him which he could say was wrong. He seizes upon the doctrines he supposes to be included in that speech, and declares that upon them will turn the issues of this campaign. He then quotes, or attempts to quote, from my speech. I will not say that he wilfully misquotes, but he does fail to quote accurately'. His attempt at quoting is from a passage which 1 be- lieve I can quote accurately from memory. I shall make the quo- tation now, with some comments upon it, as I have already said, in l.-)_' SPEECH OF l.lNi'ol.N. order that the Judge shall lio left entiivly without i-xcusi' for mis- represent ing lue. I do so now, as 1 Iiojk-, for the last tiiue. 1 ilo this ill great eaution in order that if he repeats his misrep- resentation it shall be plain to all that he does so wilfully. If, after all. he still persists, I shall be compelled to reconstruct the course I have marked out for myself, and draw upon such humble resources as I have, for a new course, better suited to the real exigencies of the case. I set out in this campaign with the intention of conduct- ing it strictly as a gentleman, in substance at least, if not in the outside polish. The latter I shall never be ; but that which consti- tutes the inside of a gentleman I hope I understand, and am not less inclined to practice than others. It was juy |)iii|M>se and expecta- tion that this canvass would be conducted upon principle, and with fairness on both sides, and it shall not be my fault if this pur- pose and expectation shall be given up. lie charges, in sul>stance, that I invite a war of sections; that I propose all the local institutions of the dillerent States shall be- come consolidated and uniform. What is there in the language of that speech which expresses such purpose or bears such construc- tion? I have again and again said that I would not enter into any of the States to disturb the institution of slaver)'. Judge Douglas said, at IJlooraington, that I used language most able and ingenious for concealing what I really meant; and that while I had protested against entering into the Slave States, I nevertheless did mean to go on the banks of the Ohio and throw missiles into Kentucky, to dis- turb them in their domestic institutions. I said in that speech, and I meant no more, that the institution of slavery ought to be i)laccd in the very attitude where the framei-s of this Government placeil it and left it. I do not understand that the franiers of our Tonstitutiou left the people of the Free States in the altitude of firing bombs or shells into the Slave States. 1 was not using that passage for the i)urpose for which lie infers I did use it I said: — • W'u are now fur advanced into the (Iftii yearsinci- a iM.licy wascreuled for llie avowed object and with tlie coiitident promise of puttiiij,' an end to slavery affitatiun. I'nder the oiM-ration of that [Hilicy llial a^'itation has nut only nut ceased, but has constantly aii^'meiited. In my opinion it will nf»t rease till a erisis sluill have been reached and passe«l, ' A liou.se di- vided against itscir cainiiit stand.' I believe that this (Jovernment cannot endure |MTinanently half .'^lave and half Free ; ii will become all one thiiijr or all Iheuiher. Either the op|Minents of slavery will arresl the further spn-ad of it. and jilae.- it wh.-re the public mind shall rest in the belief SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. 15B that it is in the course of ultimate e.xtinction, or its arlvocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, Norlli as well as South." Now yoii all see, from that quotution, I did not express my iciak on anything. In that passage I indicated no wish or purpose of my own; I simp]}' expressed my expectation. Cannot the Judge per- ceive a distinction between a pnrpoHc and an expectation f I have often expressed an expectation to die, ])ut I have never expressed a 7//.s7/ to die. I said at Chicago, and now repeat, that I am quite aware this Government has endured, half Slave and half Free, for eighty-two years. I understand that little bit of history. I ex- pressed the opinion I did because I perceived — or thought I per- ceived — a new set of causes introduced. I did say at Chicago, in m}' speech there, that I do wish to see the spread of shiver}' arrested, and to see it placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. I said that because I supposed, when the public mind shall rest in that belief, we shall have peace on the slaver}' question. I have 1)elieved — and now believe — the public mind did rest in that Ijelief up to the intro- duction of the Nebraska bill. Although I have ever been opposed to slavery, so far I rested in the hope and belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. For that reason it had been a minor question with me. I might have been mistaken; but I had believed, and now believe, that the whole public mind, that is, the mind of the great majority, had rested in that belief up to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. But upon that event I became convinced that either I had been resting in a delusion, or the institution was being placed on a new basis, — a basis for making it perpetual, national, and universal. Subsequent events have greatly confirmed me in that belief. I believe that bill to be the beginning of a conspiracy for that pur- pose. So believing, I have since then considered that question a paramount one. So believing, I think the public mind will never rest till the power of Congress to restrict the spread of it shall again be acknowledged and exercised on the one hand, or, on the other, all resistance be entirely crushed out. I have expressed that opin- ion, and I entertain it to-night. It is denied that there is any tendency to the nationalization of slavery in these States. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, in one of his speeches, when they were presenting liim canes, silvi-r i)hite. gold pitchers, and the like, for assaulting Senator Sumner, distinctly affirmed his opinion that i:, I SPEKCII nV LINCOLN. when this Constitution was formed, it was the belief of no man that shivery would last to the present day. He said, whui 1 thinU. that the framcrs of our Constitution placed the institution of slavery where the public mind rested in the hope that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Uni lu' went on to .s;iy that tln' uu-ii of the |n»st'nt a«ii', by tlu-ir i'X|n'iirnci', have ln'Ciinu' wisi-r than the frain- ers of tlu' C'oiistitiitioii, and the invention of the eolton gin had luade the iHTpetiiily of slavery a neces.sity in this country. As another piere of evideiue tentliny; to this same point : Quite recently, in Viry a geutleman of Uie iuime of Jurvis with a liook. or essay, or periodieal, called the " Hepulili- ean/' and he was writin*; in aeknowledfjiuent of the present, and notinjj some of its contents. After expressing; the hoj)e that the work will protlnee a favorable elTeel upon the minds of the yount;, he proceeds to say: — •• Tliiit it will liavc this tiMulency may be pxpoctcil, and for that reason I feel an uri?t'ney to note what I dci-m an error in it, the more n'quiring notice as your opiiiiim is stn'nirtln'iicd by that of many othi-rs. You seem, in paL'e 84 ami 1 IS, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all consti- tutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place ut under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other mon, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. 'I'luir' in.i\iin is, ' llmi ji:iUrin ixt n'liji/iiirc jitrii*ilii-tt'>/i< III : ' and their power is the more dangerous as they are ia oSce for life, and not responsible, as the ether functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It lias more wi.scly madi' all the departments co-equal and eu- s»i\i r>iiru within tlu'msi'lvfs. Thus we see the power claimed for the Supreme Court by Judge Douglas, Mr. Jefferson holds, would reduce us to the despotism of an oligarchy. Ntiw, I have said no more than this, — in fact, never (juitc so much as this; at least I am sustained by Mr. JelTerson. Let us go a little further. You remember we once bad a Na- tional Bank. Some one owed the bank a del)t; he was sued, and S(»u«:ht to avoid payment on the ground that the bank was unconsti- tutional. The case went to the Supn-me Court, and therein it was decided that the bank was constitutional. The whole Democratic party revolted against that decision. General Jackson himself as- serted that he, as President, would not be bound to hold a National Bank to be constitutional, even though the Court had decided it to be 80. He fell in precisely with the view of Mr. Jefferson, and acted upon it under his official oath, in vetoing a charter for a National Bank. The declaration that Congress does not possess this constitu- tional power to charter a bank lias gone into the Democratic plat- form, at their National ('«)nventions, and was brought forw.ird and rcafliruHMl in tin-ir last Convention at Cincinnati. They have con- ti-nded for that d<'<-hiration, in the very teeth of the Supreme Court, for iiion' tiian a (piartcr of a century. In fact, they have reduced the decision to an absolute nullity. That decision. I repeat, SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. 157 is repudiated in the Cincinnati platform ; and still, as if to show that effrontery can go no farther Judge Douglas vaunts in the very speeches in which he denounces me for opposing the Dred Scott de- cision that he stands on the Cincinnati platform. Now, I wish to know what the Judge can charge upon me, with respect to the decisions of the Supreme Court, which does not lie in all its length, breadth, and proportions at his own door. Tiie plain truth is simply this: Judge Douglas is for Supreme Court decisions when he likes; and against .them when he does not like them. lie is for the Dred Scott decision because it tends to nationalize slavery; because it is a part of the original combination for that object. It so happens, singularly enough, that I never stood opposed to a decision of the Supreme Court till tliis. On the contrar}', I have no recollection that he was ever particularly in favor of one till this. He never was in favor of any, nor opposed to any, till the present one, which helps to nationalize slavery. Free men of Sangamon, free men of Illinois, free men every- where, judge ye between him and me upon this issue. He says this Dred Scott case is a very small matter at most, — that it has no practical effect ; that at best, or rather, I suppose, at worst, it is but an abstraction. I submit that the proposition that the thing which determines whether a man is free or a slave is rather concrete, than abstract. I think you would conclude that it was, if your liberty depended upon it, and so would Judge Douglas, if his liberty depended upon it. But suppose it was on the question of spreading slavery over the new Territories that he considers it as being merely an absti-act matter, and one of no practical importance. How has the planting of slavery in new countries always been effected? It has now been decided that slaA'er}* cannot be kept out of our new Territories by any legal means. In what do our new Territories now diflfer in this respect from the old Colonies when slavery was first planted within them? It was planted, as Mr. Clay once declared, and as history proves true, by individual men, in spite of the wishes of the people; the Mother Government refusing to prohibit it, and with- holding from the people of the Colonies the authority' to prohibit it for themselves. Mr. Clay says this was one of the great and just causes of complaint against Great Britain by the Colonies, and the best apology we can now make for having the institution amongst us. In that precise condition our Nebraska politicians have at last suc- ceeded in placing our own new Territories; the Government will not prohibit slavery within them, nor allow the people to prohibit it. 158 SPKKCH OF LINCOLN, I defy any man to find any difference between the policy which originally planted slavery in these Colonies and that policy which now prevails in our new Territories. If it tlors not ;_m) into tlu'in, it is oiilv lifcaiist' no iiitliv iduiil wislu.s il to «;o. The JiKlgt' imiulgt'tl himsolf doubtless to-day with the (juestion us to what I am goinj; to ilo with or about tl»e Dred Scott decision. Well, .Iud|i»'. will you please tell me what you did about the bank decision? Will you not graciously allow us to do with the Dred Scott decision precisely as you did with the bank decision ? You succeeded in breaking down the moral effect of that decision : did you find it necessary to amend the Constitution, or to set up a court of negroes in order to do it ? A DKATII-UKl) SCENE. There is one (jllicr point. Judge Douj^las has a very alToctionate leaning toward the Americans and Old Whigs. J^ast evening, in a sort of weeping tone, he described to us a death-bed scene. He had been called to the side of Mr. Clay, in his last moments, in order that the genius c»f *' popular .sovereignty ' might duly descend from the dying man and settle upon him, the living and most worthy suc- cessor. He could do no less than promise that lu' would di'votc tlic remainder of his life to " i)opular sovereignty:" and then the great statesman departs in peace, liy this part of the " jjlan of the cam- paign" the Judge has evidently promised himself that tears shall be ilrawn down the checks of all (^Id Whigs, as large as half-grown apples. .^lr. Webster, too, was mentioned; but it did not quite come to a death-bed scene as to him. It would be amusing, if it were not disgusting, to see how quick these compromise-breakers administer on tlu' political etre<'ts of their dead ad\ I'rsaries, trumping up claims never before heard of, and dividing the assets among them- selves. If I shouM be found (lead tomorrow in(»niing. nothing but my insignificance could i»revent a speech being madt' on my author ity, iM'fore the end of next week. It so happens that in thai •'|)opuhir sovereignty" with which .^lr. Clay was identilicd, the Missouri Compr»)mi.se was ex|)ressly reserved; and it was a tilth' singular if .>Ir. Clay cast his manth' upon .Judge Pouglas on pur- |x>8e to liave that Compromise repealc(l. Again, tlu' Judge did not keej* faith with Mr. Clay when he lirst brought in his Nebraska bill. lie left the Missouri Compromise un- reiKjaled, and in his report accompanying the bill he told the SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 18.18. 159 world he did it on purpose. TLie manes of Mr. Clay must liuve l)C'en in great agony till thirty days later, when "popular sover- eignty " stood forth in all its glory. SHALL THE DECLARATION BE AMEXDEP ? One more thing. L:ist night Judge Douglas tormented himself with horrors about my disi)Osition to make negroes perfectly equal with white men in social and political relations. He did not stop to show that I have said any such thing, or that it legitimately fol- lows from anything I have said, but he rushes on with his assertions. I adhere to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal except negroes. Let us have it decided whether the Declaration of Independence, in this blessed year of 1858, shall be thus amended. In his construction of the Declaration last year, he said it only meant that Americans in America were equal to Englishmen in Eng- land. Then, when I pointed out to him that b}' that rule he ex- cludes the Germans, the Irish, the Portuguese, and all the other peo- ple who have come amongst us since^ the Revolution, he reconstructs his construction. In his last speech he tells us it meant Europeans. I press him a little further, and ask if it meant to include the Rus- sians in Asia; or does he mean to exclude that vast population from the principles of our Declaration of Independence ? I expect ere long he will introduce another amendment to his definition. He is not at all particular. He is satisfied with anything which does not endanger the nationalizing of negro slavery. It may draw white men down, but it must not lift negroes up. Who shall say, " I am the superior, and you are the inferior? " My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be mis- represented, but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration to mean that all men were created ('({ual in all respects. They arc not our equal in color; but I sup- pose that it does mean to declare that all men are equal in some re- spects ; they are equal in their right to " life, liberty, and the pur- suit of happiness." Certainly the negro is not our ccjual in color, — perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black. In pointing out that more has been given you, you ctmnot Ite justified in taking away the little which has been given hiui. All I ask for the negro is that if you do H;(» SPEKtll (IF LINCOLN. not like him. let him alone. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy. \\ lu-ii our ( ioviiimii'iit was rslahli.slH-d wo had lln* iiLstitulioii of slavery among us. \\'»- wiit- in a ciTtain .sense compelled to tolerate its existence. It was u sort of necessit}'. We had <^oiie through our struggle anil secured cnir own independence. Tljc Iranicis of tiie Constitution found the institution of slavery amongst their other in- stitutions at the time. They fountl that by an etFort to eradicate it tliey might lose much of what they had already gained. Tiiey were ohliged to l)o\v to the nece.ssity. They gave power to Congress to alMilish the slave trade at the end of twent}' years. The}' al.so pro- hiltited slavery in the Territories where it did not exist. They did what tlu'V could, and yielded to necessity for the rest. I also yield to ail which follows from that necessity. Wliat I would most de- sire would lie the separation of the white and the black races. One more point on this Springficlil s|HC(h wliidi .luilgc Douirlas says he has reasi- of consuitinj,' with tin* Stale Central Committee, and aj^reeiuf? upon tin- plan of the canipai^'n. While, under these circumstances, I do not feel at libf-rty to make any nrranj;ements which would «li'prive the Democratic candidates for Con- tjri'ss. State ollices, and the Legislature, from i)articipating in the discus- sion at tin- various meetings desi'.'nated by the Democratic State Central Committee, I will, in order tt) accommodate you us far as it is in my jKiwer to do so, take the responsibility of makin-; an arranjrement with you for a discussion between us at one prominent jMiint in each Congressional Dis- trict in the Slate, except the second and sixth districts, where we have both sixjken, and in each of which cases you had the concludinfj; speech. If ajj:reeable to you, I will indicate the following places as tho.se most suit- able in the several Congrre.ssional Districts at which we should speak, to wit: Freeport, Ottawa, fJalesburfr, Quincy, Alton, Jonesboro. and Charles- ton. I will confer with you at the earliest convenient opportunity in regard to the mode my own nr)te had been presented to you. An hour aftiT, 1 saw a copy of yo\ir answer in the Chicago TiiiuM, ami rejiching home, 1 found the original awaiting me. Protesting that your insinuations of attempted unfairne.ss on my part are unjust, and with the ho])e that you did not very consider- ately make thi-m, I proceed to reply. To your statement that " It has been su:;gested, recently, that an arrangement had been made to bring out a thirers. extending only to the 21st of August. I, for the first time con- sidered it certain that you would make no proposal to me, and then re- solved that, if my friends concurred. I would make one to you. As soon thereafter as I could see and consult with friends satisfactorily. I did make the proposal. It did not occur to me that the proposed arrangement could derange your plans after the latest of your appointments already made. After that, there was. before the election, largely over two months of clear time. For you to say that we have already spoken at Chicago and Springfield, and that on both occasions I had the concluding speech, is hardly a fair statement. The truth rather is this: At Chicago, July 9th, you made a carefully prepared conclusion on my speech of June 16th. Twenty-four hours after, I made a hasty conclusion on yours of the 9th. You had six- days to prepare, and concluded on me again at Bloomington on the 16th. Twenty-four hours after. I concluded again on you at Springfield. In the mean time, you had made another conclusion on me at Springfield, which 1 did not hear, and of the contents of which I knew nothing when I spoke; so that your speech made in daylight, and mine at night, of the 17th, at Springfield, were both made in perfect independence of each other. The dates of making all these speeches will show, I think, that in the matter of time for preparation, the advantage has all been on your side, and that none of the external circumstances have stood to my advantage. I agree to an arrangement for us to speak at the seven places you have named, and at your own times, provided you name the times at once, so that I, as well as you. can have to myself the time not covered by the ar- rangement. As to the other details. I wish perfect reciprocity and no more. I wish as much time as you. and that conclusions shall alternate. That is all. Your obedient servant, A. LrscoLN. P. S. — As matters now stand. I shall be at no more of your exclusive meetings; and for about a week from to-day a letter from you will reach me at Springfield. A. L. MR. DOUGLAS TO MR. LINCOLN. Bemext. Piatt Co.. III., July 30, 185S. Dear Sir: Your letter dated yesterday, accepting my proposition for a joint discussion at one prominent point in each Congressional District, as stated in my previous letter, was received this morning. The times and places designated are as follows : — 1G4 ColMiKsl'o.NDKNl'E. Ottawa, La Salle Couiily. - - - - Aiipust 21, 1858. Fr<'i'|»nrt. Stt'|ilit'iisuii C'liuiitv, . . . . " 27, " •luiu-slHiro, L'nitin Countv, - September 15, " Charl«-si4)ii. Coles County, " 18, " (.iaiesbiir;:. Knox County, October 7, " Quincy, A. I a^rree to .\our su;.';restittn tiiat we sliall alternately open and tluse ilie iliscussion. I will sjM'ak at Ottawa one hour, you can rei)ly. occupying: an liour and a half, and I will tlien follow r«»r half an hour. .\i Kree|M>rt. you shall o|M-n the discussion and s|H'ak one hour: I will follow for an hour and a half, and you can then re|)ly for half an hour. We will alternate in lik'' manner in I'lirh successive jjlace. Very respectfully, .\our ol)edieiit servant, S. A. Douglas. IIo.v. A. Lincoln, Si.rinv'Meld. 111. .MK. LIXcol.X To .MR. DOUGLAS. Springfield, .Tuly 31, 18.'38. Hon. S. A. Douyliiit. I)e.\u Sir: Yours of yesterday, naminjr places, times, and terms, l"<>r joint discussions between us, was received this morninp. Allhouirii, by the terms, as you projxjs*', you take/o«7" openiufrs and closes, to my thru, I accede, and thus cIo.se the arrangement. 1 direct this to you at Tlillsboro. and shall try to have both your letter and this apjiear in the Jotirtntl :ind lit fji«(t r (>{ Monday morninjr. Your obedient .servant, A. Lincoln. THE DOUGLAS MONUMENT. Cr«ct«d In Chicago, upon the bank of Lako Michigan, on the spot which Judge Douglas had reaerved for hia future home. The atatue waa executed by Leonard Volk. FIRST JOINT DEBATE, AT OTTAWA, August 21, 1858. MK. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen: I appear before you to-day for the purpose of discussiug the leaduig political topics which now agitate the public mind. By an arrangement between Mr. Lincoln antl my- self, we are present here to-day for the purpose of having a joint discussion, as the representatives of the two great political parties of the State and Union, upon the principles in issue between those parties, and this vast concourse of people shows the deep feeling which pei'vades the public mind in regard to the questions divid- ing us. Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political parties, known as the Whig and Democratic parties. Both were national and patriotic, advocating principles that were universal in their application. An Old Line Whig could proclaim his principles in Louisiana and Massachusetts alike. Whig principles had no boundary sectional line; they were not limited by the Ohio River, nor by the Potomac, nor by the line of the Free and Slave States ; but applied and were proclaimed wherever the Constitution ruled or the American flag waved over the American soil. So it was, and so it is with the great Democratic party, which, from the days of Jef- ferson until this period, has proven itself to be the historic party of this nation. While the Whig and Democratic parties differed in regard to a bank, the tariff', distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, they agreed on the great slavery question which now agitates the Union. I say that the Whig part}' and the Demo- cratic party agreed on this slavery question, while they differed on those matters of expediency to which I have referred. The Whig party and the Democratic party jointly adopted the Compromise measures of 1850 as the basis of a proper and just solution of this slavery question in all its forms. Clay was the great leader, with Webster on his right and Cass on his left, and sustained b}' the patriots in the Whig and Democratic ranks who had devised and enacted the Compromise measures of 1850. [165] Ititj OTTAWA DKISATK. AUGUST 21. 1808. In 1851 tlu- Wbiy: parly ami tht- Democratic piirty uniti'd in Illinois in adopting rcsolntions indtirsinj; ami approving the princi- ples »)f the Compromise measures of ISoU, as liie proper adjustment of that question. In 1852, when the Whig party assembled in Con- vention at Baltimore for the j)urpose of n<»minating a candidate for the Presidency, the fu-st thing it did was to declare the Compromise measures of 1850, in substance and in priiu-iple, a snital>le adjust- ment of that (piestion. [Here the speaker was interrupted by loud and long-continued applause.] ^ly friends, silence will be more acceptalde to me in the discussion of these questions than applause. I desire to address myself to your juilgment, your understanding, and your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasm. When the Democratic Convention assembled in Baltimore in the same year, for the purpose of nominating a Democratic candidate for the Presidency, it also adopted the Compromise measures of 1850 as the basis of Democratic action. Tims you see that up to 1853-54, the Whig party and the Democratic party both stood on the same platform with regard to the slavery question. That plat- form was the right of the people of each State and each Territory to decide their local and domestic institutions for themselves, subject only to the Federal Constitution. During the session of Congress of 1853-'54, I introduced into the Senate of the United States a bill to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska on that principle which had been adopted in the Compromise measures of 1850, approved b}' the Whig party and the Democratic party in Illinois in 1851, and indorsed by the Whig party and the Democratic party in National Convention in 1852. In order that there might be no misunderstanding in relation to the principle involved in the Kansas and Nebraska Itill. I put forth the true intent ami mi'Muing of the A'-t in these words: "It is the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the peo- ple thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti- tutions in their own way, subject only to the Federal Constitution." Thus you see that u|) to 185 1, when the Kansas and Nel)raska bill was l)rought into Congress for the i)urpose of carrying out the prin- ciph's which both parties had up to that time indorsed and approved, tlien' had been no division in this country in regard to that principle I'Xcept the opposition of the Abolitioidsts. In the House of Kep- resentntives of the Illinois Legislature, upon a resolution asserting that principle, every Whig and every Democrat in the House voled DOUGLAS. 167 in the affirmative, and only four men voted against it, and those /"our were Old Line Abolitionists. In 1S54, Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull entered into an arrangement, one with the other, and each witii his respective friends, to dissolve the old Whig party on the one hand, and to dissolve the old Democratic part}^ on the other, and to connect the members of both into an Abolition party, under the name and dis- guise of a Republican party. The terms of that arrangement be- tween Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull have been published to the world by Mr. Lincoln's special friend, James H. Matheny, Esq., and they were, that Lincoln should have Shields's place in the United Stiites Senate, which was then about to become vacant, and that Trumbull should have my seat when my term expired. Lin- coln went to work to Abolitionize the old Whig party all over the State, pretending that he was then as good a Whig as ever; and Trumbull went to work in his part of the State preaching Abolition- ism in its milder and lighter form, and trjing to Abolitionize the Democratic party, and bring old Democrats handcuffed and bound hand and foot into the Abolition camp. In pursuance of the arrangement, the parties met at Springfield in October, 1854, and proclaimed their new platform. Lincoln was to bring into the Aljolition camp the Old Line Whigs, and transfe)- them over to Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Parson Lovejoy, who were ready to receive them and christen them in their new faith. They laid down on that occasion a platform for their new Republi- can part}-, which was to be thus constructed. 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, and I now hold them in my hands, and will read a part of them, and cause the others to be printed. Here are the most important and material resolutions of this Abolition platform: — "1 Resolved, That Ave believe this truth to be self-evident, that wlien parties become subversive of the ends for which they are established, or incapable of restoring tlie Governmenl to the true prniciples of the Con- stitution, it is the right and dut}' of the people to dissolve the political bands by which they may have been connected therewith, and to organize new parties, upon sucli 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 pre- dilections, we unite our.selves together in defense of the liberty and Con- stitution of the country, and will hereafter co-operate as the Republican 1«;6 OTIAWA DEBATE. AUGUST 21. 1H.'J8. partv, i.K'u};«'«l to lln- accoin|ilisluniiil «»f tin- ftillowiii-r |»ur|K»s(s: Tn briii^' thi' ndininist ration of the (Mivj-riiini-eit back lo tin- control of lirsl principles: to restore Nebraska and Kansas lo the [Mjsition of Free Territories, tliat, as the Ct>nstitution of the United States vests in the States, and not in C'on- {jress, the jMiwer to lejjislate for the extradition of fuf^itives from labor, to rt'iM-al an«l entirely abro<:ate the Fulishmeiit, and that we will supi)ort no man for oflice, under the (Ji-neral or State tiovernment, who is nt»l positively and fully committed to the supi)ort of these principles, and whose personal character aiiil con- duct is not a ■ruarantee that he is reliable, and who shall not have abjured ohl party allefriance and ties." Now, <;tMitlemen, your Black Rfpiil)licans have cheered ever}' one <»f those propositions, and yet T venture to say that you canuot get Mr. Lincoln to conic out and say that he is now in favor of each one of tlicin. That tliest' j)ropositions, one and all, constitute the plat- form of tile Hlack Repulilican party of this day, T have no doul)t; and when ^on were not aware for what jjurpose I was read- ing them, your lilack HepiiMicans cheered them as <2;ood Hhick Republican doctrines. My object in reading these resolutions was to put the question to Abraham Lincoln this day, whether he now stands and will stand by each article in that creed and carry it out. I desire to know wlietlier Mr. jjincoln to-tlay stands, as he did in lHr)4, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 18.') 1. against the admission o{ any more Slave States into the Union, even if the people want tliem. I want to know wlicther lie stands pledged against the an of a new State into the Union witli Hucli a Constitution as the people of that State may see lit to make. 1 w:int to know whether Fie stands to-day pledged to the aliolition of slavery in the District of Uolumhia. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade Itetween the ;ain sui»merged, or oiiliged to retire into })rivate life, forgotten by his former friends. He came up again in lSr)4, just in time to m.ike this Altolition or iJlack Republican platform, in comiiany with (lidilings, Lovejoy, ('li:ise, and Fred Dougla.ss, for Ihe lb'i»iililican party to stand upon Trumbull, too, was one of our own contemporaries, lie was Ikmu and raised in old Connecticut, was l)red a Federalist, but, re- moving to (ieorgia, turned Xullilier wiu'U Nullification was popular. and as soon as he disponed of his clocks and wound up his busi- ness, migrated to Illinois, turned poliiician and lawyer here, and made liis appearance in 1S41 as a member of the Legislature. He l»ecame noted as the author t)f the Bcheme to repudiate a large portion of the State del>t of Illinois, which, if successful, would have brought infamy and disgrace Ui)on the fair escutcheon of our glorious State. The odium attached to that uu'asure consigned him to oblivion for a time. I helped to do it. I walked into a public meeting in tin* h ill of the Ilctuse of Ilepresentatives, and replied to his repudiating speec-hes, and resolutions were carried over his head denouncing repudiation, and asserting the moral and legal obligation «»f Illinois to pay every dollar of the debt she owed, and evwy bond that bore her seal. TrumbuH's malignity has followed me since I thus defeated his infamous scheme. These two men having formed this e«mibination to Altolitioni/e tlie old N\"hig party and the old Democratic party, and i)ut them- selves into the Senate <;f the I'nited States, in pursuance of their bargain, are now carrying out that arrangement. ^Nlatheny states that Trumbull broke faith; that the bargain was that Lincoln shonld be the SiMiator in Shieldss pl.ice. and Trumbull was to wait DOUGLAS. 171 for mine; and the story, goes that Trumbull cheated Liucolu, haviug control of four or live Abolitionized Democrats who were hold- ing over in the Senate; he would not let them vote for Lincoln, which oijliged the rest of the Abolitionists to support him in order to secure an Abolition Senator. There are a number of authorities for the truth of this besides Matheny, and I suppose that even Mr. Lincoln will not den}' it. Mr. Lincoln demands that he shall have the place intended for Trumbull, as Trumbull cheated him and got his, and Trumbull is stumping the State traducing me for the purpose of securing the l)osition for Lincoln, in order to quiet him. It was in consequence of this arrangement that the Republican Convention was empanelled to instruct for Lincoln and nobody else, and it was on this account that they passed resolutions that he was their first, their last, and their only choice. Archy Williams was nowhere. Browning was nobod}-, "Wentworth was not to be considered; they had no man in the Republican party for the place except Lincoln, for the reason that he demanded that the}' should carry out the arrangement. Having formed this new party for the benefit of deserters from Whiggery, and deserters from Democracy, and having laid down the Abolition platform which T have read, Lincoln now takes his stand and proclaims his Abolition doctrines. Let me read a part of them. In his speech at Springfield to the Convention which nominated him for the Senate, he said: — " In vny 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 ex- pect the Union to be dissolved, — I do not expect the house to fall; but 1 do expect it will cease to he divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and ijlace it where the public mind shall rest in the belief t7iat it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lairfulin all the States, — old as Avell as new, North as well as South. [ ' ' Good, ' " " good, " ' and cheers. ] I am delighted to hear you Black Republicans say "good. " I have no doubt that doctrine expresses your sentiments, and I will prove to you now, if you will listen to me, that it is revolutionary, and destructive of the existence of this Government. Mr. Lincoln, in the extract from which I have read, says that this Government cannot endure permanently in the same condition in which it was made by its framers, — divided into Free and Slave States. He 172 OTTAWA DEBATE, AUGUST 21, 1858. says that it lias i-xisti-d for alxuit sevciily Vfars lliiis divided, and yet lie tells you that it eannot endure perinani'iitly on the same prin- eiples and in the saiue rehitive condition in whicli our f stitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the State, and allow the free negroes to flow in, and cover your prairies with black settlements? Do you desire to turn this beautiful State into a free negro colony, in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens and voters, on an equality with your- selves? If you desire negro citizenship, if you desire to allow them to come into the State and settle with the white man, if you desire them to vote on an equality with yourselves, and to make them eligible to office, to serve on juries, and to adjudge your rights, then support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the negro. For one, I am opposed to negro citi- zenship in any and every form. I believe this Government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the little Abolition orators, who go around and lecture in the basements of schools and churches, reads from the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal, and then asks. How can you deprive a negro of that equality which (lod and the Declaration of Independence award to him? He and they maintain that negro equality is guaranteed by the laws of God, and that it is asserted in the Declaration of Independence. If they think so, of course they have a right to say so, and so vote. I do not question Mr. Lincoln's conscientious belief that the negro was made his equal, and hence is his brother ; but for my own part, I do not regard the negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever. Lincoln has evidently learned by heart Parson Lovejoy's catechism. He can repeat it as well as Farns- worth, and he is worthy of a medal from Father Giddings and Fred Douglass for his Abolitionism. He holds that the negro was born his equal and yours, and that he was endowed with equality by the Almighty, and that no human law can deprive him of these rights, which were guaranteed to him liy tlie Supreme Ruler of the Universe. Now I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man. If he did, he has been a long time demonstrating the fact. For thousands of years the negro has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes 174 OTTAWA DEHATK. AlOrsT 21, la^S. ami c'limali's, wla-revtr lie lias waiulert'd oi been taken, lie lias been inferior to the raee wliicii In- has there met. He belongs to an in- ferior racf. ami must aiwavs occupy an inferior jtosit i.ni. I do not hold that because the negro is our inferior that therefore he ought to be a slave. By no means can such a conclusion be drawn from what I have said. Oa the contrary. I hold that humanity and Christianity both require that the negro shall have and enjoy every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety of the society in which he lives. Oa that point, I pre- sume, there can l>e no diversity of opinion. Von anil I are liound to extend to our infi-rior and dependent beinirs every riirlit, every privilege, every facility and immunity consistent with the public good. Tin- (|ii«^;iiiii then ari>es. What rights and privileges are con- sistent with the public good ? This is a question which each State and each Territory must decide for itself. Illinois lias decided it f..r herself. We have provided that the negro shall not be a slave, and we have also provided that he shall not be a citizen, but protect him in his civil rights, in his life, his person and his property, only de- priving him of all political rights wiiat.soever, and refusing to put Jiim on an eciuality with the white man. That policy of Illinois is satisfactory to the Demoeratie party and to me ; and if it were to the Republicans, there would then be no question upon the subject. But the llepu])licans say that he ought to be made a citizen, and when he becomes a citizen he becomes your equal, with all your rights and i)rivileges. They assert the I>rcd Scott decision to l)e monstrous because it denies that the negro is or can l»e a citizen under the Constitution. Now, 1 hold that Illinois had a right to aljolish and prohiliit slavery as she did, and I hold tliat Kentucky has the same right to continue and protect slavery that Illinois had to abolish it. I hold that New York had as mucii right to abolish slavery as A'irginia has to continue it, and that each and every State of this I'nion is a sf)vereign power, with the right to do as it pleases upon this (juestiou of slavery, and upon all its d«)mestic institutions. NOT IIIK O.NI.V QI'KSTION. Slavery is not the only ([uestion which comes up in tiiis contro- versy. There is a far more important one to you, and that is. What shall Ik* done with the free negro? We have settled the slavery »|UeHtioii as far as we are concerned ; we have prohibited it in Illinois forever; and in doiiijx so. I think we have done wisely, and there is DOUGLAS. 175 no man in the State who would be more strenuous in his opposition to the introduction of sliivory than I would. But when we settled t for ourselves, we exhausted all our power over that subject. We have done our whole dut}^ and can do no more. We must leave each and every other State to decide for itself the same question. In relation to the policy to be pursued toward the free negroes, we have said that they shall not vote; whilst Maine, on the other hand, has said that they shall vote. Maine is a sovereign State, and has tiie power to regulate the qualifications of voters within her limits. I would never consent to confer the right of voting and of citizenship upon a negro; but still I am not going to quarrel with Maine for differing from me in opinion. Let Maine take care of her own negroes, and fix the qualifications of her own voters to suit herself, without interfering with Illinois, and Illinois will not interfere with Maine. So with the State of New York. She allows the negro to vote, provided he owns two hundred and fifty dollars' worth of property, but not otherwise. While I would not make any distnic- tion whatever between a negro who held property and one who did not ; yet if the sovereign State of New York chooses to make that distinction, it is her business and not mine, and I will not quarrel with her for it. She can do as she pleases on this question if she minds her own business, and we will do the same thing. Now, mj^ friends, if we will only act conscientiously and rigidly upon this great principle of popular sovereignty, which guarantees to each State and Territory the right to do as it pleases on all things, local and domestic, instead of Congress interfering, we will con- tinue at peace one with another. Why should Illinois be at war with Missouri, or Kentucky with Ohio, or Virginia with New York, merely because their institutions differ? Our fathers intended that our institutions should differ. They knew that the North and the South, having different climates, productions, and interests, re- quired different Institutions. This doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, of uniformity among the institutions of the different States, is a new doctrine, never dreamed of by Washington, Madison, or the framers of this Government, Mr. Lincoln and the Republican party set themselves up as wiser than these men' who made this Government, which has flourished for seventy yeavs under the principle of popu- lar sovereignty, recognizing the right of each State to do as it pleased. Under that principle, we have grown from a nation of three oi four millions to a nation of about thirty millions of people; we have crossed the Alleghany mountains and filled up the whole ITf. OTTAWA DKHATE, AUGUST 21, 1858. Northwest, turniu'j the prairie into a {j;ardeii, and building up churches and schools, thus spreading civilization and Christianity where before there was nothing but savage barl)arisin. Under that principle we have become, from a feeble nation, the most powerful on the face of the earth; and if we only adhere lo that principle, we can go forward increasing in territory, in power, in strength, and in glory until the Republic of America shall be the North Star that shall guide the friends of freedom throughout the civilized world. And why can wi- not adhere to the great principle of self-govern- ment, upon whicli our institutions were originally' based? I believe that this new doctrine preached by Mr. Lincoln and his party will dissolve the Union if it succeeds. Tiiey are trying to array all the Northern States in one body against the South, to excite a sectional war itetween the Free States and the Slave States, in order that the one or the other may be driven to the wall. I am told that my time is out. Mr. Lincoln will now address 3'ou for an hour and a half, and I will then occupy au half hour in replying to him. MK I.IN'COLN'S REPLY. My Fellow-Citizens: When a man hears himself somewhat mis- represented, it jjrovokes him, — at least, I find it so with myself; but when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpaide, it is more apt to amuse him. The first thing I see fit to notice is the fact that Judge Douglas alleges, after running through the history of the old Democratic and the old Whig parties, that Judge Trumbull and my.self made an arrangement in 18r)4, by which I was to have the place of (leneral Shields \n the United Stales Senate, and Judge Truniliull was to have the place of Judge Douglas. Now, all I have to say upon that suV)ject is that I think no man — not even Judge Douglas — can prove it, hicditsc if is nat tnn'. I have no doul»t he is " conscirntitms " In saying it. As to those resolutions that he took such a length of time to read, as Itcing the platform of tlu- Republican party in ISj4, I say I never had anything lo do with them, and I thnik Truml)ull never had. Jutlge Douglas cannot show that either of us ever did have anything lo do with them. I believe this is true about those resolu- LINCOLN. 177 tions: There was a cajl for a Convention to form a Republican part}- at Springfield, and I think that m}' friend Mr. Lovejoy, who is here upon this stand, had a hand in it. I think this is true, and I think if he will remember accurately, he will be able to recollect that he tried to get me into it, and I would not go in. I believe it is also true that I went away from Springfield when the Convention was in session, to attend court in Tazewell County. It is true they did place my name, though without authority, upon the committee, and afterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the committee; but I refused to do so, and I never had anything to do with that organi- zation. This is the plain truth about all that matter of the resolutions. Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells of Trumbull bar- gaining to sell out the old Democratic party, and Lincoln agreeing to sell out the old Whig party, I hive the means of knowing about that: Judge Douglas cannot have; and I know there is no substance to it whatever. Yet I have no doubt he is ''■ conscientious'' about it. I know that after Mr. Lovejoy got into the Legislature that winter, he complained of me that I had told all the old Whigs of his dis- trict that the old Whig party was good enough for them, and some of them voted against him because I told them so. Now, I have no means of totally disproving such charges as this which the Judge makes. A man cannot prove a negative; but he has a right to claim that when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to show the truth of Vt^hat he says. T certainly cannot introduce testimony to show the negative about things, but I have a right to claim that if a man says he knowft a thing, then he must show Iioir he knows it. I alwa3's have a right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he maybe "conscientious" on the subject. Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on such things ; l)ut in -regard to that general Abolition tilt that Judge Douglas makes, when he says that I was engaged at that time in selling out and Abolitionizing the old Whig pai'ty, I hope you will permit me to read a part of a printed speech that I made then at Peoria, which will show altogether a different view of the position I took in that contest of 1854. A Voice. — " Put on your specs." 3fr. Lincoln. — Yes, sir, I am obliged to do so; T am no longer a 3'9ung man. 13 ITS OTTAWA DEBATK. AUGUST 21. l.S.-)8. •• This is the r<7«ry miiy not In- pn-ciscly iiccurulo in t'Vi>ry particular, but 1 am sure it is suMirit'tiliy so Tor all tin- uses I shull ulti'mpl to niaUi' of it. and in it wo hav*' iM-fon- us the ciiicf materials enab!in<: us to corrrctly judge whctluT the n'|H-al of ti»>' Missouri Compromise is rijrlit or wron^r. " I think, und shall try to show, tliat it is wron;;. — wronp in its direct ofTfct. li'ltiufT slav«'ry into Kansas and Xebniska, and wrong in its prosi>ec- livo principle, allowing it to spread to ovorj' other part of the wide world where men can be found inclined to take it. "This (hrltind indilference, but, as 1 must think, covert r<'o' '/eal for the spread of sl.-ivery, I cannot but hale. I hate it because of the mon- >lnius injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republi- Ciin example of its just inlluence in the world, — enables the iMiemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites: causes the real friends of freedlus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their conditi«)n? I think 1 would not hold <»ne in slavery, at any rate; yet the jxiint is not clear enouijh to nu' to denounce iM'ople uiH»n. What next? Tree them, and maki- them politically and 1 TIiIk extract from Mr. Llncoln'a Pcorln npcfcli of IH.'^ was rend l>y lilm In tliu Ottawa ^■ liatc. bill wan not rrporii-ri fully or accurately In pittior ISmn •-«.■ />.'../n. l! m In nrrU-d now ai iieceaaary to a coiiiplcic report of the ilcbato. T-lNf'OLN. 179 socially our equals' My own IVolings will not admit of this; and if mino would, wo well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. \Yhether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not tiu^ sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make tiiem equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertak(> to ju(lg(> our brethren of the Soutli. "When they remind us of tiieir constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordi- nary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one. " But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permit- ting slavery to go into our own Free Territory than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of shives from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle ; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter." I have reason to know tliat Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I think he has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechise me unless he pays back for it in khid. I will not answer questions one after another, unless he reciprocates; but as he has made this inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has got it without my getting anything in return. He has got ray answer on the Fugitive- Slave law. Now, gentlemen, I do nt want to read at any greater length ; but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the l)lack race. This is the whole of it; and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic ar- rangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to intro- duce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a ne- cessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, 180 OTTAWA DKl'.ATK. AUGUST 21, 1858. am in favor of tlu' race to whirli I la-long having the superior posi- tion. I have never said anything to the contrurv, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the netjro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated iu the Dec- laration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pur- suit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. 1 agree with Judge Douglas he i.s not my eipi.il in many respects, — certainly not in color, perhaps noi in moral or in- tellectual endowment. Hut in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. Now I i)ass on to consider one or two more of these little follies. The Judge is wofuUy at fault aliout his early friend Lincoln b«*ing a "grocery-keeper.'' I do nt know as it wouhl ho a great siu, if I had l)een; but he is mistaken. Ijincoln never kept a grocery any- wiiere in the world. It is true that Lincoln did work the latter part of one winter in a little still-house, up at the heail of a hollow. And so I think my friend the Judge is ecjually at fault when he charges me at the time when I was in Congress of having opposed our soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican war. The Judge did not make his charge very distinctly, but I can tell you what he can prove, l»y referring to the record. Vou remcml»er I was an old Wiiig, and whenever the Democratic party tricil to get me to vote that the war had been righteously Itegun by the President, I would not do it. Hut whenever they asked for any money, or land-war- rants, or anything to pay the soliliers there, during all that time, I gave the same vote that Judge Douglas did. Vou can think as you please as to whether that was consistent. Such is the truth; and the Judge has the right to make all lie can out of it. IJut when he, by u general charge, conveys the idea that I withheld supplies from the soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican war, or did anything else to hinder the soldiers, he is, to say the h'ast, grossly and Ito- gether mistaken, as a consultation of the n'cords will prove to him. As I have not ust-d iij) so nnicli of my tinu- as 1 h'd sui)p()sed, I will dwell a little longer upon one or two of llies<' minor toiiics upon whij-h the Jinlge has spoken, lie has read from my speech in Springfield, in which I say that '-a house divided against itself can- not stand." Does the Judge say it can stand? I don't know whether he dfM's or not. Tin- Judge does not srcm to bt^ attending to me just now. but I would like to know if it is his opinion that a LINCOLN. 181 house divided against itself can stand. If he does, then there is a question of veracity, not between him and me, but between the Judge and an authority of a somewhat higher character. WHAT CONSTITUTES A DIVIDED HOUSE ? Now, .my friends, I ask your attention to this matter for the purpose of sa^-ing something seriously. I know that tiie Judge may readily enough agree with me that the maxim which was put forth by the Saviour is true, but he may allege that I misappl}^ it; and the Judge has a right to urge that, in my application, I do misap- ply it, and then I have a right to show that I do not misapply' it. When he undertakes to say that because I think this nation, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, will all become one thing or all the other, I am in favor of bringing about a dead uni- formit}' in the various States, in all their institutions, he argues er- roneously. The great variety of the local institutions in the States, springing frcm diiFsrences in the soil, differences in the face of the country, and in the climate, are bonds of Union. They do not make " a house divided against itself," but they make a house united. If they produce in oiie section of the country what is called for by the wants of another section, and this other section can supply the wants of the first, they are not matters of discord, but bonds of union, true bonds of union. But can this question of slavery be considered as among these varieties in the iustitutious of the country? I leave it to you to say whether, in the history of our Government, this institution of slav- ery has not always failed to be a bond of union, and, on the con- trary, been an apple of discord and an element of division in the house. I ask you to consider whether, so long as the moral consti- tution of men's minds shall continue to be the same, after this gen- eration and assemblage shall sink into the grave, and another race shall arise, with the same moral and intellectual development we have, — whether, if that institution is standing in the same irritat- ing position in which it now is, it will not continue an element of division ? If so, then I have a right to say that, in regard to this question, the Union is a house divided against itself ; and when the Judge reminds me that I have often said to him that the institution of slavery has existed for eighty years in some States, and yet it does not exist in some others, I agree to the fact, and I account for it by looking at the position in which our fathers originally placed it, — restricting it from the new Territories where it had not gone, 1S2 uri'AWA DKIJA'IK. ACdlST -.'l, 18.'>8. :in«i Ugi>l:itiiig to cut vlT il.s sourre liy the ubrogalion of the slave- Iraile, thus putting the seal of legishition oijuiitst its sprtml. The puljlic miiul (//;i'. I am M'd to lake his answer as being as liroad as though hi- had put it in tlu'se words. And now, I ask, even if he had done so, have not I a right to proir it tm him, and to otfer tiie evideni-e of more than two witnesses, by whom to prove it; and if the evidence proves the existence of the conspiracy, does his broad answer elief, disturl) the fact ? It can only show that he was used by conspirators, and was not a leader of them. Now. in regard to his reminding me of the moral rule that i)er- sons who tell what they do not know to be true, falsify as mucii as those who knowingly tell falsehoint it out, it will not even rullle me to take it back. But if he will not point out anything erroneous in the evidence, is it not rather for him to show, by a comj)arison of the evidence, that I have niixniud falsely, than to call tlii' "kind. amiaMc. intelligent gentle- man " a liar ? If I have reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vo- cation of an able debater to show by argument that I have wan- dered to an erroneous conclusion. I want to ask your attention to a jtorlion of the Nebraska bill, which Judge Douglas lias (pioti'd : '-It being the true intent and njeaning of this Act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or St^Uc, nor to exclude it therefroni. but to leav«' the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their ilomestic institutions in LINCOLN. 187 their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Tliereupon Judge Douglas and others began to argue in favor of " Popular Sovereignty," — the right of the people to have slaves if tliey wanted them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want tliem. "But," said, in substance, a Senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase, I l)elieve), "we more than suspect that you do not mean to allow the jjeople to exclude slavery if they wish to; and if 3'ou do mean it, aeeejjt an amendment which I propose, expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery." I believe I have the amendment here before me, which was of- fered, and under which the people of tlie Territor}', through their proper representatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein. And now I state it as a fact, to be taken back if there is any mistake about it, that Judge Douglas and those act- ing with him voted that amendment down. I now think that those men who voted it down had a real reason for doing so. They know what that reason was. It looks to us, since we have seen the Dred Scott decision pronounced, holding that "under the Constitution," the people cannot exclude slavery, — I say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, " amiable, intelligent gentlemen," as though the niche was left as a place to put that Dred Scott decision in, — a niche which would have been spoiled by adopting the amendment. And now, I say again, if this was not the reason, it will avail the Judge much more to calmly and good-humoredly point out to these people what tliat othev reason was for voting the amendment down, than, swelling himself up, to vociferate that he may be provoked to call somebody a liar. Again : There is in that same quotation from the Nebraska bill this clause : "It being the true intent and meaning of this bill not to legislate slavery into any Territory or Stata. " I have always been puzzled to know what business the word " State" had in that connection. Judge Douglas knows. He put it there. He knows what he put it there for. We outsiders cannot say what he put it there for. The law they were passing was not about States, and was not making provision for States. What was it placed there for ? After seeing the Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people cannot exclude slavery from a Terrltorn^ if another Dred Scott decision shall come, holding that they cannot exclude it from a State, we shall discover that when the word was originally put there, it was in view of something which was to come in due time, we shall see that it was the other half of something. I now say 188 OTTAWA DKHATi:, ATCTST 'U, 1858. again, if theiv is any «lltri*ri'nt reason for putting it there, Judge Douglas, in a gootl-humored way, without calling anybody a liar, cun (> fl nil, it till ritisiiii iriis. ••ANOTnER Cn.VBGE." When the Jndge spoke at Clinton, he came very near making a charge of falsehootl against nie. He used, as I found it printed in a newspa[)er, which. 1 remendjer, was very nearly like the real speech, the following language : — •• I did nut answiT the char{?t^ [of conspiracy] before, for tlio reason tiiai I did not supixjse there was a man in America with a heart so corrujil .i^ to believe s\ich a diarpe could be true. I have too much respect for .Mr. Lincoln to suppose he is serious in making the charfrc" I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of respect for m he should consider I was making what I deemed rather a grave charge, in fun. I confess it strikes me rather strangely. Hut I let it pass. As the Judge did not for a moment believe that there w:i> a man in America wiiose heart was so " corrupt " as to make such a charge, and as he places me among the ''men in America," who have hearts base enough to make such a charge, I hope he will ex- cuse me if I hunt out another charge very like this; and if it should turn out that in hunting I should find that other, and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas himself who made it, I hope he will recon- sider this question of the deep corruption of heart he has thought fit to a.scribe to me. In Judge Douglas's speech of March 22, 1858, which T hold in my hand, he says: — "In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the coursi^ of ni'wsi)apers, or notice the articles wiiich tlii-y publish in regard to myself; but the course of the Washington Union has been so extraordinary, for the last two or three months, that I think it wd! t-nough to make some allusion to it. It has n'ad nn' out of tin- Di-mocralic party every other day, at least for two or three montiis, and keeps reading me out, and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues to read me out, using sucli terms as 'traitor,' 'renegade,' 'deserter,' and other kind and [xdite ei)ithets of tiiat nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my Democracy against the Washington Union, or any oWwr newspa|)er. I am willing to allow my history and action for the last twenty years to speuk for themselves as to m}' political principles and my fidelity to iMilitical obligations. The Washington Union has a perr.onal grievance. When its editor was nominated for ])ublic |)rinter. I declined to v<»te for him, and stated (hat at some time I might give my reasons for doing so. Since I declined to gisc liiat vuti-. this scurrilous abuse, ihi. i LINCOLN. 189 vindictive and constant attacks have been repeated almost daily on me. AVill my friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude? " This is a part of the speech. You must excuse me from reading the entire article of tlie Washington Union, as Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. Douglas. The Judge goes on and sums up, as I think, correctlj' : — "Mr. President, j'ou here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly by the Washington Union editorialh', and apparently authoritatively; and any man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primary object of all government at its original institution is the protection of person and property ; second, that the Constitution of the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and im- munities of citizens in the several States; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and espe- cially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of the Government and Constitution of the United States; and, fourth, that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross out- rage of the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner. "Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th of November, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhe- sion of the Union to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words : — "'Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed question 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 nearlj' of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorpor- ated in it which was put forth editorially in the Union. What is it? "'Article 7, Section 1. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the o\vni>r of any property whatever.' "Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be amended after 1864 by a two-thirds vote. " 'But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the ownership of slaves.' "It will be seen bj' these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that they are identical in spirit with the authoritative article in the Washington Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution." I pass over some portions of the speech, and I hope that any one who feels interested in this matter will read the entire section of the speech, and see whether I do the Judge injustice. He pro- ceeds : — 190 OTTAWA DHUATK. AUGUST 21, 1858. " WhtMj I saw Ihiit urlioli- in tin? Union of llu' 17th of Novcmht-r, fol- lowed by the ;,'loriHi'iition of tljc liccompton Constitution on thi* IStli of XovcmbtT, mill this flaiisc in tlii» Constitution asscrtin^r thodootrim- that n Stat*' has no ri^'ht to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw tliat tiiere was li fatal bloir beiuL.' slruek at the soverei^'iily of the Stales of llijs Union." I stop tlio (luotation there, ajjain requesting that it may all he n-ad. 1 have le.iii nil (»f the iMirtioii I df^ire to cinnim-nt u[)<»ii. What is this charge that the Judge thinks I must have a very cor- rupt heart to make? It was a purpose on llu- part of certain liigli funetionark'S to make it impossible for the people of one State to prohiidt the people of any other State from enteriiij^ it with their "property," so called, and making it a Slave State. In other won Is it was a charge implying a design to make the institution of slavery national. And now 1 ask your attention to what .jMd;zc Douglas has himself done here. I know he made that part of the speech as a reason why he had refused to vote for a certain man for public printer; but when we get at it, the charge itself is the very one I made against him, that he thinks I am so corrupt for utter- ing. Now, whom docs he make that charge against? J)ocs he make it against tliat newspaper editor merely? No; he says it is identical in spirit with the Lecomptf I lie merit oi' driiuiit ol' tlic dt'ci.sioii, Init it is a •' Tims saith llu' Lord." The next decision, as much as this, will be a •• Thus saith the Lord." 'riKTi.' is notliinj: llial can di\(.'rt or turn him away from tiii.s decision. It is nothing that I point out to him that his great pro- totype, (Jeneral Jaekson, did not l)elieve in the l)inding force of (leeisioiis. It is nothin«r to him that JelTerson did not so believe. I have said tiiat I liave often lieard iiim approve of Jackson's course in disregarding the di-eision of tiie Supreme Court i)ronouncing a Na- tional Hank constituticnial. He says. I did not hear him say so. He denies the accurae}' of my recollection. I say he ought to know better than I, l)ut I will make no (piestion about this thing, though it still seems to me that I heard him .say it twenty times. I will tell him, though, that he now claims to stand on the Cincinnati platform. which aflirms that Congress nnniof charter a National IJank. in the teeth of that old standing decision that Congress <(iii charter a bank. And I remind him of another piece of history on the question of respect for judicial decisions: and it is a i)iei-e of Illincns liistorv lu - longing to a time when the large party to which Judge Douglas belonged were displeased with a decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois; because the}' had decided that a (lovi-rnor could not remove a Secretary of State. You will tind the whole story in Fonls Ilistor}' of Illinois, and I know that Judge Douglas will nctt deny that he was then in favor of overslaughing that (K'cision l>y the mode of adding live new judges, so as to vote down the four old ones. Not Onl}' so, but it endeil in t/ir ,/;/(/(/« '.s- siltinij tiiiirii nil (lull iiri/ Iniirfi iin uiir iif' till jiir iii ir Jiiil ijis til lirink ihnrn the fuitr ohlonrs. It was in this way precisely that he got his title of judge. Now, when tiie Judge ti'Ils me lliat men appoinled conditionally to sit as ineiidxrH of a court will li.ive to be cnlechisecl beforehand upon some Hul)ject, I say, " Vou know. Judge; you have tried it. ' When he says a court of this kind \\ill lose the c(.>nlidence of all LINCOLN. 103 men, will be prostituted and disgraced by such a proceeding, I say, " Yon know best, Judge; you have been through tlie mill." But I cannot shake Judge Douglas's teeth loose from the Dred Scott decision. Like some obstinate animal (I mean no disrespect) that will hang on when he has once got his teeth fixed, you may cut oir a leg, or 3-ou may tear away an arm, still he will not relax his hold. And so I may point out to the Judge, and say, that he is bespattered all over, from the beginning of his political life to the present time, with attacks upon judicial decisions; I may cut off limb after limb of his public record, and strive to wrench him from a single dictum of tlie court, — yet I cannot divert him from it. He hangs, to the last, to the Dred Scott decision. These things show there is a purpose strong as death and eternity for which he ad- heres to this decision, and for which he will adhere to all other decisions of the same court. ^1 Hibernian. — '-Give us something besides Drid Scott." 3Ir. Lincoln. — Yes; no doubt j'ou want to hear something that don't hurt. Now, having spoken of the Dred Scott de- cision, one more word, and I am done. Henry Cla^', my beau- idral of a statesman, the man for whom I fought all my humble life, — Henry Clay once said of a class of men who would repress all tendencies to liberty aud ultimate emancipation, that they must, if they would do this, go back to the era of our Independence, and muzzle the cannon wliich thunders its annual joyous return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate there the love of liberty; and then, and not till then, could they perpetuate slavery in this country! To my thinking. Judge Douglas is, by his example and vast influence, do- ing that very thing in this community, when he says that the negro has nothing in the Declaration of Independence. Henry Clay plainl}' understood the contnuy. Judge Douglas is going back to the era of our Revolution, and to the extent of his ability, muzzling the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return. When he invites any people, willing to have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us. When he says he " cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up," — that it is a sacred right of self-government, — he is, in my judgment, penetrating the human soul and eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American people. And now I will only say that when, by all these means and appli- ances, Judge Douglas shall succeed in bringing public sentiment to 13 1!)| OTTAWA HKllATi:, ATCl'ST 21, I.S08. an I'xact accordancf with liis (»\vn views; wIrmi tliese vast assem- blages shall echo back all these sentiments; when they shall come to ri'peat his views and to avow his princii)les. aixl to say all that he says on these mi«:hty (jnestions, — then it needs only the formality of the second Dred Scott decision, which he endorses in advance, to make slavery alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. My friends, that ends the chapter. The .Judge can take his half-hour. MU. DnrcLASS RK.IOIXDKK. Fellow-Citizens ; 1 will now occupy the half-hour allotted to me in re|)!ying to Mr. Lincoln. The first point to which I will call your attention is as to what I said about the organization of the llepublican party in 1854, and the i)latforin that was formed on the .')tli of October of that year, and I will then put the question to Mr. Lincoln, whether or not he approves of each article in that platform, and ask for a specific answer. 1 did not charge him with being a member of the committee which reported that platform. 1 charged that that platform was the |)latform of the Republican party atlopted by them. The fact that it was the platform of the Kepublican party is not denied ; but Mr. Lincoln now says that although his name was on the committee which reported it. that he does not think he was there, but thinks he was in Tazewell, holding court. Now, I want to remind Mi'. Lincoln that he was at Si)ringfield when that Convention was heUl and tho.se res(»hitions were adopted. The point I am going to remind Mr. l.,inc()ln of is this : that after I had made my speech in 1854, during the Fair, he gave me notice that he was going to reply to me the next day. I was sick at the time, but I stayed over in Springfield to hear his reply, and to reply to him. On that day this very Convention, the resolutions ado|>ted by which I have read, was to meet in the Senate chamber. He spoke in the hall of the House ; and when he got through his speech, — my recollection is distinct, and 1 shall never forget it, — Mr. Codding walked in as I took the stand to reply, and gave notice that the Hepublican State Convention would meet instantly in the Senate chand)er, and called upon the Republicans to retire there and go into this very ('<»nventiiin, instead of remaining and listening to me. In the first place, Mr. Lincoln was selected by the very men who made th«' Republican orgainzation on (hat day, to reply to me. lie DOUGLAS. 195 spoke for them and for that party, and he was the leader of the party ; and on the very day he made his speech in reply to me, preaching up this same doctrine of negro equality under the Decla- ration of Independence, this Republican party met in Convention. Another evidence that he was acting in concert with them is to be found in the fact that that Convention waited an hour after its time of meeting to hear Lincoln's speech, and Codding, one of their lead- ing men, marched in the moment Lincoln got through, and gave notice that they did not want to hear me, and would proceed with Ihe business of the Convention. Still another fact. I have here a newspaper printed at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's own town, in Octo- ber, 1854, a few days afterward, publishing these resolutions, charg- ing Mr. Lincoln with entertaining these sentiments, and trying to prove that they were also the sentiments of Mr. Yates, then candi- date for Congress. This has been published on Mr. Lincoln over and over again, and never before has he denied it. Douglas's questions. But, my friends, this denial of his that he did not act on the committee, is a miserable quibble to avoid the main issue, which is, that this Republican platform declares in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law. Has Lincoln answered whether he indorsed that or not? I called his attention to it when I first addressed you, and asked him for an answer, and I then predicted that he would not answer. How does he answer? Why, that he was not on the committee that wrote the resolutions. I then repeated the next proposition contained in the resolutions, which was to re- strict slavery in those States in which it exists, and asked him whether he indorsed it. Does he answer yes, or no? He says in reply, "I was not on the committee at the time ; I was up in Tazewell." The next question I put to him was, whether he was in favor of prohibit- ing the admission of any more Slave States into the Union. I put the question to him distinctly, whether, if the people of the Terri- tory, when they had sufficient population to make a State, should form their Constitution recognizing slavery, he would vote for or against its admission. He is a candidate for the United States Senate, and it is possible, if he should be elected, that he would have to vote directly on that question. I asked him to answer me and you, whether he would vote to admit a State into the Union, with slavery or without it, as its own people might choose. He did not answer that question. He dodges that question also, under the cover that he was not on the committee at the time, that he was not i;m; ori'AWA dkhatk. Arra'sT 21. i858. pivsenl wlifii till- platform was madr. I want to know if lie slioultl tiapptMi t(» hi' in till' S(."natt' wiien a State applii'd for aduiission, with ii C'onstiliitioa at-cfptaMe to her own people, he would vote to ad- mit tluit State, if slavery was one of its institutions. He avoids the answer. It i.s trut' he hunbia, and I asked Jjincoln specilically whether he agreed with them in that? [Voice: " Did you get au answer? "] He is afraid to answer it. He knows I will trot him down to Kgypt. I intend to make liim answer there, or I will show the people of Illinois that he does not intend to answer these questions. The Convention to which I have been alluding goes a little furtlu-r, and pleilges itself to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the General Government has exclusive jurisdiction north of 3G deg. 30 miu., as well as south. Xow. I want to know whether he approvi's that pro- vision. I want him to answer, and when he docs, I want to know his opinion on another point which is, whctiier he will redeem the pledge of this platform, and resist the ac(|uirement of any nnu-e territory unless slaver}' therein shall be forever prohibited. I want him to answer this last (jucstion. Kach of the ijuestions I have put to him are practical (juestions, — (juestions based U{)on the fundamental principh'S of the IJlack Repultlican party ; and I want to know whether he is the (irst, last, and only choice of a party with whom he docs not agree in principle. He does not deny but that that principle was unanimously adopted by the Hepubli<'an party ; he does not deny that the whole Republi- can party is pledged to it ; he docs not deny that a man who is not faithful to it is faithless to the Republican party ; and now 1 want to know whether that jiarly is unanimously in favor of a man who DOUGLAS. 197 does not adopt that creed and agree with them in their principles ; 1 want to know whether the man who does not agree witli them, and who IS afi'aid to avow his differences, and who dodges the issue, is the first, kist, and onl}'^ choice of the Republican party. A Voice. — How about the conspiracy? Mr. /)i)Nf/Ja.^.— -'Never mind, I will come to that soon enough. But the platform which I have read to you not only lays down these principles, but it adds : — " Resolred, That, in furtherance of these principles, we will use such constitutioiiul and hiwful means as shall seem best adapted to their ac- complishment, and that we will support no man for office, under the General or State Government, who is not positivcl}' and fully committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal character and con- duct is not a guarantee that he is reliable, and who shall not have abjured old party allegiance and ties." The Black Republican party stands pledged that they will never support Lincoln until he has pledged himself to that platform ; but he cannot devise his answer. He has not made up his mind whether he will or not. He talked about everything else he could think of to ocui)y his hour and a half, xind when he could not think of any- thing more to sa}^ without an excuse for refusing to answer these questions, he sat down long before his time was out. In relation to Mr. Lincoln's charge of conspiracy against me, I have a word to say. In his speech to-day he quotes a playful part of his speech at Springfield, about Stephen, and James, and Franklin, and Roger, and says that I did not take exception to it. I did not answer it, and he repeats it again. I did not take exception to this figure of his. He has a right to be as playful as he pleases in throwing his 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 con- spiracy against the Supreme Court of the United States, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself. That gave the ofl'ensive character to the charge. He then said that when he made it he did not know whether it was true or not ; but inasmuch as Judge Douglas had not denied it, although he had replied to the other parts of his speech three times, he repeated it as a charge of con- spiracy against me, thus charging me with moral turpitude. When he put it in that form, I did say that, inasmuch as he repeated the charge simply because I had not denied it, I would deprive him of the opportunity of ever repeating it again, by declaring that it was, 198 OTTAW A DEBATE. AUGUST ','1. 1S.".8. in all lis l>t':irin«:;s, an infamous lie. lit- says lit- will it'pi'at it until I answer bis folly nud nonsense about Stephen, ami Franklin, ami Ro«ier. ami lioh. ami James. He studied that out, prepared that oue sentence with the great- est care, committed it to memory, and put it in his first Springfield sjK'eeh; and now he carries that speech around, and reads that sen- tence to show how pretty it is. His vanity is wounded hecause 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 1 know it to l)e false, and nobody else knows it to be true. I have not brought a charge of moral turpitude against him. When he. or any other nvin, brings one against me, instead of dis- proving it, I will say that it is a lie, antl let him prove it if he can. I have lived twenty-live yens in Illinois, I have served you with all the fidelity and ability which I possess, and Mr. Lincoln is at liberty to attack my public action, my votes, and my conduct ; but when be dares to atUick my moral integrit}' by a charge of con- spiracy between myself. Chief Justice Taney and the Supreme Court, and two Presidents of the United States, I will repel it. Mr. Lincoln has not character enough for integrity and truth, merely on his own ijisf ilijit, to arraign President Buchanan, Presi- dent Pierce, and nine Judges of the Supreme Court, not one of whom would be complimented by being put on an ecjuality with bim. There is an unpardonable presumption in a man putting him- self up before thousands of people, and pretending that his ipse i/i.ri'f, without proof, without fact, and without truth, is enough to bring down and destroy the purest and best of living men. Fellow-citizens, my time is fast expiring ; I must pass on. Mr Lincoln wants to know why I voted against Mr. Chase's amendment to the Nebraska bill. I will tell him. In the first place, the bill already conferred all the power which Congri'ss bad, by giving the people the whijle power over the subject. Chase olfered a proviso that they might abolish slavery, which by implication would convey the idea that they could prohibit by not introducing that institution, (leneral Cass asked him to moilifv his aineudinent so as to provide that the people might either prohibit or introduce slavery, and thus make it fair and ecpial. Clias** refusecl to so modify his proviso, and then (ieneral Cass :ind all the n-st of us voted it down Those facts appear on the jfiurnals and (lel)ates of Congress, where Mr. DOUGLAS. 1[)[) Lincoln found the cUtirge; and if he had told the whole truth, there would have lieeu no necessity for me to occupy your time in explain- ing the mutter. Mr. Lincoln wants to know why the word "State," as well as " Territory, " was put into the Nebraska bill. I will tell him. It was put there to meet just such false arguments as he has been ad- ducing. That first, not only the people of the Territories should do as they pleased, 1)ut that when they come to be admitted as States, they should come into the Union with or without slavery, as the people determined. I meant to knock iu the head this Abolition doctrine of Mr. Lincoln's, that there shall be no more Slave States, even if the people want them. And it does not do for him to say, or for any other Black Hepublican to say, that there is nobody in favor of the doctrine of no more Slave States, and that nobody wants to interfere with the right of the people to do us they please. What was the origin of the Missouri difficulty and the Missouri Compromise ? The people of Missouri formed a Constitution as a Slave State, and asked admission into the Union ; but the Free-soil party of the North, being in a majority, refused to admit her be- cause she had slavery as one of her institutions. Hence this first slavery agitation arose upon a State, and not upon a Territory; and yet Mr. Lincoln does not know why the word " State " was placed in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The whole Abolition agitation arose on that doctrine of prohibiting a State from coming in with slavery or not, as it pleased, and that same doctrine is here in this Republican platform of 1854; it has never been ' repealed ; and every Black Republican stands pledged by that platform never to vote for any man who is not in favor of it. Yet Mr. Lincoln does not know that there is a man in the world who is in favor of preventing a State from coming in as it pleases, notwithstanding. The Springfield platform says tliat they, the Republican party, will not allow a State to come in under such circumstances. He is an ignorant man. Now you see that upon these ver}^ points I am as far from bring- ing Mr. Lincoln up to the line as I ever was before. He does not want to avow his principles. I do want to avow mine, as clear as sunlight in midday. Democracy is founded upon the eternal prin- ciple of right. The plainer these principles are avowed before the people, the stronger will be the support which they will receive. I only wish I had the power to make them so clear that they would shine in the heavens for every man, woman, and child to read. The first of those principles that I would proclaim would be in opposi- 200 FRKEPORT DEHATE. AUGUST 27, 1838. tion to Mr. Lincoln's tloclriiu' of unifoiinity hetweun the ditreroiit Statt's, anil 1 would ik'i-laiv instead the soverei<;n rij^ht of each State to deeitle the slavery question as well as all other domestic (Hies- tions for themselves, without interference from any otiier State or power whatsoever. When that principle is reco«i;ni/ed, you will have itcace and harmony and fraternal feelinse ? He siiys that the Union cannot exist divided into Free and Slave Stites. If it cannot endure thus divided, tiicn he nnist strive to make them all Free or all Slave, which will inevilaliiy lirinj[L'd U) prohibit slavery in all the Territories of tlie I'nited States, north as well as iMJiith of the Missouri Compromise line? " A. I am impliedly, if not expressly, pled«;ed to a lieiief in the riyht and ren>e Court of the United States shall decide that Stati'S cannot exelmle slavery from tiieir limits, are you in favor of acipiiescing in, adopting, and following, such decision as a rule of political action? Q. 1. Are you in favor of :ic(juiriiig additional territory, in ili- regard of how sui-h acquisition may alb-ct the nation on the slavt i , question? LINCOLN. 205 THOSE "SPRINGFIELD" RESOLUTIONS. 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 Republican State Convention, held at Springfield in Octo- ber, 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 ^hich he read, and I understand that it was from that set of resolutions that he deduced the interrogatories which he propounded to me, using these resolutions as a sort of authority for propounding those questions to me. Now, I say here to-day that I do not answer his interrogatories because of their springing at all from that set of resolutions which he read. I an- swered them because Judge Douglas thought fit to ask them. I do not now, nor never did, recognize any responsibility upon m3'self in that set of resolutions. When I replied to him on that occasion, I assured him that I never had anything to do with them. I repeat here to-day that I never in any possible form had anything to do with that set of resolutions. It turns out, I believe, that those resolutions were never passed in any convention held in Springfield. It turns out that they were never passed at any convention or any public meeting that 1 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 Springfield, calling itself a Republican State Convention ; )t4 it is true there was a convention, or assemblage of men calling them- selves a convention, at Springfield, that did pass- some resolutions. But so little did I really know of the proceedings of that conven- tion, or what set of resolutions they had passed, though having a general knowledge that there had been such an assemblage of men there, that when Judge Douglas read the resolutions, I really did not know but they had been the resolutions passed then and there. I 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 knou-inrj that it was true. I contented myself, on that occasion, with denying, as I truly could, all connection with them, not denying or affirming whether they were passed at Springfield. Now, it turns out that he had got hold of some resolutions passed at some convention or public meeting in Kane Count}'. I wish to say here, that I dont conceive that in any 20(5 rUKKPOUr DKIJATK. ATiil'ST 27. 1S.-)S. fair and just iniiitl Ibis discdViTV relieves nic at all. I had just as muelj to do with the eonvL'iitiou in Kane County as that at Sprint.';- lii'ld. I am just as mueh responsible for the resolutions at Kane County as tliose at Springliekl, — the amount of the responsibility beinj; exaetly nothing in either ease; no more than there would be in regard to a set of resolutions passed in the moon. I ulludo to this extraordinary matter in this eanvass for some further purpo.se than anythinj; yet advanced. Judge Douglas ilid not m:ike his statement upon that occasion as matters that he be- lieved to be true, but he sUited them roundly as hiing (nn-, in such form us 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 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 l'nite exclude slavery. And I have argued and said that for men who did intend tliat tlie pe(Ji)le of the Territory should have the right to exclude slavery al»solutely and uncondi- tionally, the voting down of Chase's amendment is wholly inex- plicable. It i8 a puzzle, a riddle. Hut I have said that with men who did look forward to such a ilecision. or who had it in con- templation that such a (U'cision of the Supreme Court would or might be made, the voting down of tiiat amcndnicnt would be jjcr- fectly rational ansr dixit at all. On this occasion, I wish to recall his attt'ution to a piece of evidence which I brought forward at Ottawa on Saturday, showing that he hatl nnide substantially the same charge against substantially the samr pr/stiiis, excluding lus dear Self from the category. I ask him to give some attention to the evidence which I lirougliL forward that he himself had discovered a " fatal blow being struck" against tlie right of the people to exclude slavery from their limits, which fatal blow he assumed as in evidence in an article in the Washing- ton fiiioii, published '• by authority." I ask by whose authority? lie discovers a similar or identical provision in tlie Lecompton Con- stitution. Made by whom? The framers of that Constitution. Advocated by whom? By all the mcmbcrsof the party in the uatiun, DOUGLAS. 211 who advocated the introduction of Kansas into the Union under the Lcconipton Constitution. I have asked his attention to the evidence that he arrayed to prove tliat such a fatal blow was being struck, and to the facts which he brought forward in support of that charge, — being identi- cal with tlie one which he thinks so villanous in me. lie pointed it, not at a newspaper editor mere!}', but at the President and his Cabi- net and tlie members of Congress advocating the Lecompton Consti- tution and those framing that instrument. I must again be permitted to remind him tliat although my ipse dixit may not be as great as his, yet it somewhat reduces the force of his calling my attention to the fnorinitij of my making a like charge against him. Go on. Judge Douglas. MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. Ladies and Gentlemen: The silence with which 3'ou have lis- tened to Mr. Lincoln during his hour is creditable to tliis vast audience, composed of men of various political parties. Nothing is more honorable to any large mass of people assembled for the pur- pose of a fair discussion than that kind and respectful attention that is yielded, not only to your political friends, but to those who are opposed to you in politics. I am glad that at last I have brought Mr. Lincoln to the con- clusion that he had better define his position on certain political questions to which I called his attention at Ottawa. He there showed no disposition, no inclination, to answer them. I did not present itlle questions for him to answer, merely for my gratifica- tion. I laid the foundation for those interrogatories by showing that they constituted the 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 platform and were in favor of the propositions, upon which my questions were based. I desired simply to know, inasmuch as he had been nominated as the first, last, and only choice of his party, whether he concurred in the platform which that party had adopted for its government. In a few moments I will proceed to review the answers which he has given to these inter- rogatories; but, in order to relieve his anxiety, I will first respond 212 FREEPOHT DEBATE, AUGUST 27, 1858. to these wliirh he lias presented to ine. Mark you, he has not pre- sented interrogatories wliich have ever received the sanction of the party witli wiiich I am acting, and hence he has no other foundation for them than his own iiiriosity. 1)(»L'GLAS'S ANSWERS. First, he desires to know if tlie peopli- of Kansas shall rmni a coiistilutiun l»y means entirely proper and unolijeelion ible, and ask admission into thi' I'nion as a State, before lluy have Ihe reijuisile population for a memlK-r of Congress, whelhi-r I will vote fur llial admission. Well, now, 1 regret exceedingly that lie did not answer that interrogatory himself lu-fore he put it to me, in order thai we might understand, anil not l»e h-ft lo infer, on which side iie is. .^Ir. Trumbull, during the last .session of Congress, voted from the beginning to the end against the admission of Oregon, altlujugh a Free State, because she had not the requisite population for a mem- ber of Congress. Mr. Trumbull would not consent, under any cir- cumstances, to let a State, Free or Slave, come into the L'nion until it had the reciuisite population. As Mr. Trumi)ull is in the Held, lighting lor .Mr. [jincoln. I would like to have Mr. Lincoln answer Ids own question. anill 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. It did not make any exception as to slavery, but gave all the power that it was possil)le for Congress to give, 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 authrl to deceive the people with it ; and he was not mistaken, for liincoln is carrying out the plan admirably. Lin- «-oIn knows that the Nebraska bill, wilhout Chase's amendment, g:ive all llic power which the CoMstitution would )»crniit Coulij DOUCiLAS. 215 Congress confer any more? Could Congress go beyond the Consti- tution of tlie country? "We gave all — a full grant, with no exception in regard to slavery one way or the other. We left that question as we left all others, to be decided b}' the people for themselves, just as they pleased. I will not occupy my time on this question. I have argued it before, all over Illinois. I have argued it in this beautiful city of Freeport ; I have argued it in the North, the South, the East, and the West, avowing the same sentiments and the same principles. I have not been afraid to avow my sentiments up here for fear I would be trotted down into Eg3'pt. ANSWER TO THE THIRD QUESTION. The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented is. If the Su- preme Court of the United States shall decide that a State of this Union cannot exclude slaver}^ from its owu limits, will I submit to it? I am amazed that Lincoln should ask such a question. [Voice: " A schoolboy knows better."] Yes, a schoolboy does know better. Mr. Lincoln's object is to cast an imputation upon the Supreme Court. He knows that there never was but one man in America, claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, who ever for a moment pretended such a thing. It is true that the Washington Union, in an article published on the 17th of last December, did put forth that doctrine, and I denounced the article on the floor of the Senate, in a speech which Mr. Lincoln now pretends was against the President. The Union had claimed that slavery had a right to go into the Free States, and that any provision in the Constitu- tion or laws of the Free States to the 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 Ftepublican side of the Senate, were silent. They left it to me to denounce it. And what was the reply made to me on that occasion? Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, got up and undertook to lecture me on the ground that I ought not to have deemed the article worthy of notice, and ought not to have replied to it; that there was not one man, woman, or child south of the Potomac, in any Slave State, who did not repudiate any such pretension, Mr. Lincoln knows that that reply was made on the spot, and yet now he asks this question. He might as well ask me, Suppose Mr. Lincoln should steal a horse, would I sanction it , and it would be as genteel in me to ask him, in the event he stole a horse, what ought to be done with him. 2 It; FI{RF.I*»>1;T HKIJATK. august 27. 1*58. Hi' ftisls all impulatktii UjHUi tlu' Siipreme t'oiirt of tlio United Statt's, liv siiiiposinf^j lliut tlu-y would violate tlie I'oiistitutioii of the United States. I tell him that such a thing is not possihle. It Aould l»e an act of moral treason that no mnn on the heiicli could ever descend to. Mr. Lincoln himself would never in his partisan feelings so far forget what was right as to he guilty of such an act. ANSWKU TO TIIK FOIKTIl glKSTION. The fourth (piestioii of Mr. Lincoln is. Are you in favor of acijuiring additional territory, m disregard as to how such acquisi- tion may atlci-t the Union on the Shivery (luestion? This question is very ingeniously and cunningly j)iit. Tile Bhu-k Hcpultlican creed lays it down expressly that under no circumstances shall we accjuire any more territory, unless slavery is first prohibited in the country. I ask Mr. Lincoln whether he is in favor of tliat proposition. Are you [addressing Mr. Lincoln] op- posed to the acquisition of any more territory, under an}' circum- stances, uidess slavery is prohil)ited in it? That he does not like to answer. When I ask iiim whether he stands up to that article in the platform of his party, be turns, Yankee-fashion, and without answering it, asks me whether I am in favor of ac(iuiring territor}' without regard to bow it may atl'ect the Union on the slavery (jues- tion. I answer tliat whenever it becomes necessary, in our growth and progress, to acquire more territory, that I am in favor of it, without reference to the ([uestion of slavery; and when we have accjuired it, I will leave the people free to do as they please, either to make it slave or free territory, as the)' prefer. It is idle to tell me or you that we have territory enough. Our fathers supposed that we bad enough when our territoiy extended to the Mississippi River; but a few years' growth and expansion satislied them that we needed more, and the Louisiana Territory, from the West branch of the ^Ulssissippi to the British |)ossessions, was acquired. Then we acfjuiri'd Oregon, then California and Xew Mexico. We have enough now for the present; hut this is a y<»ung and a growing nation. It swarms as of ten as a hive of bees; and as new swarms are turned out each year, there must be hives in which they can gather and make their honey. In less than fifteen 3'ears, if the same progress that has distin- guished this country for the last fifteen years continues, ever}' foot of vacant laiicl Ix-tween this and the Pacific Ocean, owneil by the Uiiiti'd Stit.". will li cnpifd Will you not continue to increase DOUGLAS. 217 at the end of fifteen years as well as now? I tell you, increase, and multiply, and expand, is the law of this nation's existence. You cannot limit tiiis great Uepuhlic by mere boundary lines, saying, " Thus far shalt tliou go, and no farther." Any one of you gentle- men 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 the result ? Either the hoop must burst and be rent asunder, or the child must die. 80 it would be with this great nation. With our natural increase, growing with a rapidity unknown in any other part of the globe, with the tide of emigration that is fleeing from despotism in the old world to seek refuge in our own, there is a constant torrent pouring into this countiy that requires more land, more territory upon which to settle; and just as fast as our interests and our destiny require additional territory in the North, in the South, or on the islands of the ocean, I am for it; and when we acquire it, will leave the people, according to the Nebraska bill, free to do as they please on the subject of slavery and every other (pu'stiou. I trust now that Mr. Lincoln will deem himself answered on his four points. He racked his brain so much in devising these four questions that he exhausted himself, and had not strength enough to invent the others. As soon as he is able to hold a council with his advisers, Lovejo}', Farnsworth, and Fred Douglass, he will frame and propound others. [Voices: "Good, good."] You Black Re- publicans who say good, I have no doubt think that they are all good men. I Lave reason to recollect that some people in 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 Freeport, as I am doing to-day, I saw a carriage — and a magnifi- cent one it was, — drive up and take a position on the outside of the crowd; a beautiful young lady was sitting on the box-seat, whilst Fred Douglass and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage acted as driver. I saw this in your own town. [Voices: "What of it? "] All I have to say of it is this, that if you. Black Republicans, think that the negro ought to be on a social equality with j'our wives and daughters, and ride in a carriage with your wife, whilst 3'ou drive the team, you have a perfect right to do so. I am told that one of Fred Douglass's kinsmen, another rich black negro, is now traveling in this part of the State, making lilS FKKEPORT DEBATE, AUGUST 27, 1858. speeclu's fi»r his frii-ml 1 Jiicoln as the champion of hhick men. [Voices : " W'lial have you to say aj^aiiist it ? "J .\!i I have to say on tliat suliject is, that those of you who believe that the ne<;ro is your ecjual and oujjht to be on an eciuality with y(ju socially, politi- cally, and lejjally, have a right to entertain those opinions, and of course will vote for Mr. Lincoln. .\S TO THE " SI'RIN(!FIEI.D " llESOLUTION. 1 have a word to say on Mr. Lincoln's answer to the interroga- tories I'ontained in my speeeh at Ottawa, and which lie has pre- tenileil to reply to here to-(iay. Mr. Lincoln niakes a great parade of the fact that I (juoted a platform as having been adopted by tin- IJIaek Hepul)liean party at Springfield in 1854, which, it turns out, was adopted at another place. Mr. Ijincoln loses sight of the thing il.->elf in his ecstasies over the mistake 1 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 pledgeil to that creed, — to the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law, a refusal to admit any more Slave States into the Union, even if the people want them, a determination to ajjply the Wilmot Proviso, not only to all the territory we now have, but all that we may hereafter acijuire, — 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 representative of this State, he declared the Mexican war to l)e unjust and infamous, and would not support it, or acknowledge his own country to be right in the contest, because he said that Ameri- can blood was not shed on American soil in the " n'l/ftt sjmt." And nC.8. :il Ihe time the Coiivfiititui was in st'ssioii. Ik' did n<>t duny that tilt' ivsolutions wfie passed by the Sj)iiiij;liekl t'oiiventii»ii. lie did not know hetler, and evidently thoiij^ht that they were ; l»ut after- ward hia friends deidared tliat they had discovered that they varieil in some repeets from the resohitions passed hy that Convention. I have shown yon tliat I had <:ood eviih-nee for helievinj:; tliat tlie re sohitions had been passed at Sprin*;fiehl. Mr. Jiineohi oni:ht to have known better ; but not a word is said al)oiit his i<;iioranee on the subject, whilst I, notwithstandinj; the circumstances, am accused of forger}'. l'I,.\TFOR.M OF lsr>4. Now, 1 will show yoii that if I have made a mistake as to the place where these resolutions were adopted, — and when I ^el osition of Free Territories: t<> repeal anil entirely abrogate the Fugitive-Slave law; to restrict slavery l<> those States in which it exists ; to prohibit the adinis- DOUGLAS. 221 sion of anj' more Slave States into the Union ; to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the General Government has exclusive jurisdic- tion ; and to resist the acquisition of any more Territories, unless the introduction of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited. '' liesolrcd, That in furtherance of these principles we will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their ac- complishment, and that we will support no man for office under the Gen- eral or State Government who is not positively committed 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 ties. ''Resolved, That we cordially invite persons of all former political par- ties whatever, in favor of the object expressed in the above resolutions, to unite with us in carrying them into eflFect." "VYell, you think that is a ver}' good platform, do you not ? If 3'ou do, if you approve it now, and think it is all right, you will not join with those men who say that I libel you by calling these your principles, will you ? Now, Mr. Lincoln complains ; Mr. Lincoln charges that I did you and him injustice by saying that this was the platform of j-our party. I am told that Washburne made a speech in Galena last night, in which he abused me awfully for bringing to light this platform, on which he was elected to Congress. He thought that yon had forgotten it, as he and Mr. Lincohi desires to. He did not deny but that you had adopted it, and that he had sub- scribed to and -was pledged by it, but he did not think it was fair to call it up and remind the people that it was their platform. But I and glad to find that you are more honest in your Aboli- tionism 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 more Slave States, and work for the repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law, but 3'ou pledged 3'ourselves not to vote for any man for State or Federal offices who was not com- mitted to these principles. You were thus committed. Similar resolutions to those were adopted in your county Convention here, and now with your admissions that they are your platform and em- body your sentiments now as they did then, what do you think of Mr. Lincoln, 3-our candidate for the United States Senate, who is attempting to dodge the responsibility of this platform, because it was not adopted in the right spot. I thought 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 Con- gressional District. When I get into the next district, I will show that the same platform was adopted there, and so on through the •222 FKKKPoirr IH:itATK, AI'GUST 27, 1858. State, until I nail tlir responsibility of it upon the liack of tin- Mlaek lu-puhru'aii party throuj^liout the State. J ]'i. You still adhere to it. The same platform was adopted by nearly all the counties where the Black Republican party had a majority in 1854. I wish now to call your attention to the action of your yv[)- resentatives in the Tjegislature when they assembled together at Springfield. In the first placi', 30U 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 dis.solve all old party ties and call the new party Kepublican. The old Whig party was to have its throat cut from ear to ear, and the Democratic party was to l)e annihilated and blotted out of existence, whilst in lieu of these parties the Black Republican party was to be organized on this Abolition platform. ' You know who the chief leaders were in lircaking up and destroying the.se two great parties. ]jincoln on the one hand, and Trumbull on the other, being disappointed politicians, and having retired or l)een driven to obscurity by an outraged con- stituency l«'cause of their political sins, formed a scheme to Abo- litionize J-he two parties, and had the Old Line Whigs and Old Line Democrats captive, Itoi.nd hand and foot, into the A1)olition camp. cniocratie j)arty had stood on a common platfonn so far as this slavery (pu'stion was concerned. You Whigs and we Democrats dilb-red about the bank, the tariir, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, luit we agreed on this slavery (piestion, and the true mode of i)re- Kerving the ]»eac(* and harmony of the Union. The Compromise measureH of iSaO were introduced by Clay, were defended by Wel)- Bter, and a Democrat as he ever was, in order to coax the Democrats over into the Aholitioii ranks. They played the part that "decoy ducks ''play down on tlie l*otomac River. In that part of the ct»untry they m.dve artificial ducks, and put them on the water in places where the wild ducks are to be found, for the purpose of decoying them. Well, Lincohi and Tnunhull played the pirt of these " decoy ur liepro- sentatives requested, to introduce and vole for, a bill to repeal an Act en- titled 'an Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons esca|)iiii,' from the service of their masters; ' and. failing in tiiat, for such a modification of it as shall secure the right of habeas corpun and trial by jury before liie regularly constituted authorities of the State, to all persons claimed as owing service or labor." Those ri'-solutions wefe introduced l»y Mr. Lovejoy inimediutely preceding the election of Senator. The}' declared, first, tluit the Wiiinot Proviso must be applied to all territory north of 36 deg. .■>() min. Secondly, that it must be applied to all territory south of M deg. 30 min. Thirdly, that it nui.st be applied to all the terri- tory now owned by the United States; and finally, that it must bo api)lied to all territory hereafter to be acquired by the United States. The next resolution declares that no more Slave States shall be aihnittfd into this Union under any ciri-nmstances whatever, no mat- ter whether tht-y are formed out of territory now owned by us or that we may ln'reafter acciuire, by treaty, by Congress, or in any manner whatever. The next resolution demands the niicondilional repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law, althougli its unconditional repeal would leave no provision for carrying out that clause of the Constitution ,h to call your attention to is this; that these DOUGLAS. - 227 resolutions were adopted on the 7th day of February, and that on the 8th they went into an election for a United States Senator, and that day every man who voted for these resolutions, with but two excep- tions, voted for Lincoln for the United States Senate. [Voices: " Give us their names. "] I will read the names over to you if you want them, but I believe your object is to occupy my time. On the next resolution the vote stood — yeas 33, naj's 40; and on the third resolution, — yeas 35, nays 47. I wish to impress it upon you that every man who voted for those resolutions, with but two exceptions, voted on the next day for Lincoln for United States Senator. Bear in mind that the members who thus voted for Lincoln were elected to the Legislature pledged to vote for no man for olTlce under the State or Federal Government who was not com- mitled to this Llack Eepublican platform. They were all so pledged. Mr. Turner, who stands by me, and who then repre- sented you, and who says that he wrote those resolutions, voted for Lincoln, when he was pledged not to do so unless Lincoln was in favor of those resolutions. I now ask Mr. Turner [turning to Mr. Turner], did you violate your pledge in voting for Mr. Lincoln, or did he commit himself to j'our platform before you cast your vote for him? I could go through the whole list of names here, and show you that all the Black Republicans in the Legislature, who voted for Mr. Lincoln, had voted on the day previous for these resolutions. For instance, here are the names of Sargent, and Little, of Jo Daviess and Carroll ; Thomas J. Turner, of Stephenson ; Lawrence, of Boone and Mc Henry ; Swan, of Lake ; Pinckuey, of Ogle County ; and Lyman, of Winnebago. Thus you see everj' member from your Con- gressional District voted for Mr. Lincoln, and they were pledged not to vote for him unless he was committed to the doctrine of no more Slave States, the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, and the repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law. Mr. Lincoln tells you to-day that he is not pledged to any such doctrine. Either Mr. Lincoln was then committed to these propositions, or Mr. Turner violated his pledges to you when he voted for him. Either Lincoln was pledged to each one of those propositions, or else every Black Re- publican Representative 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 plati'orm of his party, or will you accuse every Representative you had in the Legislature of violating his 228 rUElCPORT DEBATE. AUGUST 27, 1858. pledjif (if honor to his constitiU'iits? Tht-re is no escape for you. Kither Mr. Lincohi was eoiiimitted to those propositions', or your uieniliers viohited llieir faith. Take either horn of the dileninia yon ehoose. There is no (lo(ly;ing the question; I w:.iit Lineolns answer. He says lie was not pledj^M-d to repeal the I-'ujiitive -Slave law, that he dois not tjuite like to do it; he will not introduce a law to repeal it, l)Ut thinks tin r*' oujjlil to lie some law. he does not tell what it oujiht to be; upon the whole he is altoi^ether un- deeided, and dont know wliat to tiiink or do. Tluit is the sui)- 8tane«' of his answer upon the repeal of the Fugitive -Slave law. 1 put the question* to him distinctly, whether he indorsed that part of the Hlack Kepul)lican platform which calls for the entire abro- gation and repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law. lie answers. No! that he does not indorse that ; but he does not tell what he is for, or what he Avill vote for. His answer is, in fact, no answ-er at all. Why cannot he sj)eak out, and say what he is for, and what he will do? In regard to there being no more Slave States, lie is not pledged to that. He would not like, he says, to be put in a position where he would have to vote one way or another upon that (jucstion. 1 pra}' you. do not i»ut liini in a position that would embarrass hira so raucli. (ieiitlenieii, if he goes to the Senate, he may be jiut in that position, and then which way will he vote? .1 ]'inir. — How will you vote ? Mr. Dnughis. — I will vote for the admission of just such a ."^tate as by the form of their constitution the people show they want: if they want slavi-ry, they shall have it; if they prohibit slavery, it shall be proliiinted. They can form their institutions to please themselves, subject only to the Constitution; and 1, for one, stand ready to receive them into the Union. Why cannot your Hlack Re- publican candidates talk out as ])lain as that when they are ques- tioned? 1 do not want to che.il an\ man (»iil of his vote. No man is de- ceived in regard to my principles if I have the jxtwer to express my- self in terms explicit enough to convey my ideas. Mr. Ijincoln made a si)»'ech when lie was nominated for the United Stales Senate which covers all these Abolition platforms. He there l.iys down a proposition so broad in its Abolitionism as to cover the whole ground. "Ill rn> (ipiiiiun il [th<- sliivrry jiKiiation] will not ctasc nntil a rri.sis bhull have bt-eii P-aclH-d ami {la.ssi'd. ' A house divided against itscir cua- DOUGLAS. 229 not stnnd/ I believe this Governmcril cannot cnilure p(M-manently, half Slave and half Free. I do not expect the house to fall, but 1 do expect it will cease to be divided. It will beconne 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 advocafces will ])ush it forward till it shall become aliki' lawful in all the States, — old as well as new, North as well as South. " There you find that Mr. Lincoln laj-s down the doctrine that this Union cannot endure divided as our fathers made it, witli Free and Slave States. He says they must all become one thing, or all the other; that they must all be Free or all Slave, or else the Union can- not continue to exist; it being his opinion that to admit any more Slave States, to continue to divide the Union into Free and Slave States will dissolve it. I want to know of Mr. Lincoln whether he will vote for the 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 for making them all Free, in order that the Union may exist; and yet he will not vote against another Slave State, knowing that the Union must be dissolved if he votes for it. I ask you if that is fair dealing? The true intent and inevitable con- clusion to be drawn from his first Springfield speech is, that he is opposed to the admission of any more Slave States under any circum- stances. If he is so opposed, why not say so? If he believes this Union cannot endure divided into Free and Slave States, that they must all become free in order to save the Union, he is bound as an honest man to vote against any more Slave States. If he believes it, he is bound to do it. Show me that it is my duty, in order to save the Union, to do a particular act, and I will do it if the Con- stitution does not prohil)it it. I am not for the dissolution of the Union under any circumstances. I will pursue no course of conduct that will give just cause for the dissolution of the Union. The hope of the friends of freedom throughout the world rests upon the perpetuity of this Union. The down-trodden and oppressed people who are suffering under European despotism all look wiuh hope and anxiety to the American Union as the only resting place and permanent home of freedom and self-government. Mr. Lincoln says that he believes that this Union cannot coulimie to endure with SlaA-e States in it, and yet he will not lell 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 L'iJO FKKKPORT Dlil.ATK, AUGUST 27. lH.-)8. think III' will ho put to tin- test. I ilo not think that llu' lu-ojile of Illinois ilfsiiv a man to ri'iiri'Sfut tlu'in wlio would not likr to liu put to till' t«'st on the perfonnance of a high c'onstituti<»nal duty. 1 will rctiiv in shanu- frouj the Siiiatf of tla* I'nitrd States wlu-n 1 am not willin}^ to be put to the test in the performance of my duty. I have \n-vn put to st'vci-e tests. 1 iiave stood l»y m}' principles in fair weather and in foul, in the sunshine and in the rain. I have cU'- fended the great principles of self-government here among you when Nortliern sentiment ran in a torrent against me, and I have defended that same great primiple when Southern sentiment came down like an avalanche upon me. 1 was not afraid of any test they put to me. I knew I was right; T knew my principles were sound; I knew that tlie peopK- would see in tht' end tli.il I hail tlone right, and I knew that the (iod of heavi'n v,-ould smile upon me if 1 was faithful in the performtmce of my duty. ANSWKR Til IIIK " rONSl'IR.\(V ' ril.VKOE. Mr. Lincohi makes a charge of corruption against the Su- preme 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 Viildii. Suppose I did make that charge of corruption against liie Washington lliinn, when it was true, does that justify him in making a false charge against me and others? That is the (piestion 1 would put. lie says that at the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, and liefore it was passed, there was a conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Huchaiian, and myself, liy that bill and the decision <»f the court, to bri-ak down the barrier and establish slavery all over the Union. Does he not know that that charge is historically false as again.st President Huchanan? He knows that Mr. Ibichanaii was at that time in Kngland, representing this country with dis- tinguished ability at the Court of St. .James, that he was there for a long time before, and ilid not return for a year e anything that he has said upon which you would like to hear something from me, but which I omit to comment upon, you will bear in mind that it would be expecting an impossibilit}' for me to go (»ver his whole ground. I can but take up some of the points that he has dwelt upon, and employ my half-lioiir specially on them. The first thing 1 have to say to 3'ou is a word in regard to Judge Douglas's (h'claration about the '' vulgarity and blackguardism'' in the audience, — that no such thing, as he says, was shown by any Democrat while I was speaking. Now, 1 only wisli. by way of reply on this subject, to say that while /was speakiiiir, / used no "vul- garity or blackguardism" toward any Democrat. Now. my friends, I come to all this long portion of the Judge's speech. — perhaps half <)f it, — which he has devobMl to the various resolutions and platforms that have been adopted in tlie dilferent counties in the ditferent Congressional Histricts, and in the Illinois LINCOLN. 233 Legislature, whicli be supposes are at variance with the positions I luive assumed before you to-day. It is true tbat many of tbese resolutions are at variance with the positions I have here assumed. AH I have to ask is that we talk reasonably and rationally al)out it. I happen to know, the Judge's opinion to the contrary notwithstand- ing, that 1 have never tried to conceal my opinions, nor tried to de- ceive any one in reference to them, rie may go and examine all the members who voted for me for United States Senator in 1855, after the election of 1854. They were pledged to certain things here at home, and were determined to have pledges from me ; and if he will find any of these persons who will tell him anything in- consistent with what I say now, I will resign, or rather n^tire from the race, and give him no more trouble. THOSE "resolutions" NOT THE PLATFORM. The plain truth is this : At the introduction of the Nebraska polic}', we believed there was a new era being introduced in the' histor}' of the Republic, which tended to the spread and perpetua- tion of slavery. But in our opposition to that measure we did not agree with one another in everything. The people in the north end of the State were for stronger measures of opposition than we of the central and southern portions of the State, but we were all opposed to the Nebraska doctrine. We had that one feeling and that one sentiment in common. You at the north end met in your Conventions and passed your resolutions. We in the middle of the State and further south did not hold such Conventions and pass the same resolutions, although we had in general a common view and a common sentiment. So that these 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 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 pushing forward at that time. We met you then, and if there was anything yielded, it was for practical purposes. We agreed then upon a platform for the party throughout the entire State of Illinois, and now we are all bound, as a party, fo fJiaf plaffonn. And I say here to you, if any one expects of me — in the case of m}' election — that I will do •_>:54 rUEEPOllT DKHATE. AUGUST 27, 1858. aiivtliing not signilUnl by our lU'i)iiblicau platform nm\ my answers here to-day, 1 tell you very frankly that person will be deceived. I do not ask for the vote of any one who supposes that I have secret purposes or pledj^es that I dare not speak out. Cannot the •lutl'ze be satislled? If he fears, in the unfortunate case of my elertion, that my goinj; to Washington will enalde me to advocate sentiments contrary to those which 1 expressed wiicii yow voted for and I'lecled me, I assure him that his fears are wholly neeiUess and groundless. Is the .luilge really afraid of any such thing? I'll tfll von what he is afiaid of. /A is n/'i'iii/ iri 11 nil j, nil ti/i/i f/nr. This is what alarms him nu>H' than anything else. For my part, I tlo hope that all of us, entertaining a common sentiment in opposi- tion to what appears to us a design to nationalize and perpetuate slavery, will waive minor diU'ercnces on (juestions which either l)elong to the dead past or the distant future, and all pull together in this struggle. What are your sentiments ? If it be true that on the ground which I occiipy, — ground which I occupy as frankly and boldly as Judge Douglas does his, — my views, though partly coin- ciding with yours, are not as perfectly in accordance with your feelings as his an-, 1 do say to you in all candor, go for him, and not for m«'. I iiope to deal in all things fairly with Judge Douglas, and with the people of the State, in this contest. And if I shouUl never be elected to any ollice, I trust 1 may go down with no stain of falsehood upon my reputation, notwithstanding the iiard opinions Judge Douglas chooses to entertain of me. The Judge has again addressed himself to the Abolition Icn- denci«'s 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 raelanclioly theme that I almost turn with disgust from the discus- sion, — from the repetition of an answer to it. I trust that nearly all of this intt'lligent audience have read that speech. If you have, I may vt-nture to leave it l<> you to inspect it ciostly, and see whether it contains any of those " bug.aboos" whieh fright«'n .ludge Douglas. The .ludge complains that I ditl n(»t fully answer his (pii'stions. If 1 have the sense to compri'hend and answi-r those (piestions, [ have done so fairly. If it can l>e p8. ii«;jaiiist jK'opli- wlir) ralk'il /////( a IdacU Republican ami an Abolilion- ist. It is niixi'l all tlirmigh his spt'ci-li. ami it is tolerably manifest that his fve was a j^n-at dtal farther nurth than it is to-day. The .Ju l^e sa^'s that though he made this eharj^e, To«jmbs jrot up and deelared there was not a man in the United States, oxiept the editor of the /'/(/.),/, who was in favor of the doctrines put forth in that arti- cle. And thereupon I understand that the Judge withdrew the charge. Altliough he had taken extracts from tiie newspaper, and then from the Lecomptou Constitution, to show the existence of a conspiracy to bring about a " fatal blow,' by which the States were to be deprived of the right of excluding slavery, it all went to pot as soon as Tooml)s got up and tldly by tin- Wiistiinirtnii l'/iii>n ('ditorialiy. aiitl ii\)\r.irrt\i]\ inif/i'>ritm is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas alTairs is over and gone — ' "And a column, nearly, of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incor- porated in it which was put forth editorially in the Union. "What is it? "'Article 7, Section 1. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as invariable as the right of the owner of any property whatever.' "Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be amended after 18C4 by a two-thirds vote. " ' But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the ownership of slaves.' "It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that they are identical in spirit with this authoritative article in the Washing- ton Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution. "When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, fol- lowed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of the Union." Here he says, "Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly, and apparently author itativdy." By whose authority, Judge Douglas? Again, he says in another place, ' ' It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that they are identical in spirit with this (luthoritatU-e article." By irlidsc authority? Who do you mean to say authorized the publica- tion of these articles? He knows that the Washington Union is considered the organ of the Administration. / demand of Judge Douglas by whose authority he meant to say those arLieics were nub- 'Sis FUKl-Jl'OllT DKIJATK. ATCiUST 27. j858. lislK'a, It nui i»y tlif authority of the Presitleiit ot iiie United States and bis Cabiiu'l? I dety him to show whom he referred to, if not to thi'se hi)ted, as I have previously said, by the joint action of tiie I'nion Whij,'s, and Union Demoi-rats in opposition to Northern Al)olitionists and Southern Disunionists. In 1852, when the Wiiig jjarty assembled, at Baltimore, in National Conven- tion for the last time, they adopted the principle of the Compro- mise .Measures of ]«')(» as their rule of party action in the future. One month then-after the Democrats assembled at tlie same place to nominate a c.iudidate for the Presidency, and declared the same great principle as the rule of action by which the Democracy would be governed. The Presidential cli=<;tion of isr)2 was fought on thai basis. It is true tiiat the Whigs claimed special nurit for tiic ad(»i)- tion of those measures, because they asserted that their gre.it Clay originated them, their god-like Webster defended them, and their Fillmore signed the bill miking them tlie law of the land; but, on the other hand, the Democrats claimed s|)ecial credit for the Democracy, upon the ground that v.e gave twice as many votes in both bouses of Congress for the passage of these measures as the Whig party. I'.MITV KKI,.VTloNSinPS. Thus you see tliat in llu' Pre-^ideiilial election of 1S,j2, the Whigs were pledged liy their platform ami their candidate to the principle of the Compromise Measures of lSj(», and the Dem«K-racy were likewise pledged by our i)iinciples, our platform, and our can- didate to the same line of policy, to preserve peace and (piiet between the ditrerent sections of this Fnion. Since that pi'riod the Whig party has been transformcil into a sectional party, under the name of the Kepulilican jjarty, whilst the Democratic party continues the same national party it was at that day. All sectional men, all men of Abolition Kcntiments and principles. n(» matter whether they were oI. ia58. Tlu'V went into the contest in every part of the State, calling upon all disappointed politic-iiins to i<»in in the crusade against the iK-niocrai-y, and appealed to the prevailing sentiments and pre- juiliees in all the northern counties of the St:ite, In three Con- gressional Districts in the ncnth end of the State they adopted, as tlie i)latform of this new party thus formed bj' Lincoln and Trum- l»ull in connection with th«' Alxtiitionists, all of those principles which ainu'd at a warfare on the part of the North against the South. They decland in that platfi)rni that the Wilmot Proviso was to be applied to all the Territories of the United States, north as well as south of 'M't deg. ."}() niin., and not only to all the territory we then had, Itiit all that we might hereafter ac- (piire; that hereafter no more Slave States shouUl be admitted into this Union, even if the people of such State desired slavery; that the Fugitive-Slave law should be absolutely and unc-onditionally repealed; that slavery should l)e abolished in the District of Columbia; that the slave trade should be abolished between the different States; and, in fact, every article in their crei'd related to this slavi-ry (pies- tion, and pointed to a Northern geographical party in hostility to the Southern States of this Union. TIIK lUKlKHKNT I..VTITUDES. Such were their principles in Northern Illinois. A little farther south they became bleaclied, and grew paler just in |)roportion as public sentiment moderated and changed in this direction. They were Republicans or Abolitionists in the North, anti-Nebraska men down al)out Springfield, and in this neighborhood they contented themselves with talking about the inexpediency of the repeal of the Missouri .Comi)romise. In the extreme northern counties they brought out men to canvass the State whose complexion suited their pf)litical creed; and hence Fred Douglass, the negro, was to be found there, following Gi-neral Cass, and attempting to speak on behalf of liinctdu, TniinltuU, and Al)olitionism, against that illus- trious senator. Why. they brought I'nd Douglass to Freeport, when I was addn-ssing a meeting there, in a carriage driven by the wliite owner, the negro sitting inside with the white lady and lier daugliter. Wlu-n I got through canvassing the northern counties that year, and progresse«l as far south as Springfield, I was met and opposed in discussion by Lincoln, liovejoy, Trumbull and Sidney IJreese, who were on one side. Fatlier (liddings, the high-priest of AI>olitioni8m, iiad just been there, and Chase came about the time DOUGLAS. 243 I left. [Voice: "Whydidu't j-ou shoot him?"] I did take a running shot at them ; but as I was single-handed against the white, black, and mixed drove, I had to use a shot-gun and fire into the crowd, instead of taking them off singly with a rifle. Trumbull had for his lieutenants, in aiding him to Abolitionize the Democracy, such men as John Wentworth of Chicago, Governor Reynolds, of Belleville, Sidney Breese of Carlisle, and John Dough- erty of Union, each of whom modified his opinions to suit the locality he was in. Dougherty, for instance, would not go much further than to talk about the inexpediency of the Nebraska bill, whilst his allies at Chicago advocated negro citizenship and negro equality, putting the white man and the negro on the same basis under the law. Now, these men, four years ago, were engaged in a conspiracy to break down the Democracy; to-day they are again acting together for the same purpose ! They do not hoist the same flag, they do not own the same principles or profess the same faith, but conceal their union for the sake of policy. In the northern counties, you find that all the conventions are called in the name of the Black Republican party; at Springfield, they dare not call a Republican Convention, but invite all the enemies of the Democracy to unite; and when they get down into Egypt, Trumbull issues notices calling upon the '■'■Free Democracy'" to assemble and hear him speak. I have one of the handbills calling a Trumbull meeting at Waterloo the other day, which I received there, which is in the following language : — A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place in Waterloo, on Mon- day, Sept. 13th inst., whereat Hon. Lyman Trumbull, Hon. Jehu Baker and others will address the people upon the different political topics of the day. Members of all parties are cordially invited to be present, and hear and determine for themselves. The Monroe Free Democracy. What is that name of "Free Democrats" put forth for, un- less to deceive the people, and make them believe that Trumbull and his followers are not the same party as that which raises the black flag of Abolitionism in the northern part of this State, and makes war upon the Democratic party throughout the State? When I put that question to them at Waterloo on Saturday last, one of them rose and stated that they had changed their name for political efl'ect, in order to get votes. There was a candid admission. Their object in changing their party organization and principles in difl'er- ent localities was avowed to be an attempt to cheat and deceive •JH .Ii»Ni;s|{(»i:n DKHATK. SKI'TKMItEU 1.'). IS-IS. BiiiUi- portion i)f till' jn'opU' until afttT the election. \\'liy cannot a politiral party that is conscious of llic rectitude of its purposes and the sountlness of its principles declare tliem everywhere alike? I would disdain to hold any political principles that I could not avow in the same terms in Kentucky that I declared in Illinois, in Charles- ton as well as in Chicaj^o, in New Orleans as well as in New York. So long us we live under a Constitution common to all the iStutes, i>ur political faith ou«:ht to he as broad, as lil)eral, and just as that Constitution itself, and should be proclaimed alike in every l)ortion of the Union. Hut it is apparent that our opponents find it necessary, for par- tisan etrect. to change their colors in dilferent counties in order to catch the popular breeze, and hope with these discordant materials comi»ined tofjether to secure a majority in the Legislature for the purpose of putting down the Democratic parly. This combination did succei'd in isr»4 so far as to elect a majority of their confeder- ates to the Legislature; and the first important act whicli they per- formed was to elect a Senator in the place of the eminent and gallant Senator Shields. Ilis term expired in the United States Senate at that time, and he had to be crushed by the Abolition coalition for the simple reason that he would not join in their con- spiracy to wage war against one-half of the Union. That was the only objection to General Shields. He had served the people of the State with ability in the Legislature, he had served you with fidelity anil ability as Auditor, he had performed his duties to the satisfac- tion of the whole country at the head of the Land Department at Washington, he had covered the State and the Union with immortal L'lory on the bloody fields of Mexico in defense of the honor of our tiag. and yet he had to be stricken down by this uidioly combina- tion. And for what cause? Merely bec;iuse he would not join a <-ombination of one half of the States to make war upon t!ie other half, after having poured out his hearts blood for all the States in the Union. Trumltull was put in his place by Abolitionism. TH.VT " H.VUd.MN " .\(i.MN. How did Triiinbull get there? Hefore the Abolitionists would con.sent to go into an election for United States Senator they re- (juired all the members of this m-w comliination to show their hands U|M)n this question <e a good wit- ness, and I will read an extract from a speech which he made in 1856, when he was mad because his friend Lincoln had been cheated. It is one of numerous speeches of the same tenor that were made about that time, exposing this bargain between Lincoln, Trumbull, and the Abolitionists. Mathenv then said: — 216 JONESBORO DERATE, SEPTEMliEi^ 1"). 1858. ••Tlif Wluj,'s. Ab»)liuonists, Kiiow-Nolliintrs, and ri-n('t,'iule Democrats matle a s«>li'mn compact for tlic iiurix)sc of carryinj,' tliis State against the D«'m«)cracy. on tliis plan: 1st. That tln-y would all combine and eU-ct Mr. Trumbull to Conyrcs-s, and tlu-rt-by carry his district for the Lcffislaturt', in ord:islature should meet, the ortlcers of that biwly, such as SiM-aker, clerks, door-keepers, etc., would be >riven to the Abolitionists; and ;U1. That the Whim's were to have the llnit«-d States SenaU)r. That, accordinfj:ly. in irood faith, Trumbull was eh'cted to Con-rress, and his district carried for tin- Lef,'islature, and, when it c«)nvened, the Abolitionists ^ot all the ollicers of that body; and, thus far, the • boiul ' was fairly executed. Tin- Whif,'s, on their part, demanded the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that tlie bond mi^'lit be fulfilled, the other parties to the contract huvinj,' already secured to themselves all tliat was called for. Hut, in tin- most pi-rfidious manner, they refu.sed to elect Mr. Lincoln, and the mean, low-lived, sneak- in-r Trumbull succeeded, by pledLMU^r all that was retpiired by any party, in thrustinj,' Lincoln aside, and foistinj; himself, an excrescence from the rotten bowels of the Democracy, into the United States Senate: and thus it has ever been, that an honext man makes a bad bargain when he con- spires or contracts with rogues." Mtithenv thought that his friend Lincoln made a IkuI bargain when he conspired and coiitraeleil wilii suili rogues as TruinhuU and his Alioiition associates in tliat campaign. J^incolu was shoved off the track, and lie and his friends all at once began to mope, be- came sour and mad, and disposed to tell, but dare not; and thus they stood for a long time, until the Abolitionists coaxed and tlat- t<.'red him back by their assurances that he should certainly be a senator in Douglas's place. In that way tlie Abolitionists have been enabled to hold Lincoln to the alliance up to this time, and now they have l)rought him into a light against me, and he is to see if he is a;.':iin to l)e cheated by them. Lincoln this time, though, rerd and .>Iaster, is applicable to the American I'liionand the American Constitution? Washington and his compeers, in the Convention that framed the Constitution, made this (Jovernment ilivided into Free and Slave Stiites. It was composed then of thirtei'u soveri'ign and inde- pj'udcnt States, each having sovereign authority over its local anil domestic institutions, and all liouml together by tlu' Federal Consti- tution. Mr. Lincoln likens that boml of the i'ederal Constitution, joining Free ami Slave States together, to a house divi(h'd against it.self, :intl s;iys that it is c«»ntrary to th»' law of (lod. and cannot fltund. When did he learn, and by what authority does he proclaim, that tliis (rovernment is conlrarv to the law of ( lod and cannot stand? DOUGLAS. 249 It has stood thus divided into Free and Slave States from its organ- ization up to this day. J)iuiug that period we have increased from four millions to thirty millions of people ; w(! have extended our territory from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean , we have ac- quired the Flori(Uis and Texas, and other territory sufficient to double our geographical extent ; we have increased in popuhition, in weallli, and in power beyond any example on earth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power to become the terror and ad- miration of the civilized world ; and all this has been done under a Constitution which ^Ir. Lincoln, in substance, says is in violation of the law of (Un\, and under a Union divided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincoln thinks, because of such division, cannot stand. Surely Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those who framed the Government. Washington did not believe, nor did his compatriots, that the local laws and domestic institutions that were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Vermont were suited to the rice planta- tions of South Carolina ; they did not believe at that day that in a Kepublic so broad and expanded as this, containing such a variety of climate, soil, and interest, that uniformity in the local laws and domestic institutions was either desirable or possible. They be- lieved then, as our experience has proved to us now, that each local- ity, having ditferent interests, a different climate, and different surroundings, required different local laws, local policy, and local institutions, adapted to the wants of that locality. Thus our Coveniment was formed on the principle of diversity in the local institutions and laws, and not on that of uniformity. DRED SCOTT CASE, AND THE DECLARATION. As my time flies, I can only glance at these points, and not pre- sent them as fully as I would wish, because I desire to bring all the points in controversy' between the two parties before you, in order to have Mr. Lincoln's reply. He makes war on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case known as the Dred Scott case. I wish to say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no war to make on that decision, or any other ever rendered l)y the Supreme Court. I am content to take that decision as it stands delivered by the highest judicial tribunal on earth, — a tribunal established by the Constitu- tion of the United States for that purpose ; and hence that decision becomes the law of the land, l»iuding on you, on me, and on every other good citizen, whether we like it or not. Hence I do not choose 250 .loNKSlloPvO DKHATR, SKPTF.M15F.R 1".. l,*^'.,^. to go into an argument to prove, before this audience, whether or not Chief Justice Taney understood the law better than Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln objects to that tlccLsion, first :int iiul say lliat my wliiti- coiistilucnts nf Illinois were no U'tler than negroes, or we woiiM l»e sure to quarrel. The Dred Scott decision covers the whole question, aii tin- rili(iii of sull'ra^^'e for itself, and all (juestions as to the relations between the \\ liiU- 111:111 and the neun). Judge Taney expressly lays down the doctrine. , I receive it as law, ami I say that wliile tlntse States are adopting refjulations on that subjeet dis}j:ustin<; and abhorrent, aeeording to uiy views, I will not make war on them if they will mind their own business and let us alone. win M'T IIAI.K rilKK AMI II.VI.K SLAVE? I now eonie back to the cjuestion, Why cannot this Union exist forever, divided into Free and Slave States, as our fathers made it ? It ean tlius exist if each State will cany out the principles upon which our institutions were founded; to wit, the right of each SUite to do as it pleases, without mediUing with its neighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and this Union will not only live forever, but it will extend and expand until it covers the whole continent, and makes this confederacy one grand ocean-V)ound Kepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet a young nation, growing with a rapidity uneciualled in the history of tlie world, that our national increase is great, and that the emigration from tlie ()!<1 World is increasing, re(juiriiig us to exjiand and acquire new territory from time to lime, in order to give our people land to live upf)n. If we live up to tlie principle of State rights and State sovereignty, each State regulating its own atlairs and minding its own business, we can go 0:1 and extend indelinitely, just as fast and as f.sr at: we need tlie territory. The time may come indeed has now come, when our inteiesls wi:i!ATi:, SKPIKMIIKK 1"), l&W. MK. LINCOLN'S KKIM^Y. Ladiks AND (iKXTLKMKN: TIr'Iv IS vct}- mufU ill tlio principles that .Iiuli,'i' l>ou|j:las has here enunciated that I most cordially ap- ])n)Vf, Miitl over whicli T sIimII have no coiitrovfrsy witli liiui. In SO far as he has insisted that all the States have the right to do ex- actly as they please about all their domestic relations, including that of slavery, I agree entirely with him. lie phui's uw wrong in spilt' of all 1 ran ttU liiiii, tlijli I repeat it ajfaiii and a<;ain, in- sisting that I have no difference with him upon this subject. I have made a {jrcat many speeches, some of which have been printed, and it will be utterly impossible for him U) find :inythinof was found to exist, the charge was dropped. I don't know how U) meet this kineni(K'ratic parties, and it connects it.self with this charge against Trumbull and myself. lie says that they agree^l upon a compro- mise in regard to the slavery (juest ion in 1S.')(I; that in a National LINCOLN. 257 Democratic Convention resolutions were passed to abide by that compromise as a finality upon the slavery question. He also says that the Whig party in National Convention agreed to abide by and regard as a finality the Compromise of 1850. I understand the Judge to l)c altogether right about that; I understand that part of the histor}' of the counti-j^ as stated by him to be correct. I recol- lect that I, as a member of that part}', acquiesced in that com- promise. I recollect in the Presidential election which followed, when we had Greneral Scott up for the Presidency, Judge Douglas was around berating us Whigs as Abolitionists, precisely as he does to-day, — not a bit of ditference. I have often heard him. We could do nothing when the old Whig party was alive that was not Abolitionism ; but it has got an extremely good name since it has passed away. When that Compromise w^as made it did not repeal the old Missouri Compromise. It left a region of United States territory half as large as the present territory of the United States, north of the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, in which slavery was prohibited by Act of Congress. This Compromise did not repeal that one. It did not affect or propose to repeal it. But at last it became Judge Douglas's duty, as he thought (and I find no fault with him), as Chairman of the Committee on Territories, to bring in a bill for the organization of a Territorial Government, — first of one, then of two Territories north of that line. When he did so, it ended in his inserting a provision substantially repealing the Missouri Com- promise. T'lKit was because the Compromise of 1850 hid not re- pealed it. And now I ask why he could not have let that Compromise alone? We were quiet from the agitation of the slavery question. We were making no fuss about it. All had acquiesced in the Com- promise measures of 1850. We never had been seriouslj' disturbed by any Abolition agitation before that period. When he came to ■ form governments for the Territories north of the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, why could he not have let that matter stand as it was standing? Was it necessary to the organization of a Territory? Not at all. Iowa lay north of the line, and had been organized as a Territory and come into the Union as a State without disturbing that Compromise. There was no sort of necessity for destroying it to organize these Territories. But, gentlemen, it would take up all ray time to meet all the little quibbling arguments of Judge Douglas to show that the 17 258 .lONESHORO DEBATE. SEPTEMIJKIl 15, ISTA Missouri Com prom isc was repeak-d by tlu- Compromise of 1850. My own opinion is, tliat a careful investigation of all the arguments U) sustain tiie position that that Compromise was virtually repealed bv the Compromise of IS;")!) wouM show tliat they are the merest fallacies. I have the Report that Jueace under the Missouri Compromise, could you not have let it ahMie? " In complaining of what I said in ray speech at Springfield, in which he says I accepted my nomination for the senatorship (where, l>y the way, he is at fault, for if he will examine it, he will find uo acceptiince in it), he again (piotes that portion in which I said that "a house diviiled against itself cannot stand.' Let me say a word in regard to that matter. He tries to j)ersuade us that there must l)e a variety in the dif- ferent institutions of the States of the Union ; that that variety necessarily proceeds from the vaxiety of soil, climate, of the face of the country, and the difference in the natural features of the States. I agree to all that. Have these very matters ever produced any difliculty amongst us? Not at all. Have we ever had any quan-el over the fact that they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulate the commerce that springs from the production of sugar? Or because we have a different class relative to the production of flour in this State? Have they produced any diflerences? Not at all. They are the very cements of this Onion. They do n't make the house a house divided against itself. They are the props that hold up the house and sustiiin the Union. Jiut has it been so with this element of slavt-iy? Have we not always had (piarrels and dillicullies over it? Ami when will we cease to have cjuarrels over it? liike causes produce like elfects. It is worth while to <)i)serve tliat we have generally had comparative peace upon the slavery (juestion, and that there has l)een no cause for alarm until it was excited by the elfort to spread it into new- territory. Whenever it has been limited to its present l)ounds, and there has been no elfort to spread it, there has been peace. All the trouble and convulsion has proceeded from elforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus at the date of the Missouri Compro- LINCOLN. 259 mise. It was so again with the annexation of Texas; so with the territory acquired by the Mexican war; and it is so now. When- ever there has been an effort to spread it, there has been agitation and resistance. Now, I appeal to this audience (very few of whom are my politi- cal friends), as national men, whether we have reason to expect that the agitation in regard to this subject will cease while the causes that tend to reproduce agitation are actively at work? Will not the same cause that produced agitation in LS20, when the Mis- souri Compromise was formed, — that wliich produced the agitation upon the annexation of Texas, and at other times, — work out the same results always? Do you think that the nature of man will be changed? that the same causes that produced agitation at one time will not have the same effect at another? This has been the result so far as my observation of the slavery question and my reading in history extends. What right have we then to hope that the trouble will cease, — that the agitation will come to an end, — until it shall either be placed back where it origi- nally stood, and where the fathers originally placed it, or, on the other hand, until it shall entirely master all opposition? This is the view I entertain, and this is the reason why I entertained it, as Judge Douglas has read from my Springfield speech. SOME DEMOCRATIC RESOLUTIONS AS TO SLAVERY. Now, my friends, there is one other thing that I feel myself un- der some sort of obligation to mention. Judge Douglas has here to-day — in a very rambling way, I was about saying — spoken of the platforms for which he seeks to hold me responsible. He says, "Why can't you come out and make an open avowal of principles in all places alike? " and he reads from an advertisement that he says was used to notify the people of a speech to be made b}^ Judge TrumouU at Waterloo. In commenting on it he desires to know whether we cannot speak frankly and manfully, as he and his friends do. How, I ask, do his friends speak out their own senti- ments? A Convention of his party in this State met on the 21st of April at Springfield, and passed a set of resolutions which they pro- claim to the country as their platform. This does constitute their platform, and it is because Judge Douglas claims it is his platform — that these are his principles and purposes — that he has a right to declare he speaks his sentiments "frankly and manfully." On the 9 th of June, Colonel John Dougherty, Governor Reynolds, and L*GO JONESBOUO DKHATi:. SEPTP:MBKII 1."). ISTyH. others, <-:ilIiiij^ Ihcuisi'lvfs Nalioiial Di'inucrats, mt*t in Ppriugfickl ami ailopU'il ii set of resolutions wliicb are as easily understood, as plain and as definite in stating to the countr}' and to the worM what they believed in and would stand upon, as Jud>;e l)()U<>;las"s plat- forui. Now, what is the reason, that Judge Douglas is not willing that Colonel D.tughcrty and Oovernor Reynolds should stand upon their own written and printed platform as well as he upon his? Why must he look farther than their platform when he claims him- self to stand i)y his platform? Again, in reference to our platform: On the ItJlhof June the Re- publicans had their Convention and pul)lished their platform, which is as clear and distinct as Judge Douglass. In it they spoke their principles as plainly and as definitely to the world. What is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing I should stand upon that platform? Why must he go around hunting for some one who is supporting me, or has supported me at some time in his life, and who has said something at some time contrar}- to that platform? Does the Judge regard that rule as a good one? If it turn out that the rule is a good one for me, — that I am responsil)le for any and every opinion that any man has expressed who is my friend,— then it is a good rule for him. I ask. Is it not as good a rule for him as it is for me? In my opinion, it is not a good rule for either of us. Do you think differently, Judge? Mr. Diinyjiis. — I do not. Mr. Lincoln. — Judge Douglas says he docs not think dilferently. I am glail of it. Then can he tell me why he is hxjking up resolu- tions of five or six years ago, and insisting that they were my plat- form, notwithstanding ni}' protest that they are not, and never were my platform, and my pointing out the platform of the State Con- vention which he delights to say nominated me for the Senate? I cannot see what he means by parading these resolutions, if it is not to hold me responsilile for them in some way. If he says to me here that he docs not hold tiie rule to l)e good, (Uie way or tlu' other, I ers, was emphatically and diHlinctlij opposed to it. In relation to the admission of any more Slave States from Pexas, whether I siiall go against it or not will depend upon the opinion that 1 maj' hereafter form of the true meaning and nature of the re.solutions of annexation. If, by said resolutions, the honor and good faith of the nation is pledged to admit more Slave States from Texas when she (Texas) may appl> for the admission of such States, then I should, if in Congress, vote for their admission. But if not so PLEDGED and bound bj' sacred contract, then a bill for tlie admission of more Slave States from Texas will never rec(>ive my vote. To your fourth interrogatory 1 answer most dcridedhj in the affirmative, and for reasons set forth in my rt'i)orted remarks at Ottawa last Monrlay. To your fifth interrogatory I also reply in the affirmative most cor- dialli/. and that I will use my utmost exertions to secure the nomination and election of a man who will accomplish th(! objects of said interroga- tories. I most cordially approve of the re.solutions adopted at the union meeting held at Princeton on the 27th September ult. Yours, etc., R. S. Molony. All I hare to say in regard to Dr. Molony is, that he was the regularly nominated Democratic candidate for Congress in his dis- trict; was elected at that time, at the end of his term was appointed to a land-office at Danville. ( I never heard anything of Judge Douglas's instrumentality in this.) He held this office a consider- al)le time, and when we were at Freeport the other day, there were handbills scattered about notifying the public that after our debate was over, R. S. Molony would make a Democratic speech in favor of Judge Douglas. That is all I know of my own personal knowledge. It is added here to this resolution, and I truly be- lieve, that — "Among those who participated in the Joliet Convention, and who supported its nominee, with his platform as laid down in the resolution of the Convention and in his reply as above given, we call at random the following name.s, all of which are recognized at this day as leading Demo- crats: — Cook County: E. B. Williams, Charles Mc Donell, Arno Voss. Thomas Hoyne. Isaac Cook." I reckon we ought to except Cook. "F. C. Sherman. - "Will: Joel A. Mattcson R. W. Bowen. " Kane: B. F. Hall, G. W. Renwick, A. M. Herrington. Elijah Wilcox. " Mc Henry: W. M. Jackson. Enos W. Smith, Neil Donnelly. "La Salle: .Tohn Hise, William Reddick." I'd .loNESnORO DEHATK. SRPTEMHKK 1'.. IHTM. Williaiu KetUlifk ! nnotluT (Hic ')r(;LAs's i{i:.i()i.\i)KR. M}' friends, while I am very grateful to you for the enthusiasm which you show for me, 1 will say in all candor, that your cjuietness will lie much more* agreeable than your apidause, inasmuch as you deprive me of some part of my time whenever you cheer. I will commence where Mr. Lincoln left off, and make a remark upKiilliis serious complaint of his about my speech at Joliet. I did say there in a playful manner that when I put these (piestions to Mr. Lincoln at Ottawa he failed to answer, aud that he trembled and had to l)e carried off the stand, and recjuired seven days to get up his reply. That he ilid not walk otf from that stand he will not deny. That when the crowd went away from the stand with me, a few persons carried him lioinc on their shoulders and laid him down he will admit. I wish to sa}' to you that whenever I degrade my friends and myself l)y allowing them to carry me on their backs along through the public streets, when 1 am able to walk, 1 am will- ing to be deemed crazy. I did not say whether 1 lical him or he beat me in the argument. It is true I put these (juestions to him, and I put them, not as mere idle (piestions, but show«'d that 1 based them upon the creed of the IMack llepublican party as declared by their conventions in that poitittu of the State which he depi-nds upon to elect him, ami desiii'tl to know whetlu'r he indorsed that creed. lie Would not answer. When I rcmindiMl liim thai 1 inti-ntU'd bringing him into Kgypt and renewing my (pu'stions if he refusi'd to answer, he then constdtecl, and did get up his answers one week after, — answers which I m.iy r< It r to in a few niiiiutes. and show you how e(piivocul they are. .My object was to make him avow whether or not he stood by the platform of hi.s party; the resolutions I then read, and upon whii'i I baseil my tpiestions, h.id b<'i'n adopted liy DOUGLAS. 275 his party in the Galena Congressiontil District, and the Chicago and Uloomingtou Congressional Districts, composing a large major- ity of the counties in -this State that give Republican or Abolition majorities. Mr. Lincoln cannot and will not deny that the doctrines laid down in these resolutions were in substance put forth in Love- joy's resolutions, which were voted for by a majority of his party, some of them, if not all, receiving the support of every man of his part3^ Hence, I laid a foundation for my questions to him before I asked him whether that was or was not the platform of his party. He says that he answered my questions. One of them was whether he would vote to admit any more Slave States into the Union. The creed oi the Republican party as set forth in the reso- lutions of their various conventions was, that they would under no circumstances A'ote to admit another Slave State. It was put forth in the Lovejoy resolutions in the Legislature; it was put forth and passed in a majority of all the counties of this State which give Abo- lition or Republican majorities, or elect members to the Legislature of that school of politics. I had a right to know whether he would vote for or against the admission of another Slave State, in the event the people wanted it. He first answered that he was not pledged on the subject, and then said: — "In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the ad- mission of any more Slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be e.xceedingly sorry ever tc be put in the position of having to pass on that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another Slave State admitted into the Union ; but I must add that if slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the Territor- ial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people, having a fair chance and clean field when they come to adopt a Constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union." Now analyze that answer. In the first place, he says he would be exceedingly sorry to be put in a position where he would have to vote on the question of the admission of a Slave State. Why is he a candidate for the Senate if he would be sorry to be put in that position? I trust the people of Illinois will not put him in a posi- tion which he would be so sorry to occupy. The next position he takes is that he would be glad to know that there would never be another Slave State, yet, in certain contingencies, he might have to L'TC. JoNKSItoliO DEHATE. SKl'I'K.MIJKK i:., isr.s. vnlf for t>iu-. What is lliut rontiiigt'iicy ? "If ('<)iigri'!5S koi-ps slavery out. by law while it is a Territory, ami tlu'U the people should have a fair ehaiiee uiul should adopt slavery, uninlluenecd by the presence of the institution," he supposed he would have to admit the State. Suppose Congress should not keep slavery out during their Terri- torial existence, then how would he vote when the people applied for admission into the Fnion with a slave constitution? That he does not answer; and that is the condition of ever}' Territory we have now got. Slavery is not kept out of Kansas by Act of Con- gress; and when I put tiie (jueslion to Mr. Jiincoln, whether he will vote for the admission with or without slaver}', as her people may desire, he will not answer, and you have not* got an answer from him. In Xel>raska, slavery is not prohibited by Act of Congress, hut the people are allowed, under the Nebraska bill, to do as they please on the subject; and when I ask him whether he will vote to admit Nebraska with a slave constitution if her people desire it, he will not answer. So with New Mexico, Washington Territory, Arizona, and the four new States to be admitted from Texas. Vou cannot get an answer from him to these questions. His an- swer only applies to a given case, to a condition, — things which he knows do not exist in any one Territory in the CTnion. lie tries to give you to understaml that he would allow the people to do as they please, and 3'et he dodges the question as to every Territory in the Union. I now ask wh}' cannot Mr. Lincoln answer to each of these Territories? He has not done it, and he will not do it. The Aboli- tionists up north understand that this answer is made with a view of not committing himself on any one Territory now in existence. It is so understood there, and you cannot expect an answer from him on a case that applies to any oiw Territory, or applies to the new States which liy compact we are pleilgcd to admit out of Texas, when they have the requisite population and desire admission. I submit to you whether he has made a frank answer, so that you can tell how he would vote in any one of these cases. " He would l)e sorry to Ije put in the position.' Why would he be sorry to be put in this position if his duty required him to give the vole? If the people of a Ti-rritory ought to be permitteil to come into the Tnion as a State, with slavery or without it, as they pleased, why not give the vote admitting tliem cheerfully? If in his opinion the}' ought not to come in with slavery, even if they wanted to, why not say that lie would cheerfully vote against llicir admission? His intimation DOUGLAS. 277 is that conscience would not let him vote "No," and he would be sorry to do that which his conscience would compel him to do as an honest man. In regard to the contract, or bargain, between Trumbull, the Abolitionists, and him, which he denies, I wish to say that the charge can be proved by notorious historical facts. Trumbull, Lovejoy, Giddings, Fred Douglass, Hale, and Banks were travel- ing the State at that time making speeches on the same side and in the same cause with him. He contents himself with the simple denial that no such thing occurred. Does he deny that he, and Trumlnill, and Breese, and Giddings, and Chase, and Fred Doug- lass, and Lovejoy, and all those Abolitionists and deserters from the Democratic party did make speeches all over this State in the same common cause? Does he deny that Jim Matheny was then, and is now, his confidential friend, and does he deny that Matheny made the charge of the bargain and fraud in his own language, as I have read it from his printed speech? Matheny spoke of his own personal knowledge of that bargain existing between Lincoln, Trumbull, and the Abolitionists. He still remains Lincoln's confi- dential friend, and is now a candidate for Congress, and is can- vassing the Springfield District for Lincoln. I assert that I can prove the charge to be true in detail if I can ever get it where I can summon and compel the attendance of witnesses. I have the statement of another man to the same efi'ect as that made by Matheny, which I am not permitted to use yet; but Jim Matheny is a good witness on that point, and then the history of the country is conclusive upon it. That Lincoln up to that time had been a Whig, and then undertook to Abolitionize the Whigs and bring them into the Abolition camp, is beyond denial; that Trum- bull up to that time had been a Democrat, and deserted, and under- took to Abolitionize the Democracy, and take them into the Abolition camp, is beyond denial; that they are both now active, leading, distinguished members of this Abolition Republican partj' in full communion, is a fact that cannot be questioned or denied. AS TO CAMPBELL AND MOLONT. r But Lincoln is not willing to be responsible for the creed of his party. He complains because I hold him responsible; and in order to avoid the issue, he attempts to show that individuals in the Democratic party, many years ago, expressed Abolition sentiments. It is true that Tom Campbell, when a candidate for Congress in 278 JOXESBORO DERATE. SEPTEMBER l"., 1S.^)8. 1850, published thf letliT wliUli liiiitolii rt-ad. Wluii I asked LiiK-oln for tlie date of that letter, he could not ^ive it. The date of the letter has been suppressed by other speakers who have used it, thou«;h I Uike it for grant^nl that Lincoln did not know the date. If lie will take the trouble to examine, he will find that the letter was published only two days before the election, and was never seen until after it. I'xcept in one county. Tom Campbell would have been beat to death by the J)emocratic party if that letter liad been made public in his district. As to Molony, it is true he uttered sentiments of the kind referred to by Mr. Jiincoln, ami tiie best Democrats woulil not vote for him for that reason. 1 re- turned from Washington after the passare Slave DOUGLAS. 279 States. Why are men ruuning for Congress in the northern districts, iind taking that Abolition platform for their guide, when Mr. J^incoln does not want to I)e held to it down here in Egypt and in the center of the State, and objects to it so as to get votes here? Let me tell Mr. Lincoln that his party in the northern part of the State hold to that Abolition platform, and that if they do not in the south and in the center, they present the extraordinary spectacle of a "house divided against itself," and hence, "cannot stand." I now bring down upon him the vengeance of his own scriptural quotation, and give it a more appropriate application than he did, when I say to him that his party, Abolition in one end of the State, and op- posed to it in the other, is a house divided against itself, and can- not stand, and ought not to stand, for it attempts to cheat the American people out of their votes by disguising its sentiments. Mr. Lincoln attempts to cover up and get over his Abolitionism by telling you that he was raised a little east of you, beyond the Wabash in Indiana, and he thinks that makes a might}^ sound and good man of him on all these questions. I do not know that the place where a man is born or raised has much to do with his politi- cal principles. The worst Abolitionists I have ever known in Illinois have been men who have sold their slaves in Alabama and Kentucky, and have come here and turned Abolitionists whilst spending the money got for the negroes they sold ; and I do not know that an Abolitionist from Indiana or Kentucky ought to have any more credit because he was born and raised among slaveholders. I do not know that a native of Kentucky is more ex- cusable because, raised among slaves, his father and mother having owned slaves, he comes to Illinois, turns Abolitionist, and slanders the graves of his father and mother, and breathes curses upon the institutions under which he was born, and his father and mother bred. True, I was not born out west here. I was born away down in Yankee land, I was born in a valley in Vermont, with the high mountains around me. I love the old green mountains and valleys of Vermont, where I was born, and where I played in my chiklhood. I went up to visit them some seven or eight years ago, for the first time for twenty odd years. When I got there they treated me very kindly. They invited me to the Commencement of their col- lege, placed me on the seats with their distinguished guests, and conferred upon me the degree of LL. D, in Latin (doctor of laws), — the same as they did Old Hickory, at Cambridge, many years ago; 2S0 .loNKSHOIlo DEBATE. SEPTEMIiEIl in, 1858. :uul I give you iiiy word suul honor I uiulerstooil just as imich of the Latin as he did. When they got through conferring the honorary degree, they called upon me for a speech; and I got up, with my heart full and swelling with gratitude for their kindness, and I said to them, "My friends, Vermont is the most glorious spot on the face of this globe for a man to be born in, pnirldul he emigrates when he is very young. " I emigrated when I was very young, I came out here when I was a boy, and I found my mintl liberalized, and my opinions en- larged, when I got on these broad prairies, with only the heavens to bound my vision, instead of having them circumscribed by the lit- tle narnjw ridges that surrounded the valley where I was born. But I discard all tlings at the land where a man was born. I wish to be judged by my principles, by those great public measures and con- stitutional principles upon which the peace, the happiness, and the perpetuity of this Republic now rest. ANSWER TO QUESTION FIVE. Mr. Lincoln has framed another question, propounded it to me, and ilesired my answer. As I have said before, 1 did not put a question to him that I did not first lay a foundation for, by showing that it was a part of tlie platform of the party whose votes he is now seeking ; adopted in a majority of the counties where he now hopes to get a majority ; and supported by the candidates of his party now running in those counties. But I will answer his ques- tion. It is as follows: "If the slaveholding citizens of a Tnited States Territory should need and demand Congressional legislation for the protection of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legisla- tion?" I answer him that it is a fundamental article in the Democratic creed that there should be non-interference and non-in- tervention by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories. Mr. Lincoln could have f monumont stdnds on Uat< Hidgo, near Springfield, Illinois. It was dedicated October 15, 1874, and Is the work of the sculptor Larkin G. Mead. The structure is of white marble with a portrait-statue of Lincoln in bronze. LINCOLN. 2S3 iiiade it, unci maintain the rights of the States as they are guaran- ti'cd under the Constitution, and then we will have peace and har- mony between the dift'erent States and sections of this glorious Union. FOURTH JOINT DEBATE, AT CHARLESTON. September IS, 1S5S. MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. Ladies axd G-entlemen : It will be very difficult for an audience so large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker saj's, and conse- quently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as possible. While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a per- fect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to sa}' much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they can- not so live, while they do remain together there must l)e the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any othei'' man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion: I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my 284 ClIAItLKSTON DEBATE. SEPTEMBER IS, 1858. fiftieth yt'Hf, ami I certainly never have had a l)lai-k woman for eitlier a shive or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get alon<^ without raakinnstitntii»n under, ami in this conference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a provision for sul)mitting the constitu- tion to a vote of the people after it should be formed. He then brings forward evidence to show, and showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the I/dl back to the Senate with that clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause inserted into the Iiill, which would in its nature pnvatt a reference of tlu- constitution back for a vote of th(! people, — if, indeed, upon a mere silence in the law, it could be assumed that tiiey had the right to Vote ui)on it These are the general statements that he has made. Lincoln's uevikw of tiik c.vse. I propose to examine tlie points in Judge Douglas's speech in which lie attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to examine Judge Douglas's speech, 3'ou will lind that the lirst {)oint he makes is: "Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and that I struck it out, — is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution upon them against their will'.''"' His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the Ijill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would say, in the first place, that that would be a most muni/rsf reason for it. U is true, as Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial bills have passed williont having such a provision in thi in, 1 lic- lieve it is true, though 1 am not certain, that in some instances, constitutions framed under such bills liave been submitted to a vote of the people, with Ihi- law silent upun the subject; but it docs not appear that they once had their l''iiiabling .Vets franieil with an express provision /(i! of tkiri debate. LINCOLN. 2S7 proposition that Trumbull advanced, when we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almost simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there Avas a conference among certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be passed leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which it was agreed they should so frame the bill that there should be no submission of the constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge does not notice this part of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to be submitted, and put the two together, I think it wdl make a pretty fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter into a plot to put in force a constitution for Kansas without giving the people any opportunity of voting upon it. But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is this: "But upon examniation it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain a clause requiring the constitution to be sub- mitted." This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I only want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that these words were not stricken out of the Toombs bill, or this bill from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out, — a bill which goes by the name of Toombs, because he origi- nally brought it forward? I ask why, if the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not stricken out? Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the Toombs bill, and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were stricken out. Judge Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken out were not so stricken out; but he says there was no provision in the Toombs bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the words. He has not undertaken to say that Trum- bull tells a lie about these words being stricken out ; but he is really, when pushed up to it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken out, I have before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the Toombs liill, in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says were in it, were, in fact, originally there. If 288 (HAKi.KsroN i)i:i:atk. si:i'ti;mi:ki: is, la-is. lluri' Vii' ally tli.sj)uli' upon llu' fact, T liavf show thi'V wero Ihfie. If tliere be any controversy upon the sense of the words, — whether these words which were stricken out R'ully constituted a. provision for submitting the matter to u vote of the peopU', — as that is a matter of arLiunu'nt, I tiiink T may as well use Trumbull's own argument. He says tliat the proposition is in these words: — "Tliat tlu' following; proiM)sitlons bo and the samo arc lioroby ofTorod to the said Convention of llu- i)i'ople of Kansas wlicn formed, for ilieir free acceptance or rejection : wliicli, if accepted by tlie ('on\enlion mid nifijhd by the pi'oph' at thf fh^rtiiin fur thr (idoptom of tfie ronnfitutioit, sliall be obli- gatory uiMin the I'liited Sl.ites and tiie said Htate of Kansas." Now, Trnmhull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill when it came back, and he says this was a provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people; and his ai\ gtiment is this: " Would it have been possilile to ratify the land propositions at the election for the adoption of the constitution, un- less such an election was to l)e held?" This is Trumbull's argu- ment. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge at all, but he stands up and says tliere was no such proposition in that bill for sid)mitting the constitution, to be framed, to a vote of the people. Truml)ull admits that the language is not a direct provision for su])mitting it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another provision. lie asks y<' i how it is possible to ratify the land i)ropo- sition at the election for the adoption of the constitution, if there was no election to l)c h.-ld for the adoption of the constitution. And he goes on to sliov; tlKit it is not any less a law because the provision is put m that indiri-t t sliape than it would i)e if it was put directly. Hut I presunn' I liivcsaid enough to draw attention to this point, and I pass it by al.so. Another one of the points that Judge Dmiglas niakes upon Trumbidl, and at very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in a speech in the Senate that he sup|)osetl the constitution to be made would have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thought .so then, what ground is there for anyb<»dy thinking otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, this much may be 8ai«l in i<'i>ly: That bill h;id been in the hands of a p:irty to which Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of the com- mittee, at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull pi-r- haps had a printed copy of the original Toombs liill. I have not the evidence on that point, exfcpt a t-nvl of uifcrencf 1 ilr;iw from LINCOLN. 289 the general course of business there. "What alterations, or what provisions in the way of altering, were going on in that committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, until the altered bill was re- ported back. Soon afterward, when it was reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull in reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the bearings of the altera- tions, lie was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not follow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive, that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that what Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did? Suppose Trumbull had been in the plot with these other men, would that let Douglas out of it? Would it exonerate Douglas that Trumbull did n"t then perceive that he was in the plot? He also asks the question: Why didn't Trumbull propose to amend the bill, if he thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe that everything Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection with this question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his friends. He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to anything on this subject would re- ceive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull did bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the fact that there was no pro- vision for submitting the constitution about to be made for the people of Kansas, to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture to say that Judge Douglas made some reply to this speech of Judge Trumbull's, hut he never noticed thcit j^art of it at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment, does not throw much blame upon him ; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact as to what Judge Douglas teas doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself been in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial it should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, but that the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at all touch the question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck that they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me, to be guilty too. Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is, that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the fact that the bill had the provision in it for submit- ting the constitution to a vote of the people when it went into his 19 li'jO fllAKLESToN DEliATK. ^Kl'TEMlUMl IS, laW. (Jiulj;o Dou«:;lass) bands, that it was missing when lie repoiteil it to the J^enate, ami that in a public speech he had subsequently said the alterations in the bill were made while it was in committee, and that they were made in consultation between him (Judge Douglas) and Toombs. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of 'rrumbuH's adiUu-ing in his Alton si)eech the proposition that til*' l>ill not only came back with that proi>osition stricken out, but with another clause and another provision in it, saying that •• until tile complete execution of this Act there shall be no election in saiil Territory," — which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the provision for submitting to a vote of the people, out of the bill, but was adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the question. Now, in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the issue, that he shifts his ground, — and I believe be uses the term that, '' it being i)roven false, he has changed ground," — I call ui)on all of you, when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's speech (for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trum- bull has shifted bis ground or not. I say be did not shift his grouud, but that be brought forward bis original charge and the evidence to sustain it yet more fully, l)ut precisely as he originally made it. Then, in addition thereto, be brought in a new piece of evidence. He shifted no ground. He brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with his former testimony; but he brought a new piece, tending, as be thought, and as I think, to prove his proposition. To illustrate: A man brings an accusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a second trial lu' introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same stor}- as before, and a third wit- ness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives further testi- mony corroltorative (»f the charge. So with Trumbull. There was no shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony between the new piece of evidence and what he originally introduced. But Judge D the notice of those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that jjrovision ; and then he goes on to give another (juo- tation from Judge Douglas, where Judge Trumlmll uses tills language : — ".Fudge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probably recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had objected to the Toombs bill when pending, that it did not jjrovide for a submission of the constitution to the people, made another statement which is to be found in the same volume of the Olobc, page 22, in which he says: — " ■ That the bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention was called to that al)out the time it was passed ; and I took tlu' fair con- struction to be, that powers not deleg.ited, were reserved, and that of course the constitution would be submitted to the people.' '• Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before made, that had the point been madi'it would have bi-en yieldid to, or tli.it it was a new discovery, you will mlis hill retpiired a submission of the constitution to the people. Trumbull then saw that he was caught, and his falsehood exposed, and be went to Alton, and, under the very walls of the penitentiary, made a new speech, in which he predicated his assault upon me in the allegation that I had caused to be voted into the Toombs bill a clause which prohibited the Convention from submitting the consti- tution to the i)c()i)le, and quoted what be pretended was the clause. N(jw, has not Mr. Truml)ull entirely changed the evidence on which he ba.ses his charge? The clause which he quoted in his Alton speech (which he has pul)lished and circulated broadcast over the l^tate) as having I)een put into the Toombs bill by me, is in the following words: "And until the complete execution of this Act. no other election shall be held in said Territoiy." Trumbull says that the object of that amendment was to prevent the Convention from submitting the constitution to a vote of the people. N(jw, I will show you that when 'rniinlmll mi:i(1c that statement at Alton he knew it to be untrue. 1 read from Trumbull s speech in the Senate on the Toombs bill on the night of its passage. He then said: — '• Thi-rr is nothing said in this bill, so far us I havo discovered, about Kiil)niittin^' tiie constitution, whicii is to be formed, to the jwopie for tliejr saiiclion iir rejection. Perhaps the Convention will have the rifiht to sul>- niit it, if it should think proper, but il is certainly not compelled to do so, accordiii;,' to the jircnisions of the l>ill." Thus you see that Trumbull, when the bill was on its i)assage in the Senate, said that it was silent on the subject of sulunission, and that there was nothing.' in the iiill one way or the other on it. In hii^ Alton speech h«.' says there was a clause in the bill preventing; DOUGLAS. 303 its submission to the people, and t!i;it 1 luid it voted ia as an amendment. Thus I convict him of falsehood and slander by quot- ing from him, on the passage of the Toombs bill in the Senate of the United States, his own speech, made on the night of July 2, 1856, and reported in the Congressional Globe for the first session of the thirty-fourth Congress, vol. 33. What will you think of a man who makes a false charge, and falsifies the records to prove it? 1 will now show you that the clause which Trumbull 8a3-s was put in the bill on my motion was never put in at all by me, but was stricken out on my motion, and another substituted in its place. I call your attention to the same volume of the Congressional Globe to which 1 have already referred, page 795, where you will find the following report of the proceedings of the Senate: — "JV/". Douglas. — I have an amendment to offer from the Committee on Territories. On page 8, section 11, strike out the words 'until the com- plete execution of this Act, no other election shall be held in said Terri- tory,' and insert the amendment which I hold in my hand." You see from this that I moved to strike out the very words that Trumbull says I put in. The Committee on Territories oveiTuled me in committee, and put the clause in; but as soon as I got t\w. I)ill back into the Senate, I moved to strike it out, and put another clause in its place. On the same page you will find that my amend- ment was agreed to unanimously. I then offered another amend- ment, recognizing the right of the people of Kansas, under the Toombs bill, to order just such elections as they saw proper. You can find it on page 796 of the same volume. I will read it: — ''Mr. Douglas. — I have another amendment to offer from the Commit- tee, to follow the amendment which has been adopted. The bill reads now: 'And until the complete execution of this Act, no other election shall be held in said Territory.' It has been suggested that it should be modified in this way : ' And to avoid conflict in the complete execution of tliis Act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby- postponed until such time as said Convention shall appoint,' so that they can appoint th^ day in the event tliat there should be a failure to come into the Union." The amendment was nnanimousli/ agreed to, — clearly and dis- tinctly recognizing the right of the Convention to order just as many elections as they saw proper in the execution of the Act. Trumbull concealed in his Alton speech the fact that the clause he quoted had been stricken out in my motion, and the other fact that this other clause was put in the bill on my motion, and made the false charge that I incorporated into the bill a clause preventing ;;ii4 ( HAin.Ks'l-oN DKIiATK. SKl'l'K.MHKR 1.^. 1858. submission, in the face of tlu* fart, tiiat. (jn my motion, the bill was so aujentled before it passed as to recoguize in express words the right and duty of submission. On this reeord that 1 have produeed beft)re you, I repeat my chaitre that TrumliuU did falsify the public records of the country, in lU'der to make his char^^e against Uie; and I tell Mr. Ai)raham Lincoln that if he will examine these records, he will then know that what I state is true. Mr. Lincoln has tliis day indorsed Mr. Trnndiulls veracity after he had my word for it that that veracity was proved to be violated and forfeited by the public records. It will not do for Mr. Jjincoln, in parading his calumnies against me, to put Mr. Trumliull between him and the odium and responsibility which justly attaches to such calumnies. 1 tell him that I am as ready to prosecute the indorser as the maker of a forged note. I regret the necessity of occupying my time with these pett}' personal matters. It is unl)ecoming the dignity of a canvass for an ottice of the character for which we are candidates. When I commenced the canvass at Chicago, I spoke of Mr. Lincoln in terms of kindness as an old I'rii-nd; I said that he was a good citizen, of unblemished t'haracter, against whom I had nothing to say. I repeated these complimentary remarks about him in my successive speeches, until he became the indorser for these and other slanders against me. If there is anything personally disagreeal)le, uncourteous, or disreputa- ble in these personalities, the sole responsibility rests on Mr. Lin- coln, Mr. Trundjull, and their ])ackers. I)(»fOI..\s's .V.N.M.VSIS OF THE " CONSPIR.VCV " Cri.\ROE. I will show you another charge made by Mr. Lincoln against me, as an otl-sct to his determination of willingness to take back any- thing that is incorrect, and to correct any false statement he may have made, lie has several times charged that the iSupreme Court, President Pierce, President liuchanan, and myself, at the time I introduced the Nebraska bill in January, lSr)4, at Washington, en- tered into a cons|)irac3' to establish slavery all over this country. I branded this charge as a falsehood, and then he repeated it; asked me to analyze its truth; and answer it. 1 told him: •• .^lr. Lincoln, I know what you are after, - you want to occupy my time in j)er- sonal matters, to prevent me from showing up the revolutionary principles whiili the .Muilition j)arty — whose candidate you are — liJive procliiinied to the world. ' DOUGLAS. 305 But he asked me to analyze his proof, and I did so. I called his attention to the fact that at the time the Nebraska bill was in- troduced, there was no such case as the Dred Scott case pending in the Supreme Court, nor was it brought there for years afterwards, and hence that it was impossible that there could have been any such conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court and the other parties involved. I proved by the record that the charge was false, and what did he answer? Did he take it back like an honest man, and say that he had been mistaken? No; he repeated the charge, and said, that although there was no such case pendiug that year, there was an understanding between the Democratic owners of Dred Scott and the Judges of the Supreme Court and other parties in- volved, that the case should be brought up. I then demanded to know who these Democratic owners of Dred Scott were. He could not or would not tell ; he did not know. In truth, there were no Democratic owners of Dred Scott on the face of the land. Dred Scott was owned at that time by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress from Springfield, Massachusetts, and his wife; and Mr. Lincoln ought to have known that Dred Scott was so owned, for the reason that as soon as the decision was announced by the court Dr. Chaffee and his wife executed a deed emancipating him, and put that deed on record. It was a matter of public record, therefore, that at the time the case was taken to the Supreme Court, Dred Scott was owned by an Abolition member of Congress, a friend of Lincoln's and a leading man of his party, while the defense was conducted by Abolition lawyers, — and thus the Abolitionists man- aged both sides of the case. I have exposed these facts to Mr. Lincoln, and yet he will not withdraw his charge of conspiracy'. I now submit to you whether you can place any confidence in a man who- continues to make a charge when its utter falsity is proven by the public records. I will state another fact to show how utterly reckless and un- scrupulous this charge against the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself is. Lincoln says ^that President Buchanan was in the conspiracy at Washington in the winter of 18r)4, when the Nebra.ska bill was introduced. The history of this country shows that James Buchanan was at that time representing this country at the Court of St. James, Great Britain, with distin- guished ability and usefulness, that he had not been in tlie United States for nearly a j^ear previous, and that he did not return until about three years after. Yet Mr. Lincoln keeps repeating this 20 :{(M; CIIAIM.KSTON DKKATE, SEPTKMHHIt IS, IS-IS. ch:irj;o of t-unspinicy against Mr. Ihiclianan wlu'ii the public niurils provo it to be untrue. Having proved it to hv false us far as the Supreme Court and President IJui-lianan are eoncerned, I drop it, leaving the public to say whether I, by myself, without their concurrence, couhl have gone into ji I'oMspiracy with them. My friends, you sec that the object clearly is to eonduet the canvass on personal matters, and hunt me down with charges that are proven to be false by the pul)lic records of the country. 1 am willing to throw open my whole jjublic and private life ti> the inspection of any man, or all men who desire to investigate il. Having resided among you twent^'-five years, during nearly the whole of which time a public man, exposed to more assaults, perhaps more abuse, than any man living of my age, or who ever did live; and having survived it all and still commanded your confidence; I am willing to trust to your knowledge of me and my puJ)lic conduct without making any more defense against these assaults. Fellow-citizens, I came here for the purpose of discussing the leading i)olitical topics which now agitate the country. 1 have no charges to make against Mr. Lincoln, none against Mr. Trumbull, and none against any man who is a candidate; except in repelling their assaults upon me. If Mr. Lincoln is a man of bad character, I leave you to find it out; if his votes in the past are not satisfac- tory, I leave others to ascertain the fact; if his course on the Mexi- can war was not in accordance with your notions of patriotism and fidelity to our own country as against a public enemy, I leave you to ascertain the fact. 1 have no assaults to make upon him, except to trace his course on the (juestions that now divide the country and engross so much of the people's attention. CLAY, C.VSS, AND WKIJSTER. You know that prior to 1S54 this country was divided into twf) great political i)arties, one the Whig, llie other the Democratic. F, as a Democrat for twenty years prior to that time, had been in pub- lic discussions in this State as an advocate of Democratic i)rinciples, an nominate Scott for t!ie Presidency, they adopted as a part of their platform the Comi)ro- DOUGLAS. 309 mise measures of 1850 as the cardinal plank upon which every Whig would stand, and by which he would regulate his future conduct. When the Democratic party assemltled at the same place one mouth after, to nominate General Pierce, we adopted the same platform so far as those Compromise measures were concerned, agreeing that we would stand by those glorious measures as a cardinal article in the Democratic faith. Thus you see that in 1852 all the old Whigs and all the old Democrats stood on a common plank so far as this slavery question was concerned, differing on other ([uestions. Now, let me ask, how is it that since that time so many of you Whigs have wandered from the true path marked out by Clay, and carried out broad and wide by the great Webster ? How is it that so many Old Line Democrats have abandoned the old faith of their part}', and joined with A])olitionism and Free-soilism to overturn the platform of the old Democrats, and the platform of the old Whigs ? You cannot deny that since 185-4 there has been a great revolution on this one question. How has it been brought about ? I answer, that no sooner was the sod grown green over the grave of the immortal Clay; no sooner was the rose planted on the tomb of the god-like Webster; than many of the leaders of the Whig party, such as Seward of New York, and his followers, led o(F and attempted to Abolitionize the Whig party, and transfer all your old Whigs, bound hand and foot, into the Abolition camp. Seizing hold of the temporary excitement produced in this country by the introduction of the Nebraska bill, the disappointed politicians in the Democratic party united with the disappointed politicians in the Whig party, and endeavored to form a new party, composed of all the Abolitionists, of Abolitionized Democrats, and Abolitionized Whigs, banded together in an Abolition platform. "WHO LED THAT CRUSADE?" And who led that crusade against National principles in this State ? I answer, Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the Whigs, and Lyman Trumbull on behalf of the Democrats, formed a scheme by which they would Abolitionize the two great parties in this State, on condition that Lincoln should be sent to the United States Senate in the place of General Shields, and that Trumbull should go to Congress from the Belleville District until I would be accommodat- ing enough either to die or resign for his benefit, and then he was to go to the Senate in my place. You all remember that during the year 1854 these two worthy gentlemen, Mr, Lincoln and Mr. Trum- :n(l ( llAIM.KSToN DKHATK. SKPTF.M IIKK LS. 1858. bull, om- :iii Old Liiii' Wliijz mikI tlii' otlicr :iii Old Line Di'inot-rat, wt'ix* buutiiij: ill partnLTship to elect :i Ijegi.slutiiri- against the Demo- cnitic party. I canviUised the SUite that year fioiii the time I returned home until the eleetion came otf, and spoke iu every ecninly liiat 1 eoidd reaeh iluring that period. In the northern part of the State 1 found Liueolns ally, in the person of Fred Douglass, the negro, preaching Abolition doetrines; while Jiincoln was discussing the same prin- ciples ilown here; and Trumbull, a little farther down, was advocat- ing the election of uieml)ers to tin- Lcgislatun' who wouhl ad iu concert with Lim-oln's and Kred l)ouglass's friends. 1 witnessed an effort made at CMiiiago by Lincoln's then associates, and now su})- porters, to i)ut Fred Douglass, the negro, on the stand at a Demo- cratic meeting, to reply to the illustrious General Cass, when he was addressing the people there. They had the same negro hunting me down, an get the people to do that? They have been wrangling over this question for at least forty years. This was the c.inse of the agitation resulting in the .^lissouri Conq)r()nnse; this produced LINCOLN. :; i <) the troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the territory acquired in the Mexican War. Again, tliis was the trouble which was quieted liy the Compro- mise of 1850, when it was settled ^^ forever,'' as both the great polit- ical parties declared in their National Conventions. That ' ' for- ever" turned out to be just four years, lohen Judge Dotiglax /n'mself reopened it. When is it likely to come to an end? He introduced the Nebraska bill in 1854 to put another end to the slavery agitation. He promised that it would finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since, until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton Constitution, in which he has not declared that we are Just at the end of the slavery agitation. But in one speech, I think last winter, he did say that he did n't quite see when the end of the slavery agitation would come. Now he tells us again that it is all over, and the people of Kansas have voted down the Lecompton Constitution. How is it over? That was only one of the attempts at putting an end to the slavery agitation, — one of these "final settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formed a constitution that she is likely to come in under? Is not the slavery agitation still an open question in that Territory? Has the voting down of that constitution put an end to all the trouble? Is that more likely to settle it thlin every one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery agitation? Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can see the end of the world itself. The Nebraska- Kansas bill was in- troduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end, we may sa}^ we are four years and a half nearer the end. So, too, we can say we are four j^ears and a half nearer the end of the world; and we can just as clearly see the end of the world as we can see the end of this agitation. The Kansas settle- ment did not conclude it. If Kansas should sink to-day, and leave a groat vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out of our new Territories, — to restrict it forever to the old States where it now exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to the slaA'ery agitation. The other way is for us to surrender, and let Judge Douglas and 320 CHARLESTON DEHATE, SEPTEMBER IS, ISSS. his fiieiuKs have their way and plant shivery over all the States; cease speaking of it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the eoiunion matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and cattle. But while it drives on in its state of pro- gress as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate exliiictiiiii it will Ite in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years at least ; but that it will occur in the best way for both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt. But, my fririuls, 1 have u.sed up more of my lime than I inteiiiU'(l on this point Now, in regard to this matter al)out Trumbull and myself having maile a bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in lSr)t; Judge Douglas brings forward no evidence to su.stain his charge, except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1850, in whicli he told a cock-and-bull stor\' of that sort, upon the same moral principles that Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the simple truth. I do not care greatly for the story, but this is the truth of it; and I have twice told Judge Douglas to his face that from Ixginning to end there is not one word of truth in it. I iiave called upon iiim for the proof, and he does not at all meet me as Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just talking, by pro- ducing the record. He did n't i)ring the record, because there was no record for him to bring. Wlien he asks if I am ready to indorse Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply that if Trumbull hud broken a liargain with me, I would not be likely U) indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity be- cause ID it/n r ill that ihtiKj^ nor in uni/ athtr, in all (lie ynirs that I Jiuve known Lifnum Tiiinilmll, hnsibility, ho far as it rests on me. Having done sci. I ask the attention of this audience to the (piestioii whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether ,Iu/ t/imr jn'ivrs <>/ i tidincc LINCOLN. 323 was a forger ij? Does he say that wliat T present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a forgery ? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported by himself is a forgery? Or what is presented as a transcript from the GJohv of the quotations from Higler's speech, is a forgery? Does he say the quotations from his own speech are forgeries? Does he say this transcript from Trumbull's speech is a forgery? [Voices: " He didn't deny one of them.'] I would then like to know how it comes about that tchen each piece of a story is true, the whole story turns out false? I take it these peoide have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is playing cuttle-fish, — a small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid, which makes tin; water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Is not the Judge playing the cuttle-fish? Now, I would ask very special attention to the cDUsideration of Judge Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces of testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown to be such. Mot one of than has he shown to be afor- -4 ( HAUI.KS'ION 1)I:1;ATK. SEPTEMDKR 18, 1858. Does Juiliji' l)uughis deny tliat fiict ? Does he deny that the pro- vision which Trumbull reads was put in that Ijill ? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he tlare to ileny that ? He does not, and I have tiie rijjht to repeat the (juestion, — Win/ Jmhjv Duiujlus Inok it out* JJigler has said there was a coniljination of certain senators, among whom he did not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed tliat the Kansas bill sliould have a clause in it not to have the eimstitution formed under it submitted to a vote of the people, lie did not say that Douglas was among them, l)ut we prove by another source that about the same time Douglas comes into the Senate nilh tfmt jinnisifin sfrick'cn out of tin hi//. Allliough IJiglcr cannot say they were all working in concert, yet it looks very much as if tiic thing was agreed upon and done wiili a mutual undeistanding after the conference; and while we do not kiKiw that it was absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that we havi' a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it was done, t>> ti// ulint tin line nasim ini.s. When he will not tell what the true reas(m was, he stands in the attitude of an accused thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to account, refuses to tell where he got them. Not only is this the evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then, but since, that these alterations and moililications in the l)ill /kh/ been mudv /n/ him, in (iiiitiultation irit/i Tumn/ts^ t/ir orii/iiititor >>/ t/ic hi//. lie tcUs US the same to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in t!ie bill in committee that he did not vote for. I ask you to remem- ber while certain amendments were made which he disapproved of, but which a majority of the Committee voted in, he has himself told us that in this particular tlic a/trmtions aud mod iji cat ions were nini/r /iij him, upon consu/tution uifk Toondis. We have his own word that these alterations were made hi/ him, and not by the Committee. N(tw, 1 ask, what is the rea.son Judge Douglas is so chary about coming to the exact (piestion ? What is the reason he will not tell you anything about how it was made, by whom it was made, or that he remendjers it Ix-ing mach; at all ? Why der.s()nal; and then you must judge who is most to blame for the torture his jiublic record inflicts upon him, he for making, or I for reading it after it was made. As an individual, I care very little about Judge iKiuglas one way or the other. It is his public acts with which I have to do, an»l if they condemn, di.sgrace, and consign him to oblivion, he has only himself, not me, to blame. Now, the charge is that there was a plot entered into to have a consti- tution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the people an opportunity to pass upon it. and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot. This is as susceptible of proof b}' the record as is the fact that the State of Minne- sota was admitted into the Union at the last session of Congress. On the 'J.")th of June, 1856, a bill was pending in the United States Senate U) authorize the people of Kansas to form a constitution and come into the l^'nion. On that day Mr. Toombs offered an amendment which he intended to propose to the bill which was ordered to be printed, and, with the original bill aiul other amendments, recommended to the Com- mittee on Territories, of which Mr. Douglas was Chairman. This amend- ment of Mr. Toombs, printed by order of the Senate, and a cojjy of which I have here present, |)rovided for the appon it. 1 shall attend to that branch of the subject by and by. My ob- ject now is to prove the existence of the plot, what the design was. and I a.sk If I have not already done so. Here are the facts: — The introduction of a bill on the 7th of March, 18,")G, providing for the calling of a Convention in Kansas to form a State constitution, and provid- ing that the constitution should be submitted to the people for adoption ; an amendment to this bill, proposed by Mr. Toombs, containing the same re- ipiiri-ment ; a reference of these various bills to the Committee on Terri- tories; a consultation of senators to determine whether it was advisable to have the constitution submitted for ratification ; the determination that it was not advisable; and a rejMirt of the l)ill back to the Senate in'xt morning, with the clau.se providing for the submission stricken out. Could evi«|ence be more complete to establish the first part of the charge I have made of a plot having been entered into by .somebody, to have a coustitu- liou adojited without submitting it to the people ? SPEECH OF TRUMBULL. ;{29 Now, for the other part of the charge, that .Tudge Douglas was in iliis plot, whether knowingly or ignorantly is not material to my purpose. The charge is that he was an instrument co-operating in the project to have a constitution formed and put into operation, without affording the people an opportunity to pass upon it. The first evidence to sustain the charge is tiie fact tliat he reported back the Toombs amendment, with the clause providing for the submission stricki'n out, — this in connection with his sfjeech in the Senate on the 9th of December, 1857 {Congressional Globe, part 1, page 14), wherein he stated : — " That during the last Congress I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assem- ble and form a Constitution for themselves. Subsequently tlie Senator from (ieorgia (Mr. Toombs) brought forward a substitute i'or my bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed bj' the Senate." This of itself ought to be sufficient to show that my colleague was an instrument in the plot to have a constitution put in force without submit- ting it to the people, and to forever close his mouth from attempting to deny. No man can reconcile his acts and former declarations with his present denial, and the only charitable conclusion would be that he was being used by others without knowing it. Whether he is entitled to the benefit of even this excuse, j'ou must judge on a candid hearing of the facts I shall present. When the charge was first made in the United States Senate, by Mr. Bigler, that my colleague had voted for an Enabling Act which put a government in operation without submitting the consti- tution to the people, my colleague {Congressional Olobe, last session, part 1, page 24) stated : — " 1 will ask the senator to show me an intimation from any one member of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the people. 1 will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so unders^^ood at the time. If tlie opponents of the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on it ; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done which ought in fairness to have been done." I knew at the time this statement was made that I had urged the very objection to the Toombs bill two years before, that it did not provide for the submission of the constitution. You will find my remarks, made on the 2d of July, 1856, in the Appendi.x: to the Congressional Olobe of that year, page 179, urging this very objection. Do you ask why 1 did not ex- pose him at the time ? I will tell you : Mr. Douglas was then doing good service against the Lecompton iniquity. The Republicans were then en- gaged in a hand-to-hand fight with the National Democracy to prevent the bringing of Kansas into the Union as a Slave State against the wishes of its inhabitants, and of course I was unwilling to turn our guns from the common enemy to strike down an ally. Judge Douglas, however, on the same day, and in the same debate, probably recollecting, or being re- minded of, the fact that I had objected to the Toombs bill when pending, ;i:iO si'KKrii t)F TKi.Mia 1,1.. that it (lit! not idovidi- for tin- suhinissioii of llii* constiliitioii to tin- pi oplr-, miulf another slatiMiU'iit, wliirh is to be fouiiil in tin- same sohinn' of ihf ('onyrfHitiotutl (Uohf, pat.''" 'i'i, in which Ijo says : — "That thf bill was silent on the subject is true, ami tny attention wa■^ calletl to that about the time it was ]»assed ; and I took the fair construe- tioii to be, that powers not deU'jjated were reserved, and tliat of course tin- ct)nstitution would be submitted to the people." Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before made, that had the jtoint been made It would have been yielded to, or that it was a new tUscovery, you will determine; for if the public records do not convict and condemn him, he may fro uncotidemiied, so far as I am ctmcerned. I make no use here of the testimony of Senator Hitler tt)show that .ludjre Doujrlas must have been privy to the constiltalion held at his house, when it was determined not to sulimit the constitutimi to the peo- ple; because . I uilf.'!' Dou^rlas denies it, and I wish to use his own acts and declarations, which are abundantly surticienl for my |)urixjse. I conu" to a piece of testimony which disposes of all these various pre- tenses which have l>een set up for strikinosil ion the clause retjuirin^' a submission of the constitution to the people, and shows that it was not doneeilher by accident, by inadv(?rlence, iir because it was believed that, the bill bein^r silent on the subject, the et nstitulion would necessarily be submitted to the i)eople for approval. What will you think, after listening to the facts already presented, toshow that there was a desijrn with those who concocted the Toombs l)ill. as amended, not to submit the constitution to the people, if I now brin;.' be- fore you the amended bill as Judjre Douj^las reported it back, and show the clause of the orijrinal bill requiring submission was not only struck out, but that other clauses were inserted in the bill, pultiniy: it absolutely out of the power of the Convention to submit the constitution to the peo- ple for approval, had they desired to do so? If I can produce such evi- dence as that, will you not all aal Mr. Toombs's bill provided for holdin;r an election for delegates to form a constitution under the supi-rvision of commissiom-rs to be appointed by l!ie President ; and in the bill as ri'jiorted back by .Judge Douirlas. lhe.se words, uitt to bi found in the uriijiunl bill, are inserted at the close of the 11th section, viz. : — •' .And until the complete e.xecwiion of tins ,\ct, no otlier ejection siiall be held in said Territory." Tills clause put It out of liie JinWer of tile C'onVellti(Hl lo refer to the IH'ople for adoption; it absolutel\ prohibited the liolding of any other elec- tion than that for the election of delegates. t|I| that A<'t was completely e.xeculed, which would not have been until Kansas was admitted as ;i State, or at all r'vents till her constitution was fully prepared and ready for submission to Congress for admission. Otlur amendments reporte?>\ simply a resolution of admission. The amendment reported by Mr. I)()ii';liis, that "until the ne.\t Congressional apportionment, the said Stale shall have one representative," clearly shows this, no such provision beinj? contained in the original Toombs bill. For what other earthly purpose Cd'ild the clause to prevent any other election in Kansas, e.vcept that of delegates, till it was admitted as a State, have been inserted, e.vcept to prevent a submission of the Constitution, when formed, to the people? The Toombs bill did not pass in the e.vact shape in which Judge Douglas reported it. Several amendments were made to it in the Senate. 1 am now dealing with the action of Judge Douglas as connected with that bill, and speak of the bill as he recommended it. The facts I have stated ill regard to this matter appear upon tlie records, which I have here pres- ent to show to any man wlio wishes to look at them. They establish be- yond the power of controversy all the charges I have made, and show that .ludge Douglas was made use of as an instrument by others, or else know- ingly was a party to the scheme to have a government put in force over tiie people of Kansas, without giving tliem an opportunity to pass upon it. That others high in position in the so-called Democratic party were par- ties to such a scheme is conf(>ssed by Governor Bigler ; and the only reason why the scheme was not carried, and Kansas long ago forced into the Union as a Slave State, is the fact, that the Republicans were sufficient!}' strong in the House of Representatives to defeat the measure. EXTRACTS FROM MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH MADE AT JACKSON- VILLE, AND REFERRED TO BY MR. LINCOLN IN HIS OPENING AT CHARLESTON. I have been reminded by a friend behind me that there is another topic upon which there has been a desire expressed that I should speak. I am told that Mr. Lyman Trumbull, who has the good fortune to hold a seal in the United States Senate, in violation of the bargain between him and Lincoln, was here the otiier da\' and occupied his time in making C(M'- tain charges against me, involving, if they be true, moral turpitude. 1 am also informed that the charges he made here Avere substantially the same as those made by him in the city of Chicago, which were printed in the newspapers of that city. 1 now propose to answer those charges and to aiinihilate everj' pretext that an honest man has ever had for repeating them. In order that I may meet these charges fairlj-, I will read them as made by Mr. Trumbll, in his Chicago speech, in his own language. He says: — "Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that there was a pre- concerted arrangement and plot entered into bj' the very men who now claim credit for opposing a constitution not submitted to the peo!)h\ t > iiave a constitution formed and put in force without giving the people a > opportunity to pass upon it. This, my friends, is a serious ciiarge, but i chariic it tii-iiigiit tliat the very men who traverse the country under ban- ners procljiiming popular sovereignty, by design concocted a bill ou pur- pose to lorce a constitution upon that people." 332 SPEKi 11 OF DoUlJLAS. Airaiii. s|H>akii)^ t<» Hjc some ctiu- in tin- orowil. In- says: — "Aii'l \«m want to satisfy yourself that he was in tiic j)iot to force a roiisiii iiiioii ii|M>>i tiiat iM'o|ilfy 1 will satisfy you. 1 will train tin- triitii tlowii any lioncst man's tiiroat until In* cannot deny it. ami to the man who (lots iliiiy it 1 will cram the lie tlt)wn his throat till he shall cry. •Knou;.'hI' It is |ire|M)sterous; it is the most tlamnahle eirroiitery that man ever |iut tin, to ct>nce;il a .scheme tti defraiul ami cheat the people oul of their riu'lits antl then d.iim cntlil for it." That is polite antl decent laiifruap' for a senatt)r of the I'niled Stales. Romember that that lan;ruaj,'e was useil without any provocation wh.itever from mo. I lunl not alluiU-tl to him in any manner in any sjjeech that 1 l>ad made, hence without prtivocatit)n. As stion as he sets his fotH within the State, he makes the direct charjre that I was a party to a plt)t to Itirce )i constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, antl, knowini: that it would be denied, he talks about cramming the lie down the throat of any man who shall deny it, until he cri(»s " Enough." Why did lie take it for gnmted that it would be denied, unless he knew it to be false? .Why did he deem it necessary to make a threat in advance that he would "cram the lie " down the throat of any man that should tleny it? I have no doubt that the entire Abolition part}' consider it very |jolite for Mr. Trumbull to go round uttering calumnies of that kiml. bullying, and talking of cramming lies down men's throats; but if I deny any of his lies by calling him a liar, they are shocked at the indecency of thi» language ; hence, to-day. insteail of calling him a liar 1 inteml to prove that he is one. I wish, in the first fjlace, to refer to the evidence adduced by Trumbull, at Chicago, to sustain his charge. He there declared that Mr. Toombs. tif Georgia, intrtnluced a bill into Congress uu'li^^rizing the people of Kan- sas to form a constitution and come into the Union, that when introduced it contained a clause reijuiring the constitution to be submitted to the peo- ple, and that I struck out the words of that clause. Suppose it were true that there was such a clause in the bill, and that I strtick it out, is that proof of a plot to force a constitution upon a people aL'ainst their will? liear in mind that from the days of George Washing- ton to the Administration of Franklin Pierce, there had never been passed by Ctjngress a bill retiuiring the submission of a constitution to the people. If Truml)uirs charge, that I struck out that clause, were true, it would only prove that 1 had re]Mjrted the bill in the e.xact shafie of every bill ct like character that passinl under Washington, .lelTer.son, Madison, Mt)iiroe, Jackson, or any t)ther Presiilent, to the time of the then present Adminis- tration. I ask you, wmiltl that be evidence of a design to force a const it u- ti(»n on a people against their will? If it wen? so, it wtiuld be eviilence against Washington, .lell'erson, Matli.st)n, .lackson. \'.iii l>iireii, antl every other Presiilent. Hut, uiKMi examination, it turns out that the Ttiombs bill never did contain u clause retpiiring the constitution tt) be submitletl. Hence no such clause was over stricken out, by me or anybody else. It is true, how- ever, that the TtMimbs iiill antl its authors all tt)ok it for grantetl that the constitution would be sulunilted. There hail never been, in the history of SPEECH OF DOUGLAS. 333 this Govornmont, ;iny attempt made to force a constitution upon an unwill- ing people, and nobody dreamed that any sucli attempt would be made, or deemed it necessary to jirovide for sucli a contingency. If such a clause was necessary in Mr. Trumbull's opinion, why did he not otl'er an amendment to that etfect? In order to give more pertinency to tliat (juestion, I will read an e.xtract from Trumbull's speech in the Senate, on the Toombs bill, made on the 2d of July, 1850. He said : — "We are asked to amend this bill and make it perfect, and a liberal spirit seems to be manifested on tiie part of some senators to have a fair bill. It is difficult, I admit, to frame a 1)11! tiiat will give satislaction to all, but to approach it, or come near it, 1 think two things must be done." The first, then, he goes on to say, was the application of the Wilmot Proviso to the Territories, and the second the repeal of all the laws passed by the Territorial Legislature. He did not then sa\^ that it was necessary to put in a clause requiring the submi-ssion of the constitution. AVhy, if he thought such a provision necessary, did he not introduce it? He says ill his speech that he was invited to offer amendments. Why did he not do so? He cannot pretend that he had no chance to do this, for he did offer some amendments, but none requiring submission. I now proceed to show that Mr. Trumbull knew at the time that the bill was silent as to the subject of submission, and also that he, and every- body else, took it for granted that the constitution would be submitted. Now for the evidence. In his second speech he says : "The bill in man}- of its features meets my approbation." So he did not think it so very bad. Further on he saj^s : — "In regard to the measure introduced by the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs], and recommended by the Committee, I regard it, in many re- spects, as a most excellent bill ; but we must look at it in the light of sur- rounding circumstances. In the condition of things now existing in the country, I do not consider it as a safe measure, nor one which will give peace ; and will give my reasons. First, it affords no immediate relief. It provides for taking a census of the voters in the Territory for an elec- tion in November, and the assembling of a Convention in December, to form, if it thinks proper, a constitution for Kansas, preparatory to its ad- mission into the Union as a State. It is not until December that the Con- vention is to meet. It would take some time to form a constitution. / suppose that constitution would have to be ratified by the people before it becomes valid. ' ' He there expressly declared that he supposed, under the bill, the con- stitution would have to be submitted to the people before it became valid. He went on to say: — "No provision is made in this bill for such a ratification. This is ob- jectionable to my mind, I do not think the people should be bound by a constitution, without passing upon it direcll}', themselves." Why did he not offer an amendment providing for such a submission, if he thought it necessary? Notwithstanding the absence of such a clausi', he took it for granted that the constitution would have to be ratified by the people, under the bill. 334 SPEECH OF DOUGLAS. In another part of the same speech, he says: "There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have discovered, about submitting the constitution which is to be framed, to the people, for the sanction or iv.iec ion. IVrhapsthe Convention would have the right to sub- mit it. It It s louhl think proper; but it is certainly not compelled to do so!ac- wi t T^tVn: provisions ot the bill. If it is to be submitted to the people? it will take time an Thirty-fourth Congress, page 795. 1 quote: — ^' Mr. DovgUts. — I have an amendment to offer from tiie Committee on Territories. On page 8, section 11, utrike out the irordx • until the complete execution of this act no other election shall be held in said Territory,' and insert the amendment which 1 hold in my hand." The amendment was as follows : — "That all persons who shall jwssess the other qualifications prescribed for voters under this Act, and who shall have been bona fide inhabitants of said Territory since its organization, and who shall have ab.sented them- selves therefrom in consequence of the disturbances therein, and who shall return l)efore the first day of October ne.xt, and become bonii Jide iiiliai)it- ants of tiie Territory, with the intent of making it their i)ermaiient home, and shall present satisfactory evidence of tliese facts to the lioard of Com- missioners, shall lie entitled to vote at said election, and shall have their name.s placed on said corrected list of voters for that puri)ose." That amendment was adopted unanimously. After its adoption, the record shows the following: — "Mr. DdUijlitM. — I have another amendment to oiler from the Commit- tee, to follow the amendment which has been adojited. The bill reads now, 'And until the comi)let(' execution of this ,\cl, no other election shall be held in said Territory.' it has been suggested that it should be modified in this way, 'And to av(jid all coiillict in the comi)lete execution of this Act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby jiostiKnied until such time as said Conventi(Hi shall apiK)inl,' so that they can appoint the dav in the event that there should be a failure to come into the L'nion." DOUGLAS. 337 This amendment was also agreed to, without dissent. Thus you see that tlie amendment quoted by Trumbull at Alton as evidence against me, instead of being put into the bill by me, was stricken out on my motion, and never became a part thereof at all. You also see that the substituted clause expressly authorized the Convention to appoint such day of election as it should deem proper. Mr. Trumbull when he made that speech kn(!w these facts. He forged his evidence from beginning to end. and by falsifying the record he endeav- ors to bolster up his false charge. I ask you what you think of Trumbull thus going around the country, falsifying and garbling the public records. I ask you whether you will sustain a man who will descend to the infamy of such conduct. Mr. Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln \ responsible for the slanders. FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURG. October 7, 1S5S. MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : Four years ago I appeared before the people of Knox Couuty for the purpose of defending my political 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 vindicated myself for supporting those two measures by the fact that they rested upon the great fun- damental principle that the people of each State and each Territory of this Union have the right, and ought to be permitted to exercise the right, of regulating their own domestic concerns in their own way, subject to 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 the Compromise Measures of 1850 were right, and consequently, the Kansas and Nebraska bill, based upon the same principle, must necessarily have been right. 3:js ualksburg debate. October 7, i858. Tlif Kansas and Nebraska l)ill (Ifcland, in so many words, that it was tlu' true intent and nicanini; <»f tlii' Avt not to U-jxishiti' sluvorv into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave Ihe people thereof perfectly free to form and ref^ulate their do- mestic institutions in their own way, subject only to tlie Constitution of the United States. For ll»e last four years 1 have dev(jted all my enerjiies, in private and public, to commend tiiat principle to the American people. Whatever else may be said in ci^ndemnation or support of my political course, I ai)prt'hend that no honest man will doul)t the fidelity with which, under all circumstances, I have stood by it. l)urin;^ the last year a (lucstion arose in the Con'j;ress of the I'niti'd States whether or not that principle would be violated I)y the admission of Kansas into the Tnicm under the Lecomplon Ceople throughout this land, until we shall ouce more stand up declaring that all men are created equal." [Voices: «< That's right," etc.] Vt's, I h:ive no doubt that you think it is right; but the Lincohi men down in Coles, Tazewell, and Sangamon counties (/d not think it is right. In the conclusion of the same speech, talking to the Chicago AJ)olitionists, he said: " I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." [Voices: "Good, good. '] Well, you say good to that, and 3'ou are going to vote for Lincoln because he holds that doctrine. I will not blame j'ou for supporting him on that ground; but I will show you, in immedi- ate contrast with that doctrine, what Mr. Lincoln said down in Egypt in order to get votes in that locality, where they do not hold to such a doctrine. In a joint discussion between Mr. Lincoln and myself, at Charleston, 1 think, on the 18th of last month, Mr. Lin- coln, referring to this subject, used the following language: — " I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bring- ing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold ollice, or having them to marry with white people. I will say, in addition, that there is a physical dilference 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 and infe- rior, that I, as much as any other man, am in favor of the superior ix)sitiou being a.ssigned to the white man." [Voices : "Good for Mr. Lincoln."] Fellow-citizens, here you lind men hurrahing for Jjincoln, and saying that he did right, when in one part of the State he stood up for negro ecjiiality; and in another l)art, for political elfect, dis- carded the doctrine, and declared that theie always must be a. superior and inferior race. Abolitionists up North are expected and re«juired to vote for Lincoln because he goes for the C(piality of tin- races, holding that by the Declaration of Independence the white ni:in and the ni'gro were created e(pial. and endttwed by the A7 intended to bo administered I)y white men in all time to come. But while I hold that under our Constitution and political sj'stem 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 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 wiiich he lives. Humanity requires, and Christianity commands, that you shall extend 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 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; Kentucky holds a diiferent doctrine. New York holds one dift'erent from either, and Maine one different from all. Virginia, in her polic}' on this question, differs in many respects from the others, and so on, until there are hardl}' two States whose policy is exactly alike in regard to the relation of the white man and the negro. Nor can you reconcile them and make them alike. Ea(!h State must do as it pleases. Illinois had as much right to adopt the policy which we have on that subject as Kentuck}' had to adopt a ditlerent 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 interfere with us, or complain of us mereh' because 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 l)ill in 1854. DRED SCOTT DECISION AND THE TERRITORIES. But Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to understand, and those who are determined to vote for him, no matter whether he is a pro-slavery man in the South and a negro-equality 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 question under the Dred Scott decision. Let us see whether I cannot explain it to the satisfaction of all im- partial men. Chief Justice Taney has said, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, that a negro slave, being property, stands on an equiil footing with other property, and that the owner may carry them into United States territory the same as he does other property. 34S r:ALESlU"R(i DICHATK. OCTOBER 7, 1858.. Suppiisi" liny two of you, nt'i[;lil>ors, should conclude to go to K:iMs:is, one c:irryin»r $1UU,U(MI worth (»f ne^ro Bhives, und the other $1(HMI()(I worth of mixed merchandise, including (piiintities of liciuore. Vou both agree that under that decision you may carry your property to Kansas; but when you get it there, the merchant \\\ut is possessed of the licpjors is met I)y the Maine li(iuor law, whicli prohiliits the sale or usf of his property, and the owner of the slaves is met by c([ually untricndly li'ouj:!:is has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in print. 1 do not mean that for a hit upon the Jiulge at all. If I had not been interrupted, I was going to say lliat such an answer as 1 was ai)le to make to a. ver}' large jwrtion of it, had al- ready been more than once made and published. There has been an opportunity alForded to the pulilic to see our respective views upon the topics discussed in a large portion of the speech which he has just delivered. I make these remarks for tiie purpose of excus- ing myself for not passing over the entire ground that the Judge has traversed. I however desire to take up some of the points that he has attended to, and ask your attention to them, and 1 shall fol- low him backwards upon some notes which I have taken, reversing the order, by beginning where he concluded. The Jutlge has alhuled to the Declaration of 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 possiiilc to be- lieve that ]Mr. Jelferson, who penned the immortal jjaper, could have supposed himself applying the language of that instrument to the negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery? Would he not at once have freed them? 1 only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech (anr.rK<; dkiiate. (XTohkr t. iv-,'^ getlur unawart' thai the Rfpultlifuns aiv in favor of inakiiiir any otliou> liisliiu-tions Ix'twffii tin- Vrvv and Slave States. Miit there is still a difference, I think, between Judge Douglas and the Repub- licans 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 difference between slavery and liberty, that he is in favor of eradicaling, of press- ing out of view, the (luestions of preference in this country for free or shive institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Everything that emanates from him or liis coadjutors in their course of policy carefully excludes tlie thought that there is anything wrong in slavery. All their arguments, if you will consiiler them, will be seen to exclude the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in slavery. If you will take the Judges speeches, and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him, — us his declaration that he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or down," you will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wr(Mig. If you do admit that it is wrong. Judge Douglas caunot logically say he dont care whether a wrong is voted up or down. Judge Douglas declares that if any community want slavery, they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no wnjng in slavery ; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. He insists that, upon the score of etiuality, 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 Terri- tory. That is perfectly logical if the two species of property are alike and are equally founded in right. Hut if you admit that one of them is wrong, you cannot institute any etjuality between right and wrong. And from this diU'erence of sentiment, — the belief on the part of one thai the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that belief which looks to the arrest of the enlarge- ment of that wrong; and this other sentiment, that it is no wrong. and a policy sprung from that sentiment, which will tolerate no idea of preventing the wrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end of it thnjugh all the existence of things, — arises the real dilferenee between Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand, and the Republicans on the other. Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country LINCOLN. 357 who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political evil, having clue regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in an}' satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy 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. Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, if not the seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or combination between the National Democrats and Kepul)licans. What evidence Judge Douglas has upon this sul)jDct I know not, inasmuch as he never favors us with any. I have said upon a former occasion, and I do not choose to suppress 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 deal more to do with the steps that led to the Lecompton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had ; 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 promoted 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 understand exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to that division. Do n't you remember how two years ago the oppo- nents of the Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess you do. Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also that he was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to see all there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans. What we now think of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fremont and Fill- more divisions. That is all there is of it. THOSE SPRINGFIELD RESOLUTIONS. But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there is an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republican and the National Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving him as an entirely competent witness upon that subject. I want to csdl to the Judge's attention 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 358 t.ALKSlillM; DKliATi:, OCTOBER T, la-.S. a Sft of ivsolulious which he ik-clured had beoii itasseil by a Uepnl)- licau StaU- C«u»v»iilion, in October. 1854, at Spriiiglielil, Illinois, anil be ilechirod 1 hail taken part iu that Convention. It turned out that althoii<:h a few men calling; themselves an anti-Xebraska State Convention had sat at Sprin<;lield about that time, yet neither did I take any part in it, nor did it pass the resi^lutions or any such resohitions as Judge Dcniglas read. So appaivnt had it become that the resolutions which he read had not been passed at Spring- field at all, 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 St'it, li>ijisti,\ and Thr>mas L. Harris, member of Congress in that District, and he promised in that speech that when he went to Springfield be woulil investigate the matter. Since then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made the in- vest iiration; but a m»>iith has pas.sed since he has been there, and, so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of his investi- gation. I have waited as I think a sullicient time for the report of that investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A fraud, an alisolute forgery was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced to the three, — Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed iu any way so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge Douglas s report would probably show. It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were puldished in the Illinois Statr Riipxter on the 16th of October, 1S54, as being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention which hai :i rt'-election to tlu- lowt-r IIoum- «»f Conixress with- out siH'iiiiu«i to renuMubi'i" :it all that lu* is involved in this dishonor- aide fraud. The Illinois Slnti Jiiyistir, edited l»y Lanphier. then, as now. the central «)rj;an of both Harris and I)ou»rlas. continues to tUn the public ear with these iissertions, without seeming to suspect tliat tliev an' at all lacking in title to l»elief. After all, the iiuestion still rei-urs upon us. How dlil that Iraud originally get into the »S7((^ Jui/isti r.' L;iiiphier then, as now, was the editor of that paper. lianphier knows, Jianphier cannot be ignorant of how and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he Ite induced to tell. or. if lie has told, can Judge Douglas be induced to tell how it originally was concocted? It ma\' be true that Lanphier insists that the two men for whose benefit it was originally devised, shall at least bear their sh.ire of it I How that is, I do not know, and while it remains unexplained. I hope to be par- doned if I insist that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making charges against Truuil)ull and luyself is not (juite suHicieiit evidence to establish them ! I.l.NCoL.NS llllltli INTKlUUXiAToR'i . "While we were at I'rceport, in one of these joint discussions, I answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had pro- pounded to me, and then in turn propounded some to him. which he in a sort of way answered. The third one of these interrogatories I have with me, and wish now to make some coinuients u]>on it. It was in these words: " 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 de- cision as a rule of political action ? " To this interrogatory Judge Douglas maile no answer in any just sense of the w<»rd. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that it was possilde for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. He sneered at me for propounding the interroga- tor}'. I had not propounded it without some reflection, and I wish now to address to this audience .some remarks upon it. Hi the second clause of the sixth article. I believe it is. of the Constitution of the Fnited States, we liml the following language: " This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the su- preme law of the land ; and the judges in every State shall be LINCOLN. 361 bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding." The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence which I will now read : "Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, 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 in a slave is distinctly and ex- pressly affirmed in the Constitution." What is it to be ^UiffinmcV in the Constitution? Made firm in the Constitution, — so made that it cannot be separated from the Constitution without breaking the Constitution ; durable as the Con- stitution, 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 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 in- strument; part of the instrument; — what follows as a short and even syllogistic argument from it? I think it follows, and T submit to the consideration of men capable of arguing, whetlier as I state it, in syllogistic form, the argument has any fault in it? Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroj^ a right distinctly and expressl}' affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. The right of propertj- in a slave is distinctly and expressly af- firmed in the Constitution of the United 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 argument; as- suming 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 reasoning : the false- hood in fact is a fault in tlie premises. I believe that the right of property in a slave ix not di-stinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge Douglas tliinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates of that de- cision may search in vain for the place in the Constitution where the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly Mtfirmcd. I say, therefore, that T think one of the premises is not true in fact. But it is true with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme 3G2 t.Al.ESUriK; DKHATE. UCTOBEIl 7. 1S:>S. Court who pronounced it. Tliev are estopped from dcnyinfj it, and iK-iiii.' t•^^t(,ll>l)t•(l fniui tU'iiyinj^ it tlie fonclusioii follows that, tlie Constitution of the Tuited States bein*:; the siiprt-ine hiw. no eon- stitntinii or law can iiitrrfi-n- witli it. It being affirmed in the deci- sion that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or constitution can destroy that right. I tlun -a\ to Jiulfre Douglas and to all others, that I think it will take a ItfttiT answiT than a sneer to show that those who have said that tlie right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly af- firmed in the Constitution, are not prepared to show that no consti- tution or law can destroy that right. I say I believe it will take a far better argument than a mere sneer to show to the minds of intelli- gent men that whoever has so said, is 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 Ix'en made 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 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. 1 have said, upon a former occasion, aud I repeat it now, that the course of argument that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge not liis 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 lirst adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. I have turned his attention to the fact that General Jackson differed with him in regard to the political obliga- tion of a Supreme Court decision. I have asked his attention to the fact that Jefferson ditfered with him in regard to the political oliligation (jf a Supreme Court decision. Jefferson said that " Judges are as honest as other men, and not more so." And he said, sub- stantially, that " whenever a free people should give up in absolute submission to any department of government, retaining for them- selves no appeal from it. their liberties were gone." 1 have asked his attention to the fact that the Cincinnati platform upon which he says he stands, disn'gards a timedionored decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the power of Congress to establish a National LINCOLN. 363 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 to liira, — a struggle ending in the remarkable circumstance of his sitting down as one of the new Judges who were to overslaugli that decision; getting his title of Judge in that very way. So far in this controversy I can get no answer 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 it in any way. are the enemies of the Constitution." Now, in this very devoted adherence to this decision, in opposition to all the great political leaders whom he has recognized as leaders, in opposition to his former self and history, there is something A-ery marked. And the manner in which he ad- heres to it. — not as being right upon the merits, as he conceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory upon every one, simpl}- because of the source from whence it comes, — as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be; this is another marked feature of 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 the next one without in- quiring 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 motives at all) that Judge Douglas is most ingeniousl}^ and powerfully prepar- ing the pul)lic mind to take that decision when it comes; and not only so, but he is doing it in various other w^ays. In these general maxims about liberty, in his assertions that he "do n't care whether slavery is voted i;p 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 be- tween free and slave institutions." In this he is also preparing (whether purposel}" or not) the way for making the institution of slavery national ! I repeat again, for I wish no misunderstanding, that I do not charge that he means it so; but I call upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best instrument you 3r.4 (JAl.KSi;rU(. DKIJATK. ocTuUKK 7, ISoS. could. :iuil tUi'U set it to work in the most ingciiiou.s way, to prepare till' public mind for this movement, operating in the Free States, will-re there is now an abliorrence of the institution of shivery, eotikl you find an instrument so eapahle of doinir it as Judge Doughis, or one enipl«>yi'(l in so apt a way to do it? I have said once before, and 1 will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, when he was once answering an olijection to the Colonization Society, that it had a 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 benevo- lent efforts of the Colonization Society, — they must go back to the era of our liberty and independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return ; they must blot out the moral lights around us; they must i)enetrate the human soul, and eradi- cate the light of reason and the love of lilterty! "" And I do think — 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 Indepemlence, is going back to the era of our liberty and independence, and, so far as in him lies, muzzling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return; that he is blowing out the moral lights around us. when he contends 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 possil)le way prejjarijig the public mind, by his vast influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual and national. There is, my friends, only one other point to which t will call your attention for the remaining 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. DOCOLAS'S SEVKNTII. .\.\I> LINCOLN'S FOl'RTIl. INTERRoci .\TnKV. Auioiig the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at rreei>ort, there was one in about this language: " Are you oj*- posed to the ac(|uisition of any further territory to the United States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein ? " I an- swereil, as I thought, in this way, that I am not generally opposed to the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would support ;i proposition for tlu- acfpiisition of additional territory according as my supporting it was or was not calculated If) aggravate this slavery question amongst us I tlien proposed to Judge Douglas another LIX(OLN. 365 interrogatory, which was correlative to that; " Are 3-011 in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how it may attect us upon the slavery question? " Judge Douglas answered, — that is, in his own way he answered it. I believe that, although he took a good many words to answer it, it 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 additional territory; that it was as absurd to suppose that we could continue upon our present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as it would be to hoop a boy twelve 3ears of age, and expect him to grow to man's size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was something like that. Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of further territory 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 slavery where the territory was acquired, to be settled by the people of the acquired territor}'. [Voice: " That s the doctrine."] Maj' 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 this slavery 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, 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 settle- ment. When we shall get Mexico, I do n't know whether the Judge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it settling that question for themselves and all others; because we know the Judge has a great horror for mongrels, and I understand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I under- stand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white, and I suppose from the Judge's previous declaration that when we get Mexico or any considerable portion of it, he will be in favor of these mongrels settling the question, which would bring him somewhat into collision with his horror of an in- ferior race. It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring additional territory is a power confided to the President and Senate of the United States. It is a power not under the control of the representatives of the people any further than they, the President 3GG (.AI.Ksr.riMi DKiiATi:. (K ToiiKi: ;, 1S.")8. ;iiul the Seiiati', can Ix* considered the representatives of the people. Let me illustrate that l)v 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 immediate representatives of the people, all the time insisted that the territory thus to be ac- <|uired should be l»rouliL'K(; UEUATK. UC"i\)Bl!:U 7. 1808. a^jcainst him is that I canuot iiuluce him to hold up the same staucl- anl, to carry the saiin* dag, ia all parts of the State. He does not pretend, and no othir man will, that I have one set of principles for (ialesburjr, and another for Charleston. He does not pretend that I bold to one doctrine ia Chicago, and an opposite one in Jonesboro. I have jjrovcd that he has a ditFerent set of principles for each of the.se localities. All 1 asked of him was that he should deliver the speech 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 reatlirm the doctrine of negro equality, and to assert that by the Declaration of Independ- ence the negro is declared equal to the white man. He tells you to- day that the negro was included in the Declaration of Independence when it a.ssertetl that till men were created equal. [Voices: •• We believe it. "] Very well. 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 wert* created ecjual, and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, lib- erty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the negro was made his equal and mine, if that e(iuality was establishetl 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 State that the negro was physically inferior to the white man, belonged to an in- ferior race, and he was for keeping him always in that inferior con- dition? I wish you to bear these things in mind. At Charleston he said that the negro belonged to an inferior race, and that he was for keeping him in that inferior condition. There he gave the peo- ple U) understand that there was no moral (juestion involvetl, because, the inferiority, being established, it was only a question of degree, and not a question of right; here, to-day, ^instead of making it a cpiestion of degree, he makes it a moral question, says that it is a great crime to hold the negro in that inferior condition. [Voices: "He's right."] Is he right now, or was he right ia Charleston? [Voice: " Both."] He is right then, sir, in your estimatiijn. not Ijccause he is consistent, but because he can trim his priiK^iples any way, in any section, so as to secure votes. All 1 desire of him is that he will declare the same principles in the south that he does in the north. Hut did you notice how he answered my position that a man should hold the same doctrines throughout the length ami breadth DOUGLAS. 369 of this Republic? He said, "WouldJudge Douglas go to Russia and proclaim the same principles he does here? " I would remind hlni that Russia is not under the American Constitution. If Russia was a part of the American Republic, under our Federal Constitu- tion, and I was sworn to support the Constitution, I would maintain th^ 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 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 the spirit of the Constitution which he has sworn to support. When Mr. Lincoln went to Congress in 1847, and, laying his hand upon the Holy Evangelists, made a solemn vow, in the presence of high Heaven, that he would be faithful to the Constitution, what did he mean, — the Constitution as he expounds it in Galesburg, or the Constitution as he expounds it in Charleston? ANSWER ON THE SPRINGFIELD RESOLUTIONS. Mr. Lincoln has devoted considerable time to the circumstance that at Ottawa I read a series of resolutions as having been adopted at Springfield, in this State, on the 4th or 5th of October, 1854, which happened not to have been adopted there. He has used hard names; has dared to talk about fraud, about forgery, and has in- sinuated that there was a conspiracy between Mr. Lanphier, Mr. Harris, and myself to perpetrate a forgery. Now, bear in mind that he does not deny that these resolutions were adopted in a ma- jority 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 « Republican party in the first Congressional District, in the second, in the third, and in many counties of the fourth, and that they thus became the platform of his part}' 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 to the sjjot 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 thought that he had discovered that the Mexican war was not begun in the right s2)ot, and was therefore un- just. He tries very hard to make out that there is something very 24 :;70 GALKSlUKii DKHA'IK. orToliKK 7. la^SS. I'xtraunlinarv in tlu' plact* wIiimt tlu' tliiii<; was (lone, and not in tlii' tlUMii itSl'lf. I iicviT lu-lii'ved iK'fori' that Aliraliani liincoln would lie {guilty of what \\v has donr this day in n-i^ard to those ix'sohuions. In tlu- lii-st idarr, thr nionirnt it was inliniali-d \o nie that they had been adopted at Aurora and UocUford instead of Springfield, 1 did not wait for liini to eall my attention to the fact, Ijut led olf, and ex- plained in my Jirst luec-ting after the Ottawa debate what the mis- take was, tmd how it had been made. I snpposed that for an honest man, conscious of his own rectitude, that explanation would be suf- licii-nt. 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 b}' the Springfield Republican Con- vention; that I had seen them quoted l)y Major Harris in a deltate in Congress, as having been ado})ted Ijy the first Republican State Convention in Illinois, and that 1 had wiittcn to him and asked him for the authority as to the time and place of their adoption; that, .^Iajor Harris being extremely ill, Charles H. Lanphier had written to me, for him, that tbey were adopted at Springfield on the oth of October, 1854, and had sent me a copy of the Springfield paper con- taining them. I read them from the newspaper just as Mr. Lincoln reads the proceedings of meetings held years ago from the news- papers. After giving that explanation, 1 did not think there was an honest man in the State of Illinois who douiited that I had been led into the error, if it was such, innocently, in the way I detailed: and J will now say that I do not now believe that there is an honest man on the face of the globe who will not regard with abhorrence and di.sgust Mr. Lincoln's insiuuations of my conii)licity in that forgery, if it was a forgery. Does Mr. Lincoln wish to push these things to the point of personal difficulties here? I commenced this contest by treating him courteously and kindly; I always spoke of him in words of n'spect; and in ntuiii lie has sought, ;in(l is imw seeking to divert pul)lic attention from the t-normify of his revolu- tionary principles l»y im|)eaching mens sincerity and integrity, anil inviting personal fpiarrels. I desin-d to c<»nduct this contest with him like a gentleman; but 1 spurn the insinuation of (Mtinplicity and fniud made upon the himph" cirfuuistance of an editor of a ntwspaper liaxing jn.ide a mistake as to tin* place wlit-re a thing was done, iiut not as to the thing itself. These resolutions were the platform of this Kepubli- DOUGLAS. 371 can party of Mr. Lincoln's of that year. Tlicy were adopted in :i majority of the Repuljlican counties in the State; and when I asked hira at Ottawa whetiier they formed tlie phitform upon which he stood, he did not answer, and I could not get an answer out of liim. He then thought, as I thought, that tliose resolutions were adoi)ted at the Springfield Convention, but excu.sed himself by saying 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 published as having been adopted at Springfield, and 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 run- ning pledged to him, that the Conventions which nominated them adoi)tcd tliat identical platform. 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 people want them. Lovejoy stands pledged again.st the admission of any more Slave States. [Voices: '^ Right, so do we."] So do you, you say. Farnsworth stands pledged against the admis- sion of any more Slave States. Washburne stands pledged the same way. The .candidate for the Legislature who is running 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 pledged. [Voices: " Hurrah for him! good!"] Now, 3'ou Republicans all hurrah for him, and for the doctrine of "no more Slave States," and yet Lincoln tells you that his con- science will not permit him to sanction that doctrine, and complains because the resolutions I read at Ottawa made him, as a member of the part}', responsible for sanctioning the doctrine 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 hy principle in sup- porting one another. If it be true, as I have shown it is, that the v>l!ole Republican party in the northern part 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 pre- sent the case which he cited from the Scriptures, of a house divided against itself which cannot stand! I desire to know what are Mr. Lincoln's principles and tlie prin- ciples of his party? I hold, and the party with which 1 am ideu- :;72 OALKSBUUC; DEBATE, UC'TUHEK 7. 1858. titirtl holils. tlmt the people of each State, old and new, have the ri^'lit to diiide the slavery (juestiou 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 1 was for allowinjj; Kansas to do just as she pleased on the slavery (luestion. 1 said that 1 ilid not care whether they voted slavery up or down, because they had the right to do as they pleased on the question, and therefore my action would not be controlled by any such consideration. Why cannot Al)raliam Lincoln, and the party with which he acts, speak out their principK-s so that they may be understood? Why do they claim to l)e one thing in one part of the State, and anotiier in the other part? Whenever I allude to the Abolition doctrines, which he considers a slander to be charged with being in favor of, you all endorse them, and hurrah for them, not knowing that your candi- date is ashamed to acknowledge them. THK SlI'REME COfRT. I have a few words to say upon the Dred Scott decision, which has troubled tlie brain of Mr. Lincoln so much. He insists that that di'cision would carry slavery into the Free States, notwithstand- ing that the decision says directly the opposite, and goes into a long argument to make you believe that 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 news- paper, and, so far as is within ray knowledge, but one, ever asserted that doctrine, and that I was the first man in either House of Con- gress that read that article in debate, and denounced it on the floor of the Senate as Kevolutionary. When the Washington i'liioii, on the 17th of last November, published an article to that effect, I branded it at once, and denounced it; and hence the rnimi has been pursuing me ever since. Mr. Toombs, of (Jeorgia, replied to !ne. and said that there was not a man in any of the Slave States south of the Potomac River that held any such doctrine. Mr. Lincoln knows that there is not a menil)er of the Supitine Court who holds tUat doctrine; he knows that everyone of them, as shown Ijy their opinions, holds the reverse. Why this attempt, tlien, to bring the Supreme Court into disrepute among the people? It looks as if there was a!i elFort bi-ing made to destroy pulilic i-on- rnUiice in the highest judicial tribunal on earth. Suppose he suc- ti-eds in ilestroying public confidence in the court, so that the people DOUGLAS. 373 will iiol respect its decisions but will feel at liberty to disregard tliem imd resist the laws 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 not go into an argument reviewing Chief Justice Taney's opinion, and the other opinions of the different judges, to determine whether their reasoning is right or wrong on the questions of law. What use would that be? He WMnts to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to this meeting, to determine w'hether 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 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 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 re- vise it? He will not pretend that it has. Then why drag the mat- ter into this contest, unless for the purpose of making a false issue, by which he can direct public attention from the real issue. He has cited General Jackson in justification of the war he Is making on the decision of the court. Mr. Lincoln misunderstands the history of the country if he believes there is an}' 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 constitutional, and if not, that it was uncon- stitutional, and also, that whether or not it was necessar}' for that purpose, was a political question for Congress, and not a judicial one for the courts to determine. Hence the court would not deter- mine the bank unconstitutional. Jackson respected the decision, obeyed the law, executed it, and carried it into effect during its existence; but after the charter of the bank expired, and a propo- sition was made to create a new bank. General Jackson said, " It is unnecessary and improper, and therefore I am against it on consti- tutional grounds as well as those of expediency'." Is Congress bound to pass every Act that is constitutional? Why, there are a thousand things that are constitutional, but j-et are inexpedient and unnecessary, and you surely would not vote for them merely be- 374 (.ALKSIJUUG DEBATE. tKTOlJER 7, \s:>8. rausi' you liatl tin.- rijjht to? And booaiisi' GtMU'ral Jackson would not do a thiu}; wliii-li he had a rifjlit to do, liut did not dei'iu cxpi'diciit or proper, Mr. Lincoln is going t(j justify liinisdf in doiiiLi that winch he has no right to do. I ask him whether he is not liouiid to respect ami oliey the de- ei>i(>ii-^ of the Supreme Court as well as 1? The Constitution has created that court to decide all constitutional questions in the last resort; and when such decisions have been made, they become the law of the land, and you, and he, and myself, and every other good citizen, are bound by them. \'el Ik- argues thai 1 am liouud \>\ their decisions, and he is not. lie says that their decisions are binding on Democrats, hut not on Hepulilicans. Are not Kepuhli- cans iHiinid hy the laws of the land as well as Democrats? And when the court has fixed the construction of the Constitution on the validity of ii given law, is not their decision l)iniling ui)on Republicans as well as upon Democrats? Is it possible that j^ou Hepul)licans have the right to raise your mobs and ojjpose the laws o[' the land and the constituted authorities, and yet hold us Democrats bound to obey them? My time is within half a minute of expiring, and all T have to say is, that I stand by the laws of the land. 1 stand by the Con- stitution as our fathers made it, by the laws as they are enacted, and by the decisions of the courts, upon all points within their juris- diction as they are pronounced by the highest tribunal on earth: and any man who resists these must resort to mob law and violence to overturn the government of laws. BRONZE GROUPS UPON LINCOLN MONUMKNT. SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY. October 13, 1858. MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : T have had no immediate conference with Judge Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will be most agreeable to us. In the month of Ma}', 185G, the elements in the State of Illinois, which have since been consolidated into the Republican party, assembled together in a State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted at that time what, in political language, is called a plat- form. In June of the same year the elements of the Republican part}' in the nation assembled together in a National Convention at Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the National Platform. In June, 1858, — the present year, — the Republicans of Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essential particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding something in relation to the new developments of political progress in the country. The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candi- date for the United States Senate. I have supposed that, in enter- ing upon this canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms. We are now met together on the 13th of October of the same year, only four months from the adoption of the last platform, and I am un- aware that in this canvass, from the beginning until to-dav, any one of our adversaries has taken hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon an3'thing that he calls wrong in them. In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator Douglas and myself. Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these platforms, or any one of them, of which I have spoken, at- tempted to hold me responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the meeting of either one of these Conventions of which I have spoken. And as a ground for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he assumed that they had been passed at a State [375 J 370 QllNCY DEBATE, OCTOBER 13, iSoS. Conveiitiou of tlu- Ki-puhlican party, aiitl that I took part in that Con vt'ii lion. It was disrovcrt'tl afterward tliat tliis was orroneoiis, that the ri'sohitions whirh he endeavored to hold nje responsil)le for had not hii-n passed hy any State Convention anywhere, — had not been passed at Sprin«;tieUl, where he snpposed they had, or assnmed that they had; and that they liad lieen passed in no Convention in which 1 had taken part. The Jndfxe, nevertheless, was not willing to give np the i)oint that he was endeavoring to make upon me, and he therefore thought to still hold me to the iK)int that he was endeavoring to make, by showing that the resolutions that he read had been passed at a local Convention in the northern part of the State, although it was not a local Convention that emiiraced my residence at all, nor one that reached, as I suppose, nearer than one hundred and lifty or two hundred miles of where I was when it met, nor one in which I took any part at all. He also introduced other resolutions, passed at other meetings, and b}' combining the whole, although they were all antecedent to the two State Conventions and the one National Con- vention I have mentioned, still he insisted, and now insists, as I understand, that I am in some wa}' responsible for them. At Jonesboro, on our thnd meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I was in no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this local meeting or Convention, in which I had taken no part, and in which I was in no way embraced; but I insisted to liiui that if he thought I was responsil)le for every man or every set of men ev- erywhere, who happen to be my friends, the rule ought to \\ork both ways, and he ought to be responsible for the acts and resolu- tions of all men or sets of men who were or are now his supporters and friends, and gave him a pretty long string of resolutions, passed l)y nu-n who are now his friends, and announcing doctrines for which he does not desire to be held responsilde. LINCOLN N(Un'II AN1> SolTH. Til is still docs not satisfy- Judge Douglas. lie still adheres to his prop«)sition, that I am responsible for what .Muncof luy friends in dif fer«*nt parts of the State have done, but tliat lie is not responsil)le for what his liave done. At least, so I understand him. But in addi- tion to that, the Judge, at our meeting in (Jalesburg, last week, undertak«'K to establish thai I am guilty of a species of double deal- ing with the public; that I make speeches of a certain sort in the n(jrth, among the Abolitionists, which 1 wi»nld not make in the LINCOLN. 377 south, and that T make speeches of a certain sort in the south which I would not make in the north. I apprehend, in the course I have marked out for myself, that I shall not have to dwell at very great length Ujjon this subject. As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburg, I had an opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something in answer to it. He brought forw^ard a quotation or two from a speech of mine delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he brought foi'ward an extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted that I was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that his conclusion followed, that I was playing a double part, and speaking in one region one way, and in another region another way. I have not time now to dwell on this as long as I would like, and wish only now to requote that portion of m}- speech at Charleston which the Judge quoted, and then make some com- ments upon it. This he quotes from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I believe correctly: — "I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bring- ing about in any way the social and political equalit}' of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter- marry- with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain to- gether there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." This, I believe, is the entire quotation from the Charleston speech, as Judge Douglas made it. His comments are as fol- lows : — " Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared equal, and endowed by divine law with equality. And down South, Avith the Old Line Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians, an(l the Ten- nesseeans, he tells you that there is a physical difference between the races, making the one superior, the other inferior, and he is in favor of maintaining the superiority of the white race over the negro." 378 QUIXCY DERATE. DCTOBKll VX 1858. Those art' tlu' .liulges comments. Now, I wish to show 3011 that a month, or only hickinix three days of a mi»nth. Iiel'ore I made the sjHH'eh at Cliarleston, wliich the .lud^e (jiiote.s from, he had liimsflf hrard me say siilistantially the same thinj^. It was hi our first meotinji'at Ottawa — and I will say a word ahoiit where it was, and the atmosphere it was in, after awhile — but at our first meet- ing, at Ottawa, I read an extract from an old speech of mine, mad*- nearly four years aji^o, not merely to show my sentiments, hut to show that my sentiments were lonine.ss. 1 hold that he is as much entitled to these as tiie white m.m. I agree with LINCOLN. 379 Judf?e Douglas that ho is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color, perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments ; but in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal ol' Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man." T liave chiefly introduced this for the purpose of meeting the Judge's chai-ge that the quotation he took from my Charleston speech was what I would say down South among the Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc., but would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of the Abolition element. I now make this comment: That speech from which I have now read the quotation, and which is there given correctly — perhaps too m.uch so for good taste — was made away up North in the Abolition District of this ?>tate par exceUeHce, in the Lovejoy District, — in the personal pres- ence of Lovejoy, for he was on the stand with us when I made it. It had been made and put in print in that region onl}' three days less than a month before the speech made at Charleston, the like of which Judge Douglas thinks I would not make where there was any Abolition element. I only refer to this matter to say that I am altogether unconscious of having attempted any double-dealing anywhere, that upon one occasion I may say one thing, and leave other things unsaid, and vice versa ; but that I have said anything on one occasion that is inconsistent with what I have said else- where, I deny, — at least I deny it so far as the intention is con- cerned. I find that I have devoted to this topic a larger portion of my time than I had intended. I wished to show, but I will pass it upon this occasion, that in the sentiment I have occasionally advanced upon the Declaration of Independence, I am entirely borne out by the sentiments advanced b}^ our old "Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I have the book here to show it from; Ijut because I have already occupied more time than I intended to do on that topic, I pass over it. CONSEQUENCES OP THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. At Galesburg, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, pushed to its legitimate consequences, slavery would be established in all the States as well as in the Territories. 1 did this because, upon a former occasion, I had asked Judge Douglas whether, if the Supreme Court should make a decision declaring that the States had not the power to exclude slavery from their limits, he would adopt and follow that decision as a rule of political action; and nSO griN("V DKHATE, OCTOliHK KJ, 1858. Ijt't-iiise lu' U:h\ not iHivctly answered that (jiu'stion, ])ut had merely contented liiniM-lf with sneerini^ at it, I again iulrodueed it, and tried to sliow tluit the conclusion that I stated followed inevitably antl logieally from the proposition already deeided by tlie court. Judge Douglas had the privilege of ri'pl3ing to me at (Jak'sburg, and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether lie would or would not sustain such a decision if made. I give him this third chance to say yes or no. He is not obliged to do either, — ^ proba- bly he will not do either; but I give him the third chance. I tried to .show then that this result, this conclusion, inevital)!}' followed from till' point already decided by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thought of the court making any such decision, and in the cour.se of his remarks upon this sui)ject luses the language whieii I will now ri'.id. Speaking of me, the Judge says: " He goes on and insists that the Dred 8cott decision would carry slavery into the Free States, notwithstanding the decision itself says the contrary. ■' And he adds: "Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that holds that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their opinions held the reverse. " I especially introduce this subject again, for the purpose of saying that I have the Dred Scott decision here, and [ will lliaiik Judge Douglas to lay his finger ujiou the place in the entire opin- ions of the court where any one of them "says the contrary."' It is very hard to allirm a negative with entire confidence. 1 say, however, that I have examined that decision with a good deal of care, as a lawyer examines a decision, and, so far as I have been able to do so, the court has nowhere in its opinions said that the Stiites have the power to exclude slavery, nor have they used other language substantially that. I al.so say, so far as I can fiixl, not one of the concurring Judges has said that the States can exclude slavery, nor said anything that was substantially that. The nearest approach that any one of them has made to it, HO far as 1 can find, was by Judge Nelson, and the approach he maect to be quite clear of suspicion of that fraud, ft>r since tiie time that promise was made he had been with those friends, anil had not kept his promise in regard to the investi- gation and the report upon it. 1 am not a very daring man, hut 1 dared that much, Juilge, anil I am not much scared about it yet. When the .Judge says he wouldn't have believed of Ai)r;;li:im Lincoln that be would have made such an attempt as that, he re- minds me of the f.iet that he ontereil upon this canvass with t!ie purpose to treat me courteously. That touched mo .--oraewliat. h set me to thinking. I was aware, when it was fir:-.t agreed tliat Judge I)ouglas and I were to have these seven joint disiussions, Ih.-.t tiiey were the successive acts of a drama, — perhaps I should Piy, to be enictod not morely in the faca of audiences like this, but in t]i3 face of tlia nation, and to soma extent, by my relation to )iim, and not from anychiajj in myself, in the face of the world; and I am anxious that they sliould be conducted with dignity and in the good temper which would be befitting the vast audience before which it was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and m.ide his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some sort of a re|>ly to it. His .second speech was made at Bloomington, in which he commented upon my speech at Chicago, and said that I had useut do n't you constantly object to anybody else saying so? Do you not constantly argue that this is not the right place to oppose it ? You say it must not be opposed in the Free States, because slavery is not here; it must not be opposed in the Slave States, because it is there; it must not be opposed in politics, be- cause that will make a fuss ; it must not be opposed in the pulpit, iM'cause it is not religion. Then where is the place to oppose it? There is no suitable place to oppose it. There is no plan in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent, which you say yourself is coming. Frank lilair and Gratz Brown tried t«) get up a .system of gradual emancipation in Missouri, had an election in August, and got beat, and you, Mr. Democrat, threw \i[) your h:it, and hallooed "Hurrah for Demoeracy." So I say, again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he " don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he means that as an individual expres- sion of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue log- ically if he do n't see anything wrong in it ; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When .Iuerty an- alike to l)e allowed to go into the Territories, upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if there is no difference Id'tween tlu-m as property; but if the one is property held right fully, and the other is wntng, then there is no eciuality between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in any way you can, in all the argu- LINCOLN. 387 ments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that policy itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is any- thing wrong in slavery. Let us understand this. I am not, just here, trying to prove that we are right, and they arc wrong. I have been stating where we and they stand, and trying to show what is the real difference between us ; and I now say that whenever we can get the question distinctly stated, can get all these men who believe that slavery is in some of these respects wrong, to stand and act with us in treating it as a wrong, — then, and not till then, I think we will in some way come to au end of this slavery agitation. MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. Ladies and Gentlemen: Permit me to say that unless silence is observed it will be impossible for me to be heard by this im- mense crowd, and my friends can confer no higher favor upon me than b}^ omitting all expressions of applause or approbation. I desire to be heard rather than to be applauded. I wish to address myself to your reason, your judgment, your sense of justice, and not to your passions. I regret that Mr. Lincoln should have deemed it proper for him to again indulge in gross personalities and base insinuations in regard to the Springfield resolutions. It has imposed upon me the necessity of using some portion of m}'' time for the purpose of call- ing your attention to the facts of the case, and it Avill then be for you to say what you think of a man who can predicate such a charge upon the circumstances as he has in this. I had seen the platform adopted by a Republican Congressional Convention held in Aurora, the Second Congressional District, in September, 1854, published as purporting to be the platform of the Republican party. That platform declared that the Republican party was pledged ncA-er to admit another Slave State into the Union, and also that it Avas pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, not only all that we then had, but all that we should there- after acquire, and to repeal unconditionally the Fugitive-Slave law, abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and prohibit the slave- trade between the different States. These and other articles against slavery were contained in this platform, and unanimously adopted by the Republican Congressional Convention in that District. I had also seen that the Republican Congressional Conventions at :^H» QriNCV DKHATK. OCTOBKR i:{. 18.58. Rockford, in tho First Di.strict, and iit Hlooinington, in the Tliinl, liad aUlNeV DEKATE. OCTOBEK i:?. 18.->s. now, that it is nn insult to men's understanding, and a gross eahunnv on the court, to presume in advance tliat it was going to degrade itself so low as to make a decision known to be in direct violation of the Constitution. .1 Vnicr. — The same thing was said about the Dred Scott decis- ion before it passed. ^fr. J)iiii(//it.i. — Perhaps you think that the court did tlu- same thing in reference to the Dred Scott decision: I have lie.ird a man talk that way Ijefore. The principles contained in the Dred Scott decision had been allirmed previously in various otijer decisions. What court or judge ever held that a negro was a citizen? The. State courts had decided that question over and over again, and the Dred Scott decision on that point only allirmed what every court in the land knew to be the law. But I will not be drawn off into an argument upon the merits of the Dred Scott decision. It is enough for me to know that the Con- stitution of the United States created tlie Supreme Court for the purpose of deciding all disputed questions touching the true con- struction of that instrument, and when such decisions are pronounced, they are the law of the land, binding on every good citizen. Mr. liiiicola ]i:is a wvy convenient mode of arguing upon the subject. He holds tliat because he is a Republican that he is not bound by the decisions of the court, but that I, being a Democrat, am so bound. It may be that Kepul)licans do not hold themselves l)ound by the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country as ex- pounded b}' the courts; it may be an article in the Republican creed that men who do not like a decision have a right to rebel against it: but when Mr. Lincoln preaches that doctrine, I think lit- will find some honest Republican — some law-abiding man in that party — who will repudiate such a monstrous doctrine. The de- cision in the Dred Scott case is binding on every American citi/A'U alike; and yet Mr. Jjincoln argues that the Republicans are not bound by it because they are opposi-d to it, whilst Democrats are bound by it, becau.se we will not resist it. A Democrat cannot re- sist the constituteil authorities of this country; a Democrat is a law-abiding man; a ])emocrat stands by the Constitution and the laws, and relics upon liberty as protected by law, and not upon mob or political violence. I h.ivc never yet been able to make Mr. liincoln understand, nor I an I make any man who is determined to. support him, right or wrong, understand how it is tlial under tlif hied Scott decision tlu' people of DOUGLAS. 399 a Territory, as well as a State, can have slavery or not, just as they please. 1 believe that I can explain that proposition to all consti- tution-loviug, law-abiding men in a way that they cannot fail to understand it. Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, said that, slaves being property, the owner of them has a right to take them into a Territory the same as he would any other property ; in other words, that slave property, so far as the right to enter a Territory is concerned, stands on the same footing with other property. Suppose we grant that proposition. Then any man has a right to go to Kansas and take his property with liim; but when he gets there, he must rely upon the local law to protect his property, whatever it may be. In order to illustrate this, imagine that three of you conclude to go to Kansas. One takes $10,000 worth of slaves, another $10,000 worth of liquors, and the third $10,000 worth of dry goods. When tlie man who owns the dry goods arrives out there and commences selling them, he finds that he is stopped and prohibited from selling until he gets a license, which will destro}' all the profits he can make on his goods to pay for. When the man with the liquors gets there and tries to sell, he finds a Maine liquor law in force which prevents him. Now, of what use is his right to go there with his property unless he is pro- tected in the enjoyment of that right after he gets there? Tlie man who goes there with his slaves finds that there is no law to pro- tect him when he arrives there. He has no remedy if his slaves run away to another country; there is no slave code or police regulations; and the absence of them excludes his slaves from the Territory just as effectually and as positively as a constitutional prohibition could. Such was the understanding when the Kansas and Nebraska bill was pending in Congress. Eead the speech of Speaker Orr, of South Carolina, iu the House of Kepresentatives, in 1856, on the Kansas question, and you will find that he takes the ground that while the owner of a slave has a right to go into a Territory and carry his slaves with him, that he cannot hold them one day or hour unless there is a slave code to protect him. He tells 3'ou that slavery would not exist a day in South Carolina, or in any other State, un- less there wa.s a friendly people and friendly legislation. Read the speeches of tb it giant in intellect, Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, and }(>u will find them to the same effect. Read the speeches of Sam Smith, of Tennessee, and of all Southern men and you will find that they all understood this doctrine then as we understand it now. JdO QUINCY DKHATE, OCToHKK i:J. 1858 Mr. Lincoln cannot be iiitule to understand it, however. Down :it Jonesboro, he went on to argue that if it be the law that a man has a right to take his slaves into territory of the United States under the Constitution, that then a member of Congress was per- jured if he did not vote for a slave code. I ask him whether the decision of the Supreme Court is not binding upon him as well as on me? If so, and ho holds that he would be |)i'rjuri'd if he did not Vote for a slavi' code under it, I ask him whctluT, if elected to Congress, he will .so vote? I have a right to his answer, and I will tell you why. He put that rpiestion to me down in Egypt, and did it with an air of triumph. This was about the form of it: " In the event that a slave-holding citizen of one of the Territories should need and demand a slave code to protect/ his slaves, will you vote for it? " I answered him that a fundamental article in the Democratic creed, as put forth in the Nebraska bill and the Cincinnati platform, was non-intervention b}^ Congress with slavery in the States anil Territories, and heiu-e tiiat I would not vote in Congress for any code of l.iws, either for or against slavery, in any Territory. I will leave the pe(jpk' perfectly free to decide that question for them- selves. nOUOL.VSS DEMOCRACY DISPUTED. Mr. Lincoln and the Wasliington Unimi liotli think this a mon- strous bad doctrine. Neither ^Mr. Lincoln nor tlu' ^\■ashiugton i'niim likes my Freeport speech on that subject. The i'liioii in a late number, has been reading me out of the Democratic party be- can.se I hold that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, have the right to have slavery or not, as they please. It has de- voted three and a half lolunuis to prove certain propositions, one of which I will read. It says: — "Wo proiKhSf to show that Judf»(> Douphis's action in 1850 and 1854 was taken with r.six'cial p'fcn'ncii to the announcement of doctrine and j)ro- Krammo wliich was niadt- at rreeiH>rl. Tlu' declaralion at Freeport wa.s, that 'in his opinion tlie people can, by lawful means, I'.vclude slavery from a Territory before it comes in as a State ; ' and he declared tliat his competitor had ' lieard liim arffue the Nebraska bill on tiiat |)rinciple all over Illinois in 1H.1I, 1,S.")5, and 1850, and had no excuse to pretend to liave any do>il)l \\\)f>n that subject.'" The Washington I'ninn there charges me witii the monstrous crinu' of now proclaiming on the slump the sam»' doctrine that I cinicd out in IH;')!), by HUp|)orling Clay's Compromi.sc Measures. The l.'ninn also charges that I am now proclaiming the same doctrine DOUGLAS. 401 that I did in 1854 in support of the Kansas and Nebraska bill. It is shocked that I should now stand where T stood in 1850, when I was supported by Clay, Webster, Cass, and the great men of that day, and where I stood in 185-4 and 1856, when Mr. Buchanan was elected President. It goes on to prove, and succeeds in proving, from my speeches in Congress on Clay's Compromise Measures, that I held the same doctrines at tliat time that I do now, and then proves that by the Kansas and Nebraska bill I advanced the same doctrine that I now advance. It remarks: — "So much for the course taken by Judge Douglas on the Compromises of 1850. The record shows, beyond the possibility of cavil or dispute, that lie expressly intended in those bills to give the Territorial Legislatures power to exclude slavery. How stands his record in the memorable session of 18.')4, with reference to the Kansas-Nebraska bill itself? We shall not overhaul the votes that were given on that notable measure, our space will not afford it. We have his own words, however, delivered in his speech closing the great debate on that bill on the night of March 3, 1854, to show that he meant to do in 1854 precisel.y what he had meant to do in 1858. The Kansas-Nebraska bill being upon its passage, he said: " — It then quotes my remarks upon the passage of the bill as follows: — " ' The principle which we propose to carry into effect by this bill is this: That Congress shall neither legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor out of the same; but the people shall be left free to regulate their domestic concerns in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. In order to carry this principle into practical opera- tion, it becomes necessary to remove whatever legal obstacles might be found in the way of its free exercise. It is only for the purpose of carry- ing out this great fundamental principle of self-government that the bill renders the eighth section of the Missouri Act inoperative and void. " ' Now, let me ask, will those senators Avho have arraigned me, or any one of them, have the assurance to rise in his place and declare that this great principle was never thought of or advocated as applicable to Terri- torial bills, in 1850 ; that, from that session until the present, nobody ever thought of incorporating this principle in all new Territorial organiza- tions, etc., etc. 1 will begin with the Compromises of 1850. Any senator who will take the trouble to examine our journals will find that on the 25th of March of that year I reported from the Committee on Territories two bills, including the following measures: the admission of California, a Territorial government for Utah, a Territorial government for New Mexico, and the adjustment of the Texas boundary. These bills proposed to leave the people of Utah and New Mexico free to decide the slavery question for themselves, in the precise laiiguage of the Nebraska bill now under discussion. A few weeks afterward the committee of thirteen took those bills and put a wafer between them, and reported them back to the Senate as one bill, 26 lOL' Ql'INfY DEliATE, OC'TOIJEII l.'J. \S5S. witli some slipht iimcndmeiits. One of thme anunduunts teas, thtit the Ttrritorial [AyUlnturnt should not legislate upon the subject of African slavery. I objected to this procision, ujh)!! Uw gruuiul thut it subverted the great priiK-iple (»f self-government, upon irhirh the bill had been oriffinalfi/ framed by the Territorial Committee. On the first triiil the Senate refused to strike it out, but subsequently di' will b(j deemed satisfactor}' to that elasH of politicians. T will read from Mr. Huchanan's letter aceepting tiie nomination of the HcnKjeratic Convention, for the I'rcHidencv. Vuii know that Mr. Uuchanan, after he was nominated, declared to the Keystone Club, in a pui)lic speech, that he was no longer James IJuchanan, birt the embodiment of the Democratic platfonn. In his letter to the ('(immitti'e which informed him of his nomination a('c«'|)ting it, he delined the me.ming of the Kansas anil Nebraska bill and the Cincinnati platform in these words: — DOUGLAS. 403 " The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic 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 princii)l('s 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 themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." Thus you see that Jtimes Buchanan accepted the nomination at Cincinnati, on the conditions that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shouhl be left to decide for themselves whether slavery should or should not exist within their limits. I sustained James Buchanan for the Presidency on that platform as adopted at Cincinnati, and expounded bj^ himself. He was elected President on that platform, and now we are told by the Washington Union that no man is a true Democrat who stands on the platform on which Mr. Buchanan was nominated, and which he has explained and expounded himself. We are told that a man is not a Democrat who stands by Clay, Webster, and Cass, and the Compromise Measures of 1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854. Whether a man be a Democrat or not on that platform, I intend to stand there as long as I have life. I intend to cling firmly to that great principle which declares the right of each State and each Territory to settle the question of slavery, and every other domestic question, for themselves. I hold that if they want a Slave State, they have a right under the Constitution of the United States to make it so, and if they want a Free State, it is their right to have it. But the Union, in advocating the claims of Lincoln over me to the Senate, lays down two unpardonable heresies which it says I ad- vocate. The first is the right of the people of a Territory, the same as a State, to decide for themselves the question whether slaver^' shall exist within their limits, in the language of Mr. Buchanan ; and the second -is, that a Constitution shall be submitted to the people of a Territory for its adoption or rejection before their ad- mission as a State under it. It so happens that Mr. Buchanan is pledged to both these heresies, for supporting which the Washington Union has read me out of the Democratic church. In his annual message he said he trusted that the example of the Minnesota case would be followed in all future cases, requiring a submission of the Constitution ; and in his letter of acceptance, he said that the people of a Territory, the same as a State, had the right to decide for themselves whether slavery should exist within their limits. 4UI (,>riNCY DEBATE. (KTORER 13. 1S58. Thus you fuul that this little corrupt gang who control the riu'on and wish to elect Lincoln in preference to me, — because, as they say, of these two heresies which 1 support,— denounce Presi- dent IJuchanan wlu-n they denounce uie, if he stands now by the principles upon which he was elected. Will tlu-y pretend that he dt>e8 not now stand by the principles on which he was elected? Do they hold that he has altandoncd the Kan.sas-Nebraska bill, the Cin- cinnati platform, and his own letter accepting his nomination, all of which declare the right of the people of a Territory, the same as a State, to decide the slavery question for themselves? I will not believe that he has l)ctrayed or intends to betra}' the platform which elected him; l)ut if he does, I will not follow him. I will stand by that great principle, no matter who may desert it. I intend to stand by it, for the purpose of preserving peace between the North and the South, the Free and the Slave States. If each State will only agree to mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, there will be peace forever between us. "forever" free and slave. We in Illinois tried slaver}* when a Territory, and found it was not good for us in this climate, and with our surroundings, and hence we al)olished it. Wi' tiien adopted a Free State constitution, as we had a right to do. In this State we have declared that a negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he shall not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that policy. Missouri has just as good a right to adopt the other policy. I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves, that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are account- aide to (Jod and their posterit}'-, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery (jues- tion for themselvi's, within their own limits. I assert that they had a.s much right under the Constitution to adopt the system of policy which they have as we had to adopt (»urs. So it is with every other State in this I'nioji. Let each State stand firmly by that great con- stitutional right, let each State mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, and there will be no troul)le on this (|ii('stion. If we will stan slaves under my care in Ki'iilucky? it is a fjcucral {Icrlaratioii in tlio act unnoiincin^ to the world llie indepondi-nce of the thirteen American colo- nii-.s, Ibiil ' nicn are created ajual.' Now, us an abstract principle, Uicrc w LINCOLN. 411 no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it is desirable in the original comtruction of society, and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundiimental principle." When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new socie- ties in new countries, wiiere the soil is clean and clear, insist that we should keep that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I want a negro wife. He never can be brought to under- stand that there is any middle ground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth year, and have ncA-er had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, and I think I can live fifty centuries, for that matter, without having had one for eithei*. I maintain that you may take Judge Douglas's quotations from my Chicago speech, and from my Charleston speech, and the Galesburg speech, — in his speech of to-day, — and compare them over, and I am willing to trust them with you upon his proposition that they show rascality or double-dealing. I deny that they do. THE "SPRINGFIELD" RESOLUTIONS. The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he is disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath would not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It is certainly not for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these gentlemen, but I will tell Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I ^^ dared " to say they pi'oved a forger}'. I pointed out at Galesburg that the publication of these resolutions in the Illinois State Register could not have been the result of accident, as the proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable evidence of being done by a man who Jcnew it was a forgery; that it was a publication partly taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and partly from the proceedings of a Convention at another place, — which showed that he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part of the resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also that his friend Lan- phier, who was editor of the Register at that time and now is, must have known how it was done. Now, whether Jie did it, or got some friend to do it for him, 1 could not tell, but he certainly knew all about it. I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in his Freeport speech he had promised to investigate that matter. Does he now 412 QUINCY DFJiATE, OCTOHER 13, la-^S. s:iy he did not makf that proiuisi'? I Imvi* a riglit to ask. u-liy he did iii't Li 'J) it/ I rail upon him to tt-ll lu'iv to-ihiy why he did not ket-'p that promise. That fraud has lieen traced up so that it lii'.s between him, Harris, and lianphier. There is little room for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge good service, and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. lie desires Lanphier to be Uiken as authority in what he states in his news- paper. He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; and when this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where the guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate it, and implied that he would tell us the result of his investigation, I demand of him to tell why he did not inves- tigate it. if he did not; and if he did, u/i>/ he irunt tell the irsult. I call ui)on him for that. This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned al>out these resolutions by Harriss attempting to use them against Norton on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public records of the country show that he himself attempted it upon TnimbuU a month before Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had the opportunity of handug it from him, rather than he from Harris. 1 now ask his attention to that part of the record on the case. My friends, I am not disposed to detain you longer in regard to that matter. 1 am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another matter I wish to call attention to. lie says, when he discovered there was a mistake in that case, he came forwanl magnanimously, without my calling his attention to it, and explained it. 1 will tell you how he became so magnanimous. When the m wspapers of our side had discovered and published it, and put it beyond his power to deny it, then he came forward and made a virtue of neces- sity by acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the point there was in those resolutions, although never passed at Springfield, is retained by their being passed at other localities. Is that true? He said I had a hand in passing them, in his opening si)eech, — that I was in the Convention and helped to pass them. Ho the resolutions touch me at all? It strikes me there is some diirerence l)etween hohling a man responsible -for an act which lie has not done, and holding him responsible for an act that he has done. Vou will judge whetlier there is any dilFerence in the '^sjiots." And he has tiiken credit for great magnanimity in coming forward and acknowl- eilging what is proved on him beyond even the capacity of Juilge LINCOLN. 413 Dongljis to deny; and he has more capacity in that way than any other living man. Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charo-e in re- gard to a conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he made. May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is j^rovcn false on me as that was proven false on him. I will add a little more than that. I will withdraw it whenever a reason- able man shall be brought to believe that the charge is not true. I have asked Judge Douglas's attention to certain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue because Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say that. I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never uttered if . [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated affirmatively at Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say I did, I tell you myself that I never said the " Democratic " owti- ers of Dred Scott got tip the case. I have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were Democrats, or Abolitionists, or Free-soilers or Border Ruffians. I have said that there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a made up case, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that that evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the case tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that decision ; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his by that decision. But my time is out and I can say no more. TilK LAST .101 XT DELATE, AT ALTON. October 15, 1S5S. SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. L.VDIES AND Gentle.men: - It is now nearly four montlis since the i-:uivass between y\v. Liiuithi and myself commenced. On the ItJlh of June the Kepuljlican Convention as.sembletl at Si)rin<^rield ami ncnninated Mr. Lincoln as their candidate for the United States Senate, and he, on that occasion, delivered a speech in which he laid down what he understood to be the llepublican creed, and the platform on which he proposed to stand during the contest. The principal points in that speech of Mr. Lincoln's were: First, that this Government 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 be- come the other, — otherwise this Union could not continue to ex- ist. I give you his opinions almost in the identical language he used. II is second propcjsition was a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States because of the Dred Scott decision, urg- ing as an especial reason for his opposition to that decision that it deprived the negroes of the rights and Ijenefits of that clause in the Constitution of the United States whicli guarantees to the citizens of each State all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citi- zens of the several States. On the 1 0th of Jul}- I returned home, and delivered a speech to the people »»f Chicago, in wliich I announced it to be my purpose to appeal to the peoi)le of Illinois to sustain the course I had i)nrsui'd in Congress. In tiiat speech 1 joined issue with Mr. Liiieoln on the points which he had presented. Thus there was an issue; clear and distinct made up lietween us on these two ])ropositions laid down in the speech of Mr. Lincoln at Springfield, and controverted by me in my reply to him at Chicago. On the next day, the 11th of July, Mr. Lincoln replied to me at Chicago, explaining at some length and reallirming the positions wliich he had taken in iiis Springfield speech. In that Chicago speech he even went further than he had before, and uttered senti- ments in regard to the negro being on an e(|uality with the white man. He adopted in support of this positi(jn the argument which I 111] DOUGLAS. 415 Lovejoy tind Codding and other Abolition lecturers hud made familiar in the northern and central portions of the State; to wit, that the Declaration of Independence having declared all men free antl equal, by divine law, also that negro equality was an inalien- able right, of which tlicy could not be deprived. He insisted, in that speech, that the Declaration of Independence included the negro in the clause asserting that all men were created eiiual, and went so far as to say that if 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 that man, this race and the other race, must be discarded, 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. Lincoln 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 assemblages of the people in many of the central counties. In my speeches I confined myself closely to those three positions w^hich he had taken, contro- verting his proposition that this Union could not exist as our fathers made it, divided into Free and Slave States ; controverting his proposition of a crusade against the Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott decision ; and controverting his proposition that the Dec- laration of Independence included and meant the negroes as well as the white men, when it declared all men to be created equal. I supposed at that time that these propositions constituted a dis- tinct 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 from that issue, either in the north or the south, or wherever I should address the people of Illinois. I hold that when the time arrives that I cannot proclaim my political creed in the same terms, not only in the northern, but the southern part of Illinois, not only in the Northern, but the Southern States, and wherever the American flag waves over American soil, that then there must bo something wrong in that creed ; so long as we live under a common Constitution, so long as we live in a confederacy of sovereign and equal States, joined together as one for certain purposes, that any political creed is radically wrong which cannot be proclaimed in every State and every section of that Union, alike. I took up Mr. Lincoln's three propositions in my several speeches, nC. ALTON DKHATE. OCTOIJKli IT). ls:)8. nnalyzeil thoiii, ami jxtintt-il tmt wliat I hcliovcd to bo the radical i-rrois rontaim-d in tlu'in. First, in regard to his doctrino that this Goveninu'nt was in violation of the law of God, whii-h says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, I repudiated it as a slan- der upon the immortal framers of our C»)nstitution. I then said, I have often repeated, and now again assert, that in my opinion our Government can endure forever, divided into Free and Slave Stat«'8 as our fathers made it, — each State having the right to pro- hibit, abolish, or sustain slavery, just as it pleases. This Government was made upon the great basis of the sov- ereignty of the States, the right of each State to regulate its own domt'.^tic institutions to suit itself; ami that right was conferred with the umlerstanding and expectation that inasmuch as each locality had separate interests, each locality must have dilTeient and distinct local and domestic institutions, corrcspomling to its wants and interests. Our fathers knew when tliey made the Gov- ernment that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Vermont were unsuited to the rice planta- tions of South Carolina. They knew then, as well as we know now, that the laws and institutions which would be well adapted to tlkC beautiful prairies of Illinois would not be suited to the mining regions of California. They 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 polic}' and institutions of each State adapted to its condition and wants. For this reason this Union was estal)lished on the right of each State to do as it pleased on the (juestion of slavery, and every other (piestion ; and the various States were not allowed to complain of, much less interfere with, the policy of their neighbors. Suppose the doctrine advocated b}' Mr. Lincoln and tiie Abo- litionists of this day had prevailed when tho Constitution was made, what would have been the result? Imagine for a moment that Mr. Lincoln had been a raemoer of the Convention that framed the Con- stitution of the Unitcil States, anedient at that time, for the sake of keeping the party together, to do wrong. I never knew the Democratic party to violate any one of its principles, out of poTu'V or expediency, that it did not pay the dcld with sorrow. There is no safel\' or success for our party unless we always do right, and trust the conse(iuenees to God and the people. I chose not to dei)art from principle for the sake of expediency on the Lecompton (jiu'stioii, ami 1 never iateiul to do it on that or any other question. Hut I am told that I would have bei-n all right if 1 had only voted for the Knglish bill after Lecompton was killed. Vou know a general pardtju was granted to all political olfenders on the Lecomp- ton (juestion, provided they would only vote for the English bill. I did not accept the benefits of that p.ardon, for the reason that 1 had been right in the course i liatl pursued, and hence ilid not re(iuire DOUGLAS. 421 any forgiveness. Let us see how the result luas been worked out. English brought in his bill referring the Leeorapton Constitution back to the people, with the provision that if it was rejected, Kan- sas should be kept out of the Union until she had the full ratio of population required for a member of Congress, — thus in elFect de- claring that if the people of Kansas would only consent to come into the Union under the Leeorapton Constitution, and have a Slave State when they did not want it, they should be admitted with a population of 35,000; 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 re- peat to you, that whenever 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, pro- vided that rule is made uniform. I made that proposition in the Senate last winter, but a majority of the senators would not agree to it; and I then said to them. If you will not adopt the general rule, I will not consent to make an exception of Kansas. I hold it is a violation of the fundamental principles of this Gov- ernment to throw the weight 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 s^'stem. We have no more right to throw the weight of the Federal Govern- ment into the scale in favor of the slaveholding than the Free States, and least 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 of Congress. DOUGLAS AND THE BUCHANAN ADMINISTRATION. 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 Con- stitution? How? The newspapers inform us that English himself, whilst conducting his canvass for re-election, and in order to secure it, pledged himself to his constituents that if returned he would disregard his own bill and vote to admit Kansas into 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 was pledged 422 ALTON DKHATE, OCTOBER 15, 1858. aj^aiiist iht' En«!;lish bill, with pt-Tluips one or two exceptions. Now, if 1 liad only clone as tliese anli-Leeouipton men who voted for tlie English bill in Congress, pledging themselves to refuse to admit Kansas if she refused to become a Slave State until she had a popu- lation of ;t.'{,4L!0, and then returned to their people, forfeited liicir pledge, and made a new pledge to admit Kansas at any time she applied, without regard to population, 1 would have had no trouI)le. You saw the whole power and patronage of the Federal Govern- ment wielded in Indiana, Ohio, and l*enn.sylvania to re-elect anti- Lecompton men to Congress who voted against Lecompton, then voted for the English bill, and then denounced the English bill, uutl pledged themselves to their people to disreganl it. My sin consists in 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 ollice-holder forfeits his head the moment he ex- presses a preference for the Democratic candidates against Lincoln and his Abolition associates. A Democratic Administration which we helped to bring into power deems it consistent with its fidelity to principle and its regard to duty to wield its power in this State in behalf of the Republican Abolition candidates in every county and every Congressional District against the Democratic part}'. All I have to say in reference to the mtitter is, that if that Administra- tion have not regard enough for principle, if thoy are not sulliciently attached to the creed of the Dem3^'ratic party, to bury forever their personal hostilities in order to succeed in carrying out our glorious principles, I have. I have no personal dilliculty with Mr. Buchanan or his Cabinet. He chose to make certain recommendations to Con- gress, as he had a right to do, on the Lecompton question. I couM not vote in favor of them. I had as much right to jutlge for my- self how I should vote as he had how he should recommend. Il«' unilertook U) say to me, " If you do not vote as I tell you, 1 will take oir the heads of your friends." I replied to him, " You did not elect me. I represent IHinois, and I am accountalile to Illinois, as my constituency, and to(ind , but not to the President or to any other power on earth. And n<»w this warfare is made on me because I woidd not sur- render my c(jnvictionH of duty, bi-cause 1 woukl not abandon my constitiUMicy, and receive the orders of the executive authorities how I should vote in the Senate of the United States. I hoKl that an attempt to control the Senate on the part of the Executive is sub- DOUGLAS. 423 versive of the principles of our Constitution. The Executive department is independent of the Senate, and the Senate is inde- pendent of the President. In matters of legislation the President has a veto on the action of the Senate, 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 l)ill that the Senate has passed. Whenever you recognize 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 republic into a despot- ism. Whenever you recognize the right of a President to say to a member of Congress, "Vote as I tell you, or I will bring a power to bear against you at home wliich 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 a senator, and I intend to resist it as long as I have a voice to speak or a vote to give. Yet Mr. Buchanan cannot pro- voke me to abandon one iota of Democi'atic principles out of revenge or hostility to his course. 1 stand by the platform of the Democratic 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 Democrats as I am. My friends, there never was a time when it was 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 uniting on the one question of slavery; and when we find sectional men thus uniting, 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 entered upon public life to quell agitation and restore peace to a distracted Union. Then we Democrats, with Cass at our head, welcomed Henry Clay, whom the whole nation regarded as having been pre- served 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 Hickory in 1832 to put down nullification. Thus you see that whilst Whigs and Democrats fought fearlessly in old times about banks, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, all united as a band of brothers when the peace, harmony, or integrity of the Union was imperiled. It was so in 1850, when Abolitionism had even so far divided this country. North and South, as to endanger the peace of the Union; Whigs j21 AI.ToN liKIiA'l'FC. OtTOlJKIi If.. 1858. ami Democrats uniti'd in t'sUil)lishiiiph' of each State and each Territory should l)e left perfectly free to form ami regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves. Von Whigs and we Democrats jus- tifu'd them in that principle. In is.lt, when it became necessary to organize till- Territories of Kansas and Nehra.ska, I brought for- ward the bill on the same principle. In the Kansas-Nebraska l>ill you find it declared to be the true intent and meaning of the Act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory', nor to exclude it therefrom, bat to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. I stand on that same platform in 1858 that I did in 1850, 1854, and 185G. The Washington ('iiinn, preti'udiiig to be the organ of the Ad- ministration, in the numl)er of the 5th of this mouth devotes three columns ami a iialf to establish these propositions: first, that Doug- las, in his Freeport speech, held the same doctrine that he did in his Nebraska bill in 1854; second, that in 1854 Douglas justilied the Nebraska bill upon the ground that it was based upon the same principle as Clay's Compromise Measures 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 was never a Dem- ocrat. Is it not funny that I was never a Democrat? There is no pretense that I have changed a hair's breadth. The Union proves by my speeches that I explained the Compromise 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 says that I am n(it 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 i)ill was eon- .^idcred a pretty good Democrat. It has occurred to me that in is.'id, when [ 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 the people of a Territory, as well as those of a State, have the right to decide for them.selves whether slavery can or cannot exist in such Territory. Let me read what Jumes IJuchanan said on that point when he accepted the Demo- cratic nomijialion for tlie Presidency in 1850. In hi.-^ letter of ac- ceptance, he u.seil the following language: — DOUGLAS. 425 "The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, de- rived 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 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 themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their i i m i ts. ' ' DOUGLAS, DAVIS, AND STEPHENS. Dr. Hope will there find my answer to the question he pro- pounded to me before I commenced speaking. Of course, no man will consider it an answer who is outside of the Democratic organ- ization, bolts Democratic nominations, and indirectly aids to put Abolitionists into power over Democrats. But whether Dr. Hope considers it an answer or not, every fair-minded man will see that- James Buchanan has answered the question, and has asserted that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. I answer specifically if 3"0u want a further answer, and say that while under the decision of the Supreme Court, as recorded in the opinion of Chief Justice 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 property, j^et when you get them there they are subject to the local law of the Territory just like all other property. You will find in a recent speech de- livered b}' 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 : — "If the inhabitants of anj- Territory should refuse to enact such laws arid police regulations as would give security to their property or to his, it would be rendered niore or less valueless in proportion to the difficulties of holding it without such protection. In the case of property in *he labor of man, or what is usually called slave property, the insecuritj' would be so great that the owner could not ordinarily retain it. There- fore, though the right would remain, the remedy being withheld, it would follow that the owner would be practically debarred, by the cir- cumstances of the case, from taking slave property into a Territory where the sense of the inhabitants was opposed to its introduction. So much for the oft-repeated fallacy of forcing slavery upon any community." 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 wa}^ in 1856, and also that great intellect of the South, Alex. H. Stephens, put the same construe- 42(> ALTON DLUATL:. OCTOBER 1"., 1858. lion upon it in Conjiress that 1 iliil in my Freeport speech. The whole South is rallying to the support of tlie doetrine th:it if the people of :i Territory want shivery, they have a right to have it, an«l if llu-y t^lo «iot want it, that no power on earth can force it upon them. 1 IjoUl that thi-rt' is no principle on earth more sacred to all the friends of freedom tlian that wliirh says that n<» institution, no law, no constitution, should he forci'd on an unwilling people con- trary to their wishes; and I assert that the Kansas and Nebraska bill contains that principle. It is the great principle contained in that bill. It is the principle on which James Buchanan was made I'residcnt. Without that principle, he never would have been made President of the United States. I will never violate or abandon that doctrine, if I have to stand alone. I have resisted the bland- ishments and threats of power on the one side, and seduction on the other, and have stood immovably for that princij)le, lighting for it when assailed by Northern mobs, or threatened by Southern hostility. I have (Icrciidcd it against the North and the- Soulli, and I will defend it again.^t whoever as.5ails it, and I will f<^llow 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 declares the right of each State and each Territory to decide these questions for themselves. This Government was founded on thai principle, and must be adminis- tered in the same sense in which it was founded. But the Abolition party really think that under the Declaration of Independence the negro is eijual to the; white man, and that negro ecjuality is an inalienable right conferred by tiie Almighty, and hence that all luimau laws in violation of it an- null and void. With such men it is no use for me to argue. I holil that the sign- ers of the Dec-laration of Independence luul^ no reference to negroes at all when they declared all men to be created c(iual. They (Jemtlemen: I have been somewhat, in my own mhul, eoiupliuu'iiteil by a hirge portion of Judge Douglas's speech, — I mean that portion wliich he devotes to the controversy between himself and tiie 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 iiis war wiCh the Administration. At Quincy, day before j'esterday, 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 •' (Jive it to them with all the power he had;"' and 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 ilatter myself he has really taken my advice on this subject. All I can say now is to re-commend to him and to them what I then commended, — to prosecute the war against one another in the most vigorous manner. I say to them again: ''Go it, husband ! — Go it, bear ! " 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, any way. I refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where he undertakes to involve Mr. Buchanan in an inconsistency. He reads something from Mr. Buchanan, from which he undertakes to involve him in an inconsistency; and he gets something of a cheer for having done so. I would onl}' remind the Judge that while be is very valiantly fighting for the Nebraska bill and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, it has been but a little while since he was the vdllitnt (idrnaite of the .Missouri Compromise. I want to know if Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has ? Has Douglas the exdusirc right, in this country, of being on oil sidrs of all qiirstionsf Is nobody allowed that high privilege but him.self ? Is he to have an entire monopoly on that subject ? So far as Judge Douglas addressed liis speech to me, or so far as it was aliout iiic, it is my liusiucss to i):iy 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 that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had decided that a negro could never be a citi- LINCOLN. 429 zen of the United States, I have omitted by some accident hereto- fore to analyze this statement, and it is required of me to notice it now. In point of fact it is untrue. I never have complained espe- cially/ 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 of his friends to show where I said that a negro should be a citizen, and complained especially of the Dred Scott decision ])ecause it declared he could not be one. I have done no such thing; and Judge Douglas, so persistently insisting that I have done 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 proposition. WHAT THE DRED SCOTT COURT DECIDED. 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 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 negro could not be a citizen; that they had done so, as I supposed, to deprive the negro, under all circum- stances, of the remotest possibility 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 com- plaint of it at all. I then went on and stated the other points deci- ded 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 mat- ter in regard to which they would not decide whether it would make him free or not; that they decided the further point that taking him into a United States Territory where slavery was prohibited by Act of Congress did not make him free, because that Act of Congress, as they held, was unconstitutional. I mentioned these three things 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 amendment of Chase, offered at the time, declarator}- of the right of the people of the Territories to exclude slavery, which was voted down by the friends of the bill. I mentioned all these 430 ALTON DKHATE, orTOHER 1"., ISoS. things together, as evidence tending to prove a combination and conspiracy to make the institution of shivery national. In that con- nection and in that way 1 nu-ntioned the ilei-ision on the point tiiat a negro conhl not be a citizen, and in no other connection. Out of this, Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of luv purpose to introduce a perfect social and political eiiuality bi'twecn the white and black raci-s. His assertion that I niadi' an ••especial objection ' (that is his exact language) t«) the decision on this account, is untrue in point of fact. LINCOLN AND ri,.\V. Now, whiK' I am upon tiiis sul)ject, and as Henry Clay has been alludfd to, 1 desire to place myself, iu connection with Mr Clay, as nearly right before this people as may be. 1 am quite aware what the Judge's object is here by all these allusions. He knows that we aiv before an audience having strong sympathies southward, by rela- tionship, 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 in Chicago. In his quotations from that speech, as he has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken in such a way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of what is called tjurUtncf, — taking portions of a speech which, when taken by themselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as ex- pressed at the time. I propose, therefore, out of that same speech, to show how one portion of it which he skipped over (taking an ex- tract before and an extract after) will give a ditlerent idea, and the true idea 1 intended to convey. It will take me some little time to read it, but I believe I will occupy tlu- time that way. You have heard him frcfjuently allude to my controversy 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 brielly to place myself right in regard to it on this occasion. 1 said — ^and it is between the extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put in iiis published speeches: — " It miiy be arfjui'd Hint llicrr an' otTtain cuiidilious that make nocossi- ti(>s and im|>ost* tln-m \\\Hn\ us, and to tlio cxtonl that a njei our Constitution unless wo per- mitted them to n-main in sIjiv.tv. w.- mnl'l ii"i smir.' ili.' imo.I w.- iliil LINCOLN. 43X secure if we grasped for more: and liaving by necessity submitted to that mucii, it does not destroy the principle tiiat is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter remain as our standard." Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing insti- tution of slavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from which he takes garbled extracts for the purpose of 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 present 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: — "I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respect.^. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral de- velopment, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal, — equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, libert3% and the pursuit of hap- piness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equalitj', nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they liad no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the riffht, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. " They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all, and revered by all ; constantly looked to, constantly la- bored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly' approxi- mated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, ev- erywhere." There again are the sentiments I have expressed 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. At Gralesburg, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Doug- las, that three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or believed, in the whole world, who had said that the Dec- laration of Independence did not include negroes in the term ' ' all men." I re-assert it to-day. I assert that Judge Douglas and all 43L' ALTON DEBATE. OCTOBEli 15, IS-IS. bi8 friends may search the whole records of the country, and it will be a matter of great astonishment to me if they shall be able to find that one human l)einij three years ajjo had ever uttered the astonndinj; sentiment that the term "all men ' in tlie Declaration did not include the negro. Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more than three years ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly in the way of their schemes to bring about the ascendency and per- petuation of slavery, iftnin/ tin tnttit i>f it. I know that Mr. Cal- houn and all tlii' politicians of his school denied the truth of the Declaration. 1 know that it ran along in the mouth of some South- ern men for a period of years, ending at last in that shameful, though rather forcible, declaration of Pettit of Indiana, ui)on the Iloor of the United States Senate, that the Declaration of Independ- ence was in that respect "a self-evident lie, " rather than a self- eviilent truth. But I sa}', with a perfect knowledge of all this hawking at the Declaration without directly attacking it, that three years ago there never had lived a man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking way of pretending to Ijclieve it, and then as.sert- ing 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 Stephen A.Douglas. And now it has Ijet-onie the 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 dilFerent from thi ir former belief; to ask whether they are not being borne along by an irresistible current, — whither, the}' know not. In answer to my proposition at Galesburg hxst week, I see that some man in ('hicago has got up a letter, adtlressed to the Chicago Tliivs, to show, as he professes, that somebody /u/'/ said so before; and he signs himself '> An Old Line Whig, "if I remember correctly In the first place, I would say he vas uot an Old Line Whig. I am somewhat acciuainted with Old Line Whigs. I was with the Old Line Whigs from the origin to the end of that party; I became pretty well accjuainted with them, and I know they always had some sense, whatever else 3'ou could ascribe to them. I know there never was one who had not more sense than to try to show l)y the cviilence he prodiues that some man had, prior to the time I named, said that negroes were not includrd in the term "all men" in tlu' Declara- tion itf Independence. What is the evidence ln' produc-t-s? I will bring forward his evidence, and let you see what he olFers by wa}" of LINCOLN. 433 showing that somebody more than three years ago had said nef^roes were not included in the Dec-hiratioii. He brings forward part of a speech from Henry Clay, — //^r- part of the speech of Henry Clay which I used to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary. I guess we are surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of Mr. Clay, and they will be glad to hear anything from that authority. 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 published. I have before me an extract from that speech which constitutes the evidence this pretended "Old Line Whiw " at Chi- cago brought forward to show that Mr. Clay did n't suppose the negro was included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay said: — "And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate the shivos under my care in Kentucky? It is a j^eneral declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of the tiiirteen American colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, thereis no doubt of the truth of that declaration; and it is desirable, in the orig- inal construction of society and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundamental principle. But, then, 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 sojourners, — that will alwa3'S probably remain subject to the government of another portion of the community. "That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made by the delegation 'of the thirteen States. In most of them slavery existed, and had long existed, and was established by law. It was intro- duced and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of England. Do you believe that in making that declaration the States that concurred in it intended that it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the slaves within their respective limits? Would Virginia and other Southern States have ever united in a declaration which was to be interpreted into an abolition of slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen colonies entertain such a design or expectation? To impute such a secret and un- avowed purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest band of patriots that ever assembled in council, — a fraud upon the Confe- deracy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of those States whose Constitution not 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 some- body previous to three years ago had said the negro was not in- cluded in the term ' ' all men " in the Declaration. How does it do 28. 4:il ALTON DKHATE, OC^TOHEIi 15. 1858. so? In wlial way has it a ti'mU'iK-y t«) piovr tlial? Mr. Clay says it in tntr as tin ahstnict principle that all mi'ii are (.Teatt'cl equal, Itiit that we cannot practically apply it in all cases. He illustrates this hy bringinj; forward the cases of females, minora, and insane persons, with whom it cannot be enforced; liut he sa^'S it is true as an abstract principle in the organization of society as well as in organized society and it should be kept in view as a fundamental principle. Let me read a few words more before I add some com- ments of my own. Mr. Clay sa3s, a little further on : — ••■I dosiro no concoalmcnt of my opinions in regard to tlu' institution of sliiViTV. I knik upon it, — forthwith I am villified as you bear 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 niaintainiiig that in organizing new Territories and societies, this fundamental principle shoulil be regarde*!, and in organized societ}' hi nifitntioti itf t/tdt tinn' to (i/hii/. We were for a little while '/iii'f on the troublesome thing, and that very allaying i)laster of Judge Douglass stirred it up again. But was it not understood or intimated with the "confident promi.se " of putting an end to the slavery agitation? Surely it was. In every speech you heard Judge I)(»uglas make, tuitil he got into this "imbroglio, " as they call it, with the Administration about the Lecompton Constitution, every speech on that Nebraska bill was full of felicitations that we wvrejiint II f thf Old 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 agit.ation " has not only not ceased, l)ut has constantly augnicnled." 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 people of ^le Territories with a su- peri<»r degree of .self-governnu'Ut beyond what they had ever had before. The first object and the main one of confi-rring upon the people a higher degree of ''self-government" is a question of fact to be fleterniined by you in answer to u single (luestion. Have you ever heanl or known of a people anywhere on earth who had as lit- tle to do as, in the first instance of its u.se, the people of Kansas li:id with this same right of " self goveniim lit ' ? In its main policy and in its collateral object, it has been nothing but a living, creeping lie from the time of its introduction till to-day. LINCOLN. 437 1 have intimated that I tliought the agitation would not cease until a crisis should have been reached and passed. I have statiMl in what way I 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 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 have said, and I repeat, my wish is that the further spread of it may be arrested, and that it may be placed where the puljlic 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 opinion upon evidence suHicient to my mind, that the fathers of tliis Gn*o'" or of slavery. In all three of these places, being the only allusions to slaver^' in the instrument, covert lan;^uage is useil. Lan«.'ua«ie is used not suggesting that slavery existed or that the lilack race were among us. And I understand the contemporaneous history of those times to Ix' that covert language was u.sed 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 i)alri()tic men, after the institution of slavery had pas.sed from among us, — there .should he nothing on the face of the great charter of lilterty suggesting that such a thiuii as negro slavery had ever existed among us. This is part of the evidence that the 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 say I desire to see that done which the fathers have first done. When I say I desire to see it placed where the pul)lic 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 not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes, made this Government part Slave and part Free. Tuderstand the sense in which he puts ii. lie assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within itself, — was introdui-cd by the framers of the Constitution. The exact truth is, that they foinid the institution existing among us, and they left it as they found it. But in making the Crovernment they left this institution with many clear marks of disapprobation upon it. The>- found slavery among them, ami they left it among them ln'cause of the dilliculty the alisolute impossil)i!ity of its immediate removal. And when .Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it remain part Slave aiul part Vwv, as the fathers of tlie (liivernnu-nt made it, he asks a (piestion b.i.sed upon an assumption which is itself a falsehood ; ami 1 turn upon him and ask him the question, when the policy that the fathers of the (Jovernment h.id adopted in relation to this eh'Uient among us was the best policy in the world, the only wise policy, the only polii-y that we can ever Lincoln. 430 Safely continue upon, that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all and becomes a national institu- tion, — I turn npo a Mm and ask him why he could not Icai-c it nlonc. I turn and ask him why he was driven to the necessity of introduc- ing a ncic poUvij in regard to it. He has himself said he introduced a new policy. He said so in his speech on the 22nd of March of the present year, 1858. [ ask him why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it. I ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why we 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, did they make any tear? If we had no war out of it 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 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 polic}', it is not enough for me that I do not intend anything evil in the result; but it is incumbent on 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 incan to produce a con- flict between the States; but I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I think I have shown to the minds of fair men, that I propose 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 otfen- sive to the Judge, was part and parcel of the same thing. He tries to show that variety in the domestic institutions of the different States is necessary and indispensable. I do not dispute it. I have no controversy with Judge Douglas about that. I 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 ex- ceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia the right to enact oyster laws, where they have oysters, because we want no such laws here. I understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge Douglas or anybody else, that the variety in the soil and climate and face of the coun- try, and consequent variety in the industrial pursuits and produc- 440 ALTON DEBATP:, OCTOBER 15, 1858. tious of ji I'ounlrv, ivijuiro systems of law foiifonuinfT to this variety iu the natural features of the eouiitry. I umlerstaiKl quite as well as Judjjce l)ou<;las that if we liere raise a barrel of flour more than we want, and the Louisianians raise a barrel of sujjar more than they want, it is of mutual advantage to exchange. That produces commerce, brings us together, and makes us i)etter friends. We like one another tiie mken, be is misphiced, and ought not to be with us. An«l if there be u man amonjrst us wlio is so impatient of it as a wn)n«; as to disregard its actual presence among us and the dilll- culty of getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our lilatform. 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. lias anything ever threatened the existence of this rnion save and except this very institution of slavery? "\\:Jiat is it that we hold most di-ar amongst us? Our own liberty and pros- IK'rity. What has ever threatened our liberty and pros|)erity. save and except this institution of slavery? If this is true, how do y»»u pn^pose 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 bleed to death; but surel}' 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 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 themselves set us the example. On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment wliich treats it as udf bi'ing wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean to say that every man who stiinds within that range positively asserts that it is right. That class will include all who positively assert that it is right, and all who, like .Judge Doug- las, treat it as indilFerent and do not say it is either right or wrong. These two das.ses of men fall within the general class of tho.se who do not look upon it as a wrong. And if tln-re be among you any- ImkIv who suppos»'s that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself " as mu«-ii opposcil to slavery as anybody, " I would like to reaj^on with liiin. Vou never treat it as a wrong. W'liat other tiling that you consider as a wrong do you tleal with as 30U deal with that ? I'erhaps you tmi/ it is a wrong, Imt your hathr in v< r (fii> s, niiil ymi tjiiiirrrl with iiiii/hoili/ vhn snt/s it is irmng. Although you pretend to say HO yourself, you can find no fit j)lacc to deal with it as a wrong. You must not s.iy anything aljout it in tlie Free Slates, htniiisc it is LINCOLN. 445 not here. You must not say anything iibout it in the Slave States, Iwcaiim it is t/irrr. You must not say anything about it in the pul- pit, because that is religion, and has nothing to do with it. You must not say anything about it in politics, because that will tlistnrh the scciiritij (if '' mij phicr." There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. But, finally, j'ou will screw 3'our.self up to the belief that if the people of the Slave States should adopt a system of gradual eman- cipation on the slavery question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor of it. You say that is getting it in the right 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 Missouri. They fought as valiantly as the}- could for the sy.stem of gradual emancipation which you pretend 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 threw up your hats and hitrrahcd fur 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 that policy carefully exclude it. Even here to-day you heard Judge Douglas quarrel with me because I uttered a wish that it might sometime come to an end. Although Henry Clay could say he wished every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors, I am denounced by those pretending to respect Henry Clay for utter- ing a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful wa}', come to an end. The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. Tr}' it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he " do n't care whether it is voted up or voted down " in the Territories. I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whotiier it is intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the sub- ject, or onl}' of the national policy he desires to have established. It is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say that, who does not see anything wrong in slaver}'; but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can logically say he don't care whether a wrong is 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 ni; Ai/roN dkbatk. October 15, i858. and :i wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slavt's has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. Hilt if it i.s a wrung, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. lie says that upon tiie score of equality, slaves should be allowed to go into a new Territory, like other property. This is strictl}' log- ical if there is no difference between it and other property. If it and other property are eipial, his argument is entirely logical. Hut if you insist that one is wrong antl the other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn ;islation which his m'i^iil)(»r net'ds for the I'lijoyuiiMit of a right wliith i.s fixed in his favor in the Constitution <>f thi- rnitod States which Ir* has sworn tt» support? Can hi- withhol n /uis iirvcr hien as oiitl('T()Iu:k i:>. ia58. to Uk* facts I havo narrated, in a pultlic Hpceoh which has been printed and eireulateil liroadcast over the State for weeks, yet not a lisj) have we heard from Mr. Lincoln on the subject, except that he is an oM Ch»y Wlii*;. What part of Henry Chiys polii-y did liincohi ever advocate? He was in Congress in 1848-9, wiien the W'ilmot Proviso warfare disturbed tlie pence and liarniony of the country, until it sliook the foundation of the Repulilic from its center to its circumference. It was that agitation th:il brought Clay forth from lii.s 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 something to restore peace and (juiet to a disturbed country. Who got up that sectional strife that Clay had to be called ujion to ([uell? I have heard Lincoln boast that he voted forty-two limes for the Wilmot Proviso, and that he would have voted as many times more if he could. Lincoln is the man, in connection with Seward, Chase, Giddings, and other Abo- litionists, 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 countr}'. The Union Whigs 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 I'rovidence to guide us out of our dilliculties, and we Democrats rallied under Clay then, as you Whigs in NulliGcation time rallied under the bainier of old Jack.son, forgetting jiart}' when the country was in danger, in order that we might have a country lirst, and parties afterward. And this reminds me that Mr. Lincoln told you tliat the slavery (|m'stion was the only thing that ever disturlied the peace and har- mony of the Union. Did not Nullilication once raise its head and disturb the peace of this Union in 1832? Was tliat the shiviiy <|Uestion, Mr. Lincoln? Did not disunion rai.se its monster head during the last war with (Ireat Britain? Was that the slavery • piestion, Mr. Lincoln? The jieace of this country has been dis- turbed thre(; times, once during the war with Great Britain, once on the tariir (juestion, and once on the slavery (piestion. His argument, therefore, that slavery is the oidy (juestion that has ever created «lis.sension in the Union falls to the ground. It is true that agitators are enabled now to use this slavery question for the pur- pose of seclional strife. He ailmits that in regard to all things <'lhe, the principle that I advocate, making each Slate and Territory DOUGLAS. 453 free to decide for itself, ought to prevail. He instances the cran- berry 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 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. "THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF SELF-GOVERNMENT." Mr. Lincoln tries to avoid the main issue by 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 slavery in any of the States, or abolish it in any of them; but finding thirteen States, twelve of which were Slave and one Free, they agreed to form a government uniting them together as they stood, divided into Free and Slave States, and to guarantee forever 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 forever, I assert that this Government can exist as they made it, divided into Free and Slave States, if any one State chooses to retain slavery. He says that he looks forward to a time when slavery shall be abolished ever3'whcre. I look forward to a time when each State shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slaverj' forever, it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business, — not mine. I care more for the great prin- ciple 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- 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, recognizing the right of each 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 forward to the state of things now existing, and therefore he thinks the doctrine was 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 change the principles ■IjJ ALTON DEBATE, OCTUIJEU i:.. 1S58. nf oiif (ioviTniiK'nt? T\n'\ did not [iroltalily fort'sec llie telegr:i|ih lliat transmits iiitt'llii;ciice liy li^litnin;i;, nor did they foivsee the i-iilroads that now form the honds of union belwi-i n tlio ditri'n-nt SUitt's, or the thousand nu'chanii:il inventions that have elevated mankind. Hut do these things ehange the i)rinciples of the (lov- erjiment? Our fathers, I say, made this (Jovernment on the prinei pie of the right of eaeh State to do as it pleases in its own domestic alTairs, sul)jeet to the Constitution, and allowed the people of each to apply to every new change of circumstances such remedy as they may see lit to improve their eondition. Tills right tliey have foi- 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 to say that down here. Let me ask him, then, how he expects to put slavery in the course of ultimate ex- tinetion everywhere, if he does not intend to interfere with it in the States where it exists? He says that he will proliiliit it in all Territories, and the 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 sa}' whether or not lie would vote to admit Kansas with shiver}' or not, as her people might apply (he forgot that, as usual, etc.); he did not say whether or not he was in favor of bring- ing the Territories now in existence into the Union on the principle of Clays Compromise Measures on the slaver}' (jui'stion. I told you that he would not. His idea is that he will proliiliit slavery in all the Territories, and thus force them all to hecoine Free States, surrounding the Slave States with a cordon of Kree States, and hemming them in, keeping the slaves conlined to their present limits whilst they go on multiplying, until the soil on wliii li tiiey live will no longer feeil them, and he will thus he aide to put slavery in a course of ultimate extinction by starvation. He will extinguish slavery in the Soutiiern States as the French general exterminated the Algerines when he smoked them out. lie is going to extinguish slavery by surrounding the Slave States, hemming in the slaves, and starving them (»iit of existenee. as you smoke .i fox out of his hole. lie iiitfiids to do thai in the name of humanity and Cliristiaiiity, in order that we may get rid of the terrible erinii' and sin entailed upon our fallu-rs of holding slaves. iMr. Lincoln makes out that line of policy, and appeals to the moral sense of justice anil to the ChriKtian feeling of the coniiiiMiiity to sustain h'nu. He says that DOUGLAS. 455 any man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the position of the king who chiimed to govern by divine right. Let us examine for a moment and see what principle it was that overthrew the divine right of George the Third to govern us. Did not these Colonies rebel because the British Parliament had no right to pass laws con- cerning our properly and domestic and private institutions without our consent? We demanded that the British Government should not pass such laws unless they gave us representation in the body passing them; and this the British Government insisting on doing, we went to war, on the principle that the Home Government should not control and govern distant colonies without giving them a repre- sentation. Now, Mr. Lincoln proposes to goA'ern the Territories without giving them a representation, and calls on Congress to jjuss laws controlling their property and domestic concerns without their consent and against their will. Thus, he asserts for his party the identical principle asserted by George III. and the Tories of the Revolution. I ask you to look into these things, and then tell me whether the Democray 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 right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. The point upon which Chief Justice Taney expresses his opinion is simply this, that slaves, being property, stand on an etjual footing with other property, and consequently 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 has a right to go there, under that decision; but when he gets there he finds the Maine 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 him, and the best thing he can do with it is to bring it back into Missouri or Hliuois 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 local law. If the people want the institu- tion 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 protecting slavery excludes it as completeh* as a positive prohibition. You slaveholders of Missouri might as well 450 Al.lo-N DKllATE, DPTORER in. 1858. underslaml what you know pmctically, that you cannot carry slavery AvliL-rt' till' ptniple do not want it. All you have a right to ask is that the people shall ilo as they please: if they want slavery, let them have it; if they do not want it. allow them to refuse to en- counige it. My friends, if, as I have said before, we will only live up to this great fundamental principle, there will he peace betwei-n the North and the South. 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 liave we to interfere with slavery any more than we have to interfere with any other (juestion? He says that this slavery (picstion 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 m 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 peculiar institution of the opposite section, and the same strife is produced. The only remedy and safety is that we shiill stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, obey the laws as they arc ])assed, v.liiJe they stand the proper test, and sustain the decisions of the Supreme Court and the constituted authorities. COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER IG, 185!). 457 SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, At Columbus, Ohio, September IG, 1S5D. Fellow-Citizens OF tiik State of Oiifo: I cannot fail to re- member that 1 appear for the first time Ijefore an audience in this now great State, — an audience that is accustomed to hear such speakers as Corwin, and Chase, and Wade, and many other re- nowned men; and, remembering this, I feel that it will be well for you, as for me, that you should not raise your expectations to that standard to which you would have been justified in raising them had one of these distinguished men appeared before you. You would perhaps be only preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, as a consequence of yonv disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, therefore, that you will commence with very moderate expectations; and perhaps, if yon will give me your attention, I shall be able to interest you to a moderate degree. Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been some- what embarrassed for a topic by way of introduction to my speech; but 1 have been relieved from that embarmssment by an introduc- tion which the Ohio Statesman newspaper gave me this morning. In this paper I have read an article, in which, among other statements, I find the following: — " In debating with Senator Douglas during the memorable contest of last fall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro suffrage, and at- tempted to defend that vile conception against the Little Giant." I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the pur- pose of making three comments upon it. The first I have already announced, — it furnishes me an introductory topic; the second is to show that the gentleman is mistaken; thirdly, to give him an oppor- tunity to correct it. In the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. I have found that it is not entirel}' safe, when one is misrepresented under his very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontra- dicted. I therefore propose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is a misrepresentation, but to show conclusively that it is so; and you will bear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that very "memorable" debate with Judge Douglas last j'ear, to which this newspaper refers. In the first pitched battle which Senator 45!^ SPEECH OF LINCOLN. Douglas and myself luul. at the town of Ottawa. I used the lan- jruaije which I will ixtw n-ad. Ilaviiio; l»i-fii pivviously ivadint^ au extract, 1 continued as follows: — '•Now. jErentlcmt'ii, I di>rft*ct social and politie.il ('(juaiity wiili tin- ut'^rro. is but a specious and fantastic arraiifrement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-cliestiuil U> be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while u|H)n this subject, that 1 have no pur[M)se directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the Slates where it exists. I be- lieve I have no lawful rifrht to do so. and I have no inclination to do so. 1 have no puri)ose to introtluce |x)litical and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical ditference between the two which, in my judirmiMit, will probably forever forbid their livinj;: to- gether u|)on the fiMitinp of iM-rfect equality ; and inasmuch as it becomes a neci'ssity that there must be ji (lifference, 1, as well as .Tiidfre I)ou}?las, am in favor of the race to which 1 belouf; having the superior position. 1 have never said anythin;: to the contrary, but 1 hold that, notwilhstaMdinsr all this, there is no reason in the world why the ne^ro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, — the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hohl that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I ai^ree with .fudj.'e Douirlas, he is not my eIay, by which the Act of Congress prohibiting slavery from going into the Territories of the United States w;!S repealed. In connection with the l:iw itself, and, in fact, in the terms of the law, the then exist- ing prohiltition was not only repealed, but there was a declaration of a purpose on the part of Congress never thereafter to exercise any power th.it they might have, real or supposed, to i)n)hibit the ex- tension or spread of slavery. This was a very great change; for the law thus repealed was of more than thirty years' standing. Follow- ing rapidly upon the heels of this action of Congress, a decision of the Supreme Court is made, by which it is declared that Congress, if it desires to prohibit the spread of slavery into the Territories, has no constitutional jjower to do so. Not only so, but that decis- ion lays down principles which, if pushed to their logical conclusion, — I say pushed to their logical conclusion, — would decide liiat the constitutions of l-'n-e States, foiliiddiiig slavery, are themsehcs unconstitutional. Mark me, I do not say the judges said this, and let no man say I affirm the judges used these words; but I only say it is my opinion that what they did say, if pressed to its logical con- clusion, will inevitably result thus. CHIEF I'l'RI'OSK OK TIIK RKITBI.ICA.N ORG.V.NIZ.VTION. Looking at these things, the Republican part}', as I understand its principles and policy, believe that there is great danger of the institution of slavery being spread out and extcndecl until it is ultimately iiia, If you will i-ead the copyright essay, you Avill discover tli:it Judge Doughis himself says a controversy between the American Colonies and the Government of Great Britain began on the slavery question in 1699, and continued from that time until the Revolu- tion; and, while he did not say so, we all know that it has continued with more or less violence ever since the Revolution. Then we need not appeal to history, to the declarations of the framers of the Government, but we know from Judge Douglas him- self that slavery began to be an element of discord among the white people of this country as far back as 1699, or one hundred and sixty years ago, or live generations of men, — counting thirty years to a generation. Now, it would seem to me that it might have occurred to Judge Douglas, or anybody who had turned his atten- tion to these facts, that there was something in the nature of that thing, slavery, somewhat durable for mischief and discord. WHEN THERE W.\S PEACE ON THE QUESTION. There is another point I desire to make in regard to this matter, before I leave it. From the adoption of the Constitution down to 1820 is the precise period of our history when we had comparative peace upon this question,— the precise period of time when we came nearer to having peace about it than any other time of that entire one hundred and sixty years in which he says it began, or of the eighty years of our own Constitution. Then it would be worth our while to stop and examine into the probable reason of our coming nearer to having peace then than at any other time. This was the precise period of time in which our fathers adopted, and during which they followed, a policy restricting the spread of slavery, and the whole Union was acquiescing in it. The whole country looked forward to the ultimate extinction of the institution. It was when a policy had been adopted, and was prevailing, which led all just and right-minded men to suppose that slavery was gradually com- ing to an end, and that they might be quiet about it, watching it as it expired. I think Judge Douglas might have perceived that too; and whether he did or not, it is worth the attention of fair-minded men, here and elsewhere, to consider whether that is not the truth of the case. If he had looked at these two facts, — that this matter has been an element of discord for one hundred and sixty years among this people, and that the only comparative peace we have had about Hij sp?:ech <>f i.incoln. it was wbi'M that [Milic-y prt-vaiU'tl in this (Jovcnmirnt, whidi la* now wars ui>un, — \\v nii^lit tlu'ii, perhaps, liavf ht-i'ii hnuight to a more just appreciation of what I said fifteen nionlhs aj^o. — that "a lumse divided against itself cannot stand. I l)elieve that this (Jovernnient cannot enthire permanently, half Slave and half Free. 1 do not expect the house to fail, 1 do not expect the I'nion to dis- solve; but I (?o expect it will cease to be divided, li will become all one thinir. o; al! the o.lur Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of il, and place il wliere the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike law- ful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."' That was my sentiment at that time. In connection with it, I said: ''We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was ini- tiated with tlie avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not onl}- not ceased, but has constantly augmented. "' I now say to 30U here that we are advanced still farther into the sixth year since that policy of Judge Douglas — that Popular Sovereignty of his — for (|uieting the slavery (juestion was made the national policy. Fifteen months more have been added since I uttered that sentiment; and I call upon you and all other right-minded men to say whether that fifteen months have belied or corrol)orated my w<^)rds. While T am here upon this subject, I cannot but express grati- tude that this true view of this element of discord among us — as I bt'lieve it is — is attracting more and more attention. 1 ilo not Ijelieve that Governor Seward uttered that sentimi'Ut because I had done so before, but because he reflected upon this subject and saw the truth of it. Nor do I believe, because (tovernor Seward or I uttered it, that Mr. Hickman of Pennsylvania, in diirerent language, since that time, has declared his belief in the utter antagonism which exists l»etween the principles of lil)erty and slavery. You see we are multiplying. Now. while 1 am speaking of liiikinan, let me say, I know but little about him. I have never seen him, and know s<'arcely anything about the man; but 1 will say this much of him: Of all the anti-jjecompton Democracy that have been brought to my notice, he alone has the true, genuine ring of the niet:il. And now, without indorsing anything el.se he has said, I will ask this audience to give tlirec cheers for llickinan. [The audience responded with three |-ousing cheers for llickinan.] COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 10, ISoO. ^O;, Another point in the copyright essay to which T would ask your attention is rather a feature to be extracted from the whole thing, than from any express declaration of it at any point. It is a gen- eral feature of that document, and, indeed, of all Judge Douglas's discussions of this question, that the Territories of the United States and the States of this Union are exactly alike; that there is no difference between them at all; that the Constitution applies to the Territories precisely as it does to the States; and that the United States Government, under the Constitution, may not do in a State what it may not do in a Territory, and what it must do in a State it must do in a Territory. Gentlemen, is that a true view of the case? It is necessary for this squatter sovereignty, but is it true? Let us consider. What does it depend upon? It depends alto- gether upon the proposition that the States must, without the inter- ference of the General Government, do all those things that pertain exclusively to themselves, — that are local in their nature, that have no connection with the General Government. After Judge Douglas has established this proposition, which nobody disputes or ever has disputed, he proceeds to assume, without proving it, that slavery is one of those little, unimportant, trivial matters which are of just about as much consequence as the question would be to me w-hether my neighbor should raise horned cattle or plant tobacco; that there is no moral question about it, but that it is altogether a matter of dollars and cents; that when a new Territory is opened for settle- ment, the first man who goes into it may plant there a thing which, like the Canada thistle or some other of those pests of the soil, can- not be dug out by the millions of men who will come thereafter; that it is one of those little things that is so trivial in its nature that it has no effect upon anybody save the few men who first plant upon the soil ; that it is not a thing which in any way affects the family of communities composing these States, nor in any way endan- gers the General Government. Judge Douglas ignores altogether the very well known fact that we have never had a serious menace to our political existence, except it sprang from this thing, which he chooses to regard as only upon a par with onions and potatoes. Turn it, and contemplate it in another view. He says that, ac- cording to his Popular Sovereignty, the General Government may give to the Territories governors, judges, marshals, secretaries, and all the other chief men to govern them, but they must not touch upon this other question. Why ? The question of who shall be 30 4(50 SPEECH OF MNCOI.N. ^oviTiJor of a Torritorv for :i year or two, and pass away, without his trark hi-iiij^ U'ft upon the soil, or an att which he did for j^ood or for evil Iteinjj; left liehiiid, is u (jiiestiou of vast national iuaj<;ni- tiule; it is so much opposed in its nature to locality that the nation itself must decide it: while this other matter of planting slavery upon a soil, — a thing which, once planted, cannot he eradicated hy the succeeding millions who have us much right there as the (irst comers, or, if eradicated, not without infinite dilliculty and a long struggle, — he considers the |)ower to prohibit it as one of these little local, trivial things that the nation ought not to say a word about; that it atl'ects nobody save the few men who are there. Take these two things and consider them together, present the (|Ucstion of planting a State with the institution of slavery by the sidi- of a (|uestion of who shall be (Jovernor of Kansas for a year or two, and is there a man here, — is there a man on earth, — who would not say the governor (piestion is the little one, and the slavery iiueslion is the great one? I ask any honest Democrat if the small, the local, and the trivial and temporary (juestion is not, Who shall be governor? While the durable, the important, anil the mischiev- ous one is, Shall this soil be planted with slavery? This is an idea, I suppose, which has arisen in Judge Douglas's mind from his peculiar structure. 1 suppose the institution of slavery really looks small to him. He is so put up by nature that a lash upon his back would hurt him, but a lash upon anybody else's back does not hurt him. That is tiie Imild of the man. and consequently he looks upon tiie matter of slavery in this unimpor- tant light. Judge Douglas (tuglit to remember, when he is endeavoring to force this policy upon the American people, that while he is put up in that way, a good many are not. He ought to rememl>er that there was once in this country a man l)y the name of Thomas Jeffer- .son, supposed to be a Democrat, — a man whosi' principles and policy are not very prevalent amongst Democrats to-day, it is true; but that man did not take exactly this view of tin- insignificance of the element of slavery which our friend Judge Douglas does. In contemplation of this thing, we all know he was led to exclaim. "I tremble for my country when 1 remember that God is just I " We know how he looked upon it wiien he thus expicssed himself. There was danger to this country, — danger of the avenging justice of (Joil. - in that little unimportant Popular Sovereignty question of •ludge DciUglas. He supposed there was a (piestion of (Jod's eternal COLUMBUS, OHIO. SEPTEMBER 10, 1859. 467 justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those wlio did so braved the arm of Jehovah; that when a nation thus dared the Almighty, every friend of that nation liad cause to dread his wrath. Choose ye between Jett'er.son and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element among us. There is another little diQiculty about this matter of treating tiie Territories and States alike in all things, to which I ask your atten- tion, and I shall leave this branch of the case. If there is no ditl'er- ence between them, why not make the Territories States at once? What is the reason that Kansas was not fit to come into the Union when it was organized into a Territory, in Judge Douglass view? Can any of you tell any reason why it should not have come into the Union at once? They are fit, as he thinks, to decide upon the slavery question, — the largest and most important with which they could possibly deal: what could they do by coming into the Union that they are not fit to do, according to his view, by staying out of it? Oil, they are not fit to sit in Congress and decide upon the rates of postage, or questions of ad valorem or specific duties on foreign goods, or live oak timber contracts, — they are not fit to decide these vastly important matters, which are national in their import, — but they are fit, "from the jump," to decide this little negro question. But, gentlemen, the case is too plain; I occupy too much time on this head, and I pass on. Near the close of the cop3Tight e.ssay, the Judge, I think, comes very near kicking his own fat into the fire. I did not think, when I commenced these remarks, that I would read from that article, but I now believe I will : — "This exposition of the history of these measures sliows conclusively that the authors of the Compromise Measures of 1850 and of the Kansas- Nebraska Act of 1S54, as well as the members of the Continental Congress of 1774, and the founders of our system of jifovernment subsequent to the Revolution, regarded the people of the Territories and Colonies as political communities which were entitled to a free and exchisive power of legisla- tion in their provisional legislatures, where their representation could alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity." When the Judge saw that putting in the word "slavery ' would contradict his own history-, he put in what he knew would pass as synonymous with it, — "internal polity." Whenever we find that in one of his speeches, the substitute is used in this manner ; and I can tell you the reason. It would be too bald a contradiction to say slavery; but " internal polity" is a general phrase, which would 408 SPEECH OF LIXCOLX, pass in sonif qmirters, ami which he hopes will pass with the rend- ing couiiuunity for tiie same thing. ' This rij.'lu iM^rliiiiis to the pt'opli* colU'Ctivi'ly, us a hiw-abldiiij,' and pcacfful community, and not In tht« isolated individuals who maj' wander u|K>n the public domain in violation of the law. It can only be e.vercised white there are inhabitants suflicient to constitute a government, and capable «>f iM-rforminj? its various functions and duties, — a fact lo be ascertained and iletermined by" — Wlio ih) you think ? Judge Douglas says: — '• lly Congress ! " " Whether the number .shall be fixed at ten. flfieen or twenty thousand inhabitants, does not atfect the principle." Now, I have only a few comments to make. Popular Sover- eignty, l»y his own words, does not pertain to llu- few persons who wander upon the public domain in violation of law. We have his words for that. When it does pertain to them, is when they are suflicient to bo formed into an organized political communitj-, and he fixes the minimum for that at ten thousand, and the maximum at twenty thousand. Now, I would like to know what is to be done with the nine thousand? Are they all to be treated, until they are large enough to be organized into a political community, as wanderers upon the public land, in violation of law? And if so treated and driven out, at what point of time would there ever be ten thousand? If they were not driven out, but remained there as trespas.sers upon the public land in violation of the law, can they estal)lish slavery there? No; the Judge says Popular Sovereignty don't pertain to them then. Can they exclude it then? No; Popular Sovereignty do n't pertain to them then. I would like to know, in the case covered by the essay, what condition the people of the Territory are in before they reach the number of ten thousand? Hut the main point I wish to ask attention tt> is, that the ques- tion as to wh«'n they shall have reached a suflicient number to be formed into a regular organized community is to be decided "by Congress." Judge Douglas says so. Well, gentlemen, that is about all we want. No, that is all the Southerners want. That IS what all those who are for slavery want. They do not want Con- gress to prohibit slavery from coming into the new Territories, and they ut this part of the history of the country was not nnide by the men of the Revo- lution. TIIK oUniNANTK OF '87. There was another part of our i)olilical history, made by the very men who were the actors in the Kevolution, which has tak«'n the name of tlie Ordinance of S7 Let me bring that history to your attention. In 1781, 1 believe, this same y\i\ .Jellersoii drew up an ordi- COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 16, 1859. 471 nance for the government of the country upon which we now stand, or, rather, a friime or draft of an ordinance for the government of this country, here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, us who live in Illinois, our neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan. In that ordinance, drawn up not only for the government of that Territory, but for the Territories south of the Ohio Iliver, Mr. Jetl'erson ex- pressly provided for the prohibition of slavery. Judge Douglas says, and perhaps is right, that that provision was lost from that ordinance. I believe that is true. When the vote was taken upon it, a majority of all present in the Congress of the Confederation voted for it; but there were so many absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear majority necessary, and it was lost. But three years after that, the Congress of the Confederation were together again, and they adopted a new ordinance for the govern- ment of this Northwest Territory, not contemplating territory south of the river, for the States owning that territory had hitherto re- frained from giving it to the General Government; hence they made the ordinance to apply only to what the Government owned. In that, the provision excluding slavery was inserted and pttssrd. unani- mously^ or at any rate it passed and became a part of the law of the land. Under that ordinance we live. First here in Ohio 3'ou were a Territory, then an enabling Act was passed, authorizing you to form a constitution and State Gov- ernment, provided it was republican and not in conflict with the Oidinance of '87. When yon framed your constitution and pre- sented it for admission, I think you will find the legislation upon the subject will show that, ' ' whereas you had formed a constitu- tion that was republican, and not in conflict with the Ordinance of '87," therefore, you were admitted upon equal footing with the original States. The same process in a few years was gone through with in Indiana, and so with Illinois, and the same substantially with Michigan and Wisconsin. Not only did that Ordinance prevail, but it was constantly looked to whenever a step was taken by a new Territory to become a State. Congress always turned their attention to it, and in all their movements upon this subject they traced their course by that Ordinance of '87. When they admitted new States, they advertised them of this Ordinance, as a part of the legislation of the country. They did so because they had traced the Ordinance of '87 through- out the history of this country. Begin with the men of the Revolu- tion, and go down for sixty entire years, and until the last scrap of 47J SPEECH OF LIN( ol.N. that Territory comes into tlie raiou in the form of the State of Wisconsin, everything was made to conform with tiie Ordinance of '87, exchuling shiver}" from that vast extent of country. I omitted to mention in the rijxht phice that the Constitution of the I'nited Stales was in process of l)ein<4 framed wlien that (Jrdi- nance was made by the Congress of the Confederation; and one of (lie first Acts of Congress itself, under the new Constitution itself, was to give force to that Ordinance by putting power to carry it out in the hands of the new ollieers under the Constitution, in the place of the old ones, who h:id been legislated out of existence by the change in the. (rovernment from the Confederation to the Constitu- tion. Not only so. but 1 believe Indiana once or twice, if not Ohio, petitioned the (jeneral (iovernmenl for the privilege of suspending that provision and allowing them to hav<* slaves. A report made by Mr. Randoli^h, of Virginia, himself a slaveholder, was directly against it, and the acti1' LINCOLN. ;ii-Uh1, uiulcrstnndini; it la'Ufr than wi* do. All I ask of vow, .Jiul^i' Douglas, is to slick to the proposition llial the iiifii of the UfVoUitioii unilcrstooil tiiis subject better than wt- (h) now, ; opinion, Itut it is all embodied in this short statement: •• Till' Constitution of the I'niled Stales foiliids Congress to deprive a man of his property, without due process of law; the right of property in slaves is distinetly and expressly aHlriued in that Consti- tution: therefore, if (Vmgress shall midertake to say that a man's slave is no longer his slave when he crosses a certain line into a Territory, that is depriving hiin of his property witliout thw ])roees3 of law, anil is unconstitutional." There is the whole Dred Scott decision. Thev add that if Congress ctmnot do .so itself, Congress can- not confer any power to do so; and hence any elfort b}' the Terri- torial Legislature to do either of these things is absolutely decided against. It is a foregone conclusion l)y that court. " UNFRIENDLY LEGISLATION." Now, as to this indirect mode by " unfriendly legislation," all lawyers here will readily understand that such a proposition cannot be tolerated f(»r a moment, because a legislature cannot indirecti}' do that which it cannot accomplish directly. Then I say any legis- lation to control this property, as property, for its benefit as prop- erty, would be hailed by this Dred Scott Supreme Court, and full}' sustained; but any legislation driving slave propert}' out, or des- troying it as property, directly or indirectly, will most assuredly, by that court, be held unconstitutional. Judge Douglas says if the Constitution carries slavery into the Territf)rie8, beyon show, l>y the Constitution, that one differs a whit fioni the other, lie will tell me, doul)tless, that there is no Constitutional provision against people Uiking slaves into the new Territories, and 1 tell him there is eijiially no Constitutional provision against buying slaves in Africa. He will tell you that a people, in the exercise of Popular Sover- eignty, ought to do as they plea.se about that thing, and have slaves if the}' want them; and I tell you that the people of Georgia are as much entitled to Popular Sovereignly and to buy sl.aves in Africa, if they want them, as the pj'opU; of the Territory are to have slaves if tln-y want tliem. I ask any man, dealing honestly with himsi'ir, to point out a disi inct ion. COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER IG, 1859. 479 . I have recenth' seen a letter of Judge Douglas's in whieb, witli- out stating that to be the object, he doubtless endeavors to make a distinction between the two. He says he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of the laws against the African slave-trade. And why ? He then seeks to give a reason that would not apply to his populnr sovereignty in the Territories. Wluit is that reason? " The aboli- tion of the African slave trade is a compromise of the Constitu- tion!" I deny it. There is no truth in the proposition that the abolition of the African slave-trade is a compromise of the Consti- tution. No man can put his finger on anything in the Constitution, or on the line of history, which shows it. It is a mere barren as- sertion, made simply for the purpose of getting up a distinction between the revival of the African slave trade and his "great principle. " At the time the Constitution of the United States was adopted, it was expected that the slave trade would be abolished. I should assert and insist upon that, if Judge Douglas denied it. But I know that it was equally expected that slavery would Ije excluded from the Territories, and I can show by history that in regard to these two things public opinion was exactly alike, while in regard to positive action, there was more done in the Ordinance of '87 to resist the spread of slavery than was ever done to abolish the for- eign slave trade. Lest I be misunderstood, I say again that at the time of the formation of the Constitution, public expectation was that the slave trade would be abolished; but no more so than the spread of slaver}' in the Territories should be restrained. They stand alike, except that in the Ordinance of '87 there was a mark left by public opinion, showing that it was moi'e committed against the spread of slaverj' in the Territories than against the foreign slave trade. Compromise! What word of compromise was there about it? Why, the public sense was then in favor of the abolition of the slave trade; but there was at the time a very great commercial in- terest involved in it, and extensive capital in that branch of trade. There w^ere doubtless the incipient stages of improvement in the South in the way of farming, dependent on the slave-trade, and they made a proposition to Congress to abolish the trade after allow- ing it twenty years, — a sufficient time for the capital and commerce engaged in it to be transferred to other channels. Tiiey made no provision th;it it should be abolished in twenty years; I do not doubt that they expected it would be, but they made no bargain 480 SPEECH »)F LINCOLN, about it. Tho pulilic sentiment left no doubt in the minds of anj' that it would he done away. I repeat, there is nothing in the his- tory of tliose times in favor of that matter l»eing a ci}mj)r(mu'sc of the Constitution. It w:is the puitlie expertation at the time, mani- festeil in a thousand ways, that the spread of slavery should also be restricted. Tiien I say. if this principle is established, ilml there is no wrong in slavery, and wlioovir wants il lia.s a light to have it; that it is a mat- ter of dollars and cents; a 8ort of question as to how they shall deal with brutes; that between us and the negro here there is no sort of question, but that at the South the question is between the negro and the crocodile, that it is a mere matter of policy; that there is a iH'ifect riirht, according to interest, to s hate slavery, that Douglas's Popular Sovereignty is as good a wa}' as any to oppose slavery. They allow themselves to be persuaded easily, in accordance with their previous dispositions, into this belief, that it is about as good a way of op- posing slavery as any, and we can do that without straining our old party ties or breaking up old political associations. We can do so without i)eing called "negro worshipers."' We can do that without being subjected to the jibes and sneers that are so reailily lluowii out in place of argument where no argument can be found. So h-l us stick to this Popular Sovereignty. — this insidious Popular Sover- eignty. Wll.\r KIVK VKAItS WHnr(iIIT. Now let me call y(tur attention to one thing tliat has really happened, which shows this gradual and steady debauching of pub- lie opinion, this course of preparation for tiie revival of the slave- trade, for the Territorial slave code, and the new Dred Scott decis- ion Uiut is to carry slavery into the l"'ree SUites. Did you ever, live COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 16, is.")!). 4s 1 years ago, hear of anybody in the world saying that the negro had no share in the Declaration of National Independence; that it did not mean negroes at all; and when "all men" were spoken of, ne- groes were not included ? I am satisfied that five years ago that proposition was not put upon paper by any living being anywhere. I have l)ecn unable at any time to find a man in an audience who would declare that he had ever known of anybody saying so five years ago. But last year there was not a "Douglas Popular Sovereignty" man in Ill- inois who did not say it. Is there one in Ohio but declares his firm belief that the Declaration of Independence did not mean negroes at all? I do not know how this is; I have not been here much; but I presume you are very much alike everywhere. Then I suppose that all now express the belief that the Declaration of Independence never did mean negroes. I call upon one of them to say that he said it five years ago. If you think that now, and did not think it then, the next thing that strikes me is to remark that there has been a change wrought in you, — and a very significant change it is, being no less than changing the negro, in your estimation, from the rank of a man to that of a brute. They are taking him down, and placing him, when spoken of, among reptiles and crocodiles, as Judge Douglas himself expresses it. Is not this change wrought in your minds a very important change? Public opinion in this country is everything. In a nation like ours, this Popular Sovereignty and Squatter Sovereignt}' have already wrought a change in the public mind to the extent I have stated. There is no man in this crowd who can contradict it. Now, if you are opposed to slavery honestly, as much as any- body, I ask you to note that fact, and the like of which is to follow, to be plastered on, layer after layer, until very soon you are pre- pared to deal with the negro everywhere as with the brute. If public sentiment has not been debauched already to this point, a new turn of the screw in that direction is all that is wanting; and this is constantly being done by the teachers of this insidious Popu- lar Sovereignty. You need but one or two turns further, until your minds, now ripening under these teachings, will be ready for all these things, and you will receive and support, or submit to, the slave trade, revived with all its horrors, a slave-code enforced in our Territories, and a new Dred Scott decision to bring slavery up into the very heart of the free North. 31 -tS2 SPEECH or LINCOLN. Tliis, J imist say, is luit can vin<^ <»ul those words proplicticully siRikfii by Mr. (May, — many, many years ago, — I believe more tlian thirty years, — when he tohl an audienee that if they would repress all tendencies to liberty ami ultimate emancipation, they must go back to the eru of our indepi-ndenee, and muzzle the cannon whirh thundered its annual joyous return on the Fourth of July; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate the luunan soul, and eratlicate the love of liljerty:but until they did these things, and others eloquently enumerated by him, they could not repress all tendencies to ultimate emancipation. I ask attention to the fact that in a pre-eminent degree these Popular Sovereigns are at tills work — lilowing out the moral lights arouniilv pnijiosf to try to sliuw you that yon (iiiouglu8. In all tliat tbert' is a diirfriMict' iK-twc-on yon and him, I niulersUuul hi- is sincerel}' for yon, and more wisi-ly for yon than yon art' for yonrsi-lvos. I will try to diMnonstrate that proposition. I'ndi'rstand, now, I say that I hclicvc lu* is as sincerely for yon, and more wisely for j'oii, than you are for yourselves. What d<» you want more than anything else, to make sneeessful your virws of slavery, — to advartee the outspread of it, and to secure and perpetuate the nationalit}' of it? What do you want more than anything else? What is needed ah.solutely? What is indispensable to you? Why! if I may lie allowed to answer the question, it is to retain a hold up(jn the North, — it is to retain sup- port and strength from the Free States. If j'ou can get this support and strength from the Free States, you can succeed. If you do not get this sup[)ort and this strength from the Free States, you are in the minority, and you are lii'ateii at once. If that proposition be admitted, — and it is undtiuahle, — then the next thing I say to you is, that Douglas, of all the men in this nation, is the only man that alfords you any hold upon the Free States; that no other man can give you an}- strength in the Free States. This being so, if j'ou doubt the other branch of the propo- sition, whether he is for you, — whether he is really for you, as I have expressed it, — I propose asking your attention for a while to a few facts. The issue between you and me, understand, is, that I think slavery is wrong, and ought not to be outspread; and you think it IS right, and ought U) be extended and perpetuated. [A voice. ••<)h. Lord."] That is my Kcntiukian 1 am talking t(t now. I now proceed to try to show you that Douglas is as sincerely for you and more wi.sely for you than you are for yourselves. In the lirst place, we know tliat in a government lik*- this, in a government of the people, where the voice of all the men of ilie country, substantially, enters into the execution — or admini-tra tion, ratlu'r — of the government, — in such a government, what lies at the bottom of all of it, is public opinion. I l.-iy down the proiK)sition, that Judge Douglas is not only the man thai promises you in advance a hold upon the North, and support in the North, but that he constantly moulds pnltlie opinion to your ends; that in every possil)le way he can. he constantly moulds the puitlic opinion of the Ni)l the o]>inion that slavery is right on the other side of the Ohio; wheni'vcr you can get them, in pursuance of Douglass views, to adopt that sentiment, the}' will very readily make the other argument, which is perfectly logical, that that which is right on that side of the Ohio cannot be wrong on this, and that if you have that property on tiiat side of the Ohio, under the seal and stamp of the Almighty, when l»y any means it escapes over here it is wrong to have constitutions and laws " to devil "' you about it. So Douglas is moulding the public opinion of the North, first U) say that the thing is right in your State over the Ohio River, and hence to say that that which is right there is not wrong here, and that all laws and constitutions here, recognizing it as being wrong, arc themselves wrong, and ought to be re|)ealed and abro- gated. He will ti'U you, men of Ohio, that if you choose here to have laws against slaver}', it is in conformit}' to the idea that your climate is not suited to it, that your climate is not suited to slave labor, and therefore you have constitutions ami laws against it. Let us attend to that argument for a little while, and see if it be sountl. You do not raise sugar-cane (exci-pt the new-fashioned sugarcane, and you wont raise that long), but they do raise it in Louisiana. You don't raise it in Ohio, because you can't raise it profitably, because the climate do n't suit it. They do raise it in Louisiana, because there it is profitable. Now, Douglas will tell you that is precisely the slaver}' question: that tiiey do have slaves there, becau.se they arc profitable; and you don't have them here, because they are not prolilable. If that is so, then it leails to deal- ing with the one precisely as with the other. Is there, then, any- thing in the Constitution or laws of Ohio against raising sugar-cane? Have you found it necessary to put any such provision in your law? Surely not! No man desires to rai.se sugar-cane in Ohio; but if any man di stick by compro- 494 SPP:ECH of LINCOLN. mist'8. You ought to remeuiln'r that by the time you yourselves think you ure ready to inaugurate measures for tiie revival of the African shive trade, that sullieient time will have arrived, by pre- ei'dent, for Judge l)ouglas to break tlirougli that conipnjniise. He says now nothing more strong than he said in lS-l!t when he de- clared in fa v(»r of the Missouri Compromise, — that precisely four years and a (piarter after he declared that Compntinise to be a sacrcoiiglas had three or four very distinguished men of the most extn-m*' anti-slavery views of any men in the Kepuliiiean party ex- CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, ISoO. 497 pressing their desire for his re-election to the Senate last year. That woukl, of itself, have seemed to be a little wonderful; but that wonder is heightened when we see that Wise of Virginia, a man exactly opposed to them, a man who believes in the divine right of slavery, was also expressing his desire that Douglas should be re-elected; that another man that may be said to be kindred to ^Yise, Mr. Breckinridge, the Vice-President, and of your own State, was also agreeing with the anti-slavery men in the North that Doug- las ought to be re-elected. Still, to heighten the wonder, a senator from Kentucky, whom I have always loved with an alfection as tender and endearing as I have ever loved any man; who was opposed to the anti-slavery men for reasons which seemed suflicient to him, and equally opposed to Wise and Breckinridge, was writing letters into Illinois to secure the re-election of Douglas. Now, that all these conflicting elements should be l)rought, while at daggers' points with one another, to support him, is a feat that is worthy for you to note and consider. It is quite probable that each of these classes of men thought, b}' the re-election of Douglas, their peculiar views would gain something: it is probaljle that the anti-slavery men thought their views would gain something; that Wise and Breckinridge thought so too, as regards their opinions; that Mr. Crittenden thought that his views would gain something, although he was opposed to both these other men. It is probalile that each and all of them thought that they were using Douglas; and it is yet an un- solved problem whether he was not using them all. If he was, then it is for you to consider whether that power to perform won- ders is one for you lightly to throw away. AVHAT EACH SIDE PROPOSED TO DO. There is one other thing that I will say to you, in this relation. It is but my opinion, I give it to you without a fee. It is my opin- ion that it is for you to take him or be defeated ; and that if you do take him you may be beaten. You will surely be beaten if you do not take him. We, the Ilepublicans and others forming the op- position of the country, intend to "stand by our guns," to be pa- tient and firm, and in the long run to beat you, whether j-ou take him or not. We know that before we fairly beat you, we have to beat you both together. We know that you are " all of a feather," and that we have to beat you all together, and we expect to do it. We do n't intend to be very impatient about it. We mean to be as deliberate and calm about it as it is possible to be, but as firm and 33 498 SPEECH OF LINCOLN, ri'solvcd as it is possible for men to be. When we do as we say, — beat you, — you perbaps want to know what we will dcj with you. I will tell you, so far as I am authorized to speak for the oppo- sition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you, as near as we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way to inter- fere with your institution; to al)ide by all and every compromise of the Constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the original propo- sition, to treat you, so far as degenerated men (if we have degen- erated) may, according to the examples of those noble fathers, — Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. We mean to remember that you are as good as we; that there is no difference between us other than the dilTerence of circumsUmces. We mean to recognize and bear in mind always that you have as good hearts in N'our bosoms as other peo- ple, or as we claim to have, and treat you accordingly. We mean to marry your girls when we have a chance, — the white ones I mean ; and I have the honor to inform you that I once did have a chance in that way. I have told 3'ou what we mean to do. T want to know, now, when that thing taki'S place, what do you mean to do. I often hear it intimated that you mean to divide the Union whenever a Repub- lican, or anything like it, is elected President of the United States. [A voice: That is so.] " That is so," one of them says; I wonder if he is a Kentuckian? [A voice: He is a Douglas man.] Well, then, I want to know what you are going to do with your half of it? Are you going to split the Ohio down through, and push your half off a piece? Or are you going to keep it right alongside of us outrageous fellows ? Or are you going to build up a wall some way between your country and ours, by which that movable property of yours can't come over here any more, to the danger t)f your losing it? Do you think you can better yourselves, on tiiat 8ubje«'t, by leaving us here under no ol)ligation whatever to return those specimens of your moveable property that come hither? You liave divided the Union because we would not do right with you, as you think, upon that subject; when we cease to be under obligations to do anything for you, how much better olf do you think you will be? Will you make war upon us and kill us all? Why, gentlemen, I think you are as gallant ami as brave men as live; that you can light as bravely in a good can.se, man for man, as any other people living; that you h.ive shown yourselves capable of this upon various occasions; but, man i\H' man, you are not CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, la-JO. 499 better than we are, and there are not so many of you as there are of us. You will never make much of a hand at whipping us. If we were fewer in numbers than you, I think that you could whip us; if we were equal, it would likely be a drawn battle; but, being infe- rior in numbers, you will make nothing by attempting to master us. But perhaps I have addressed myself as long, or longer, to the Kentuekians than I ouglit to have done, inasmuch as I have said that whatever course you take we intend in the end to beat you. I propose to address a few remarks to our friends, by way of discuss- ing with them the best means of keeping tliat promise that I have in good faith made. THE FORCE OF THE ORDINANCE OF '87. It may appear a little episodical for me to mention the topic of which I shall speak now. It is a favorite proposition of Douglas's that the interference of the General Government, through the Ordi- nance of '87, or through any other act of the General Government, never has made, nor ever can make a Free State; that the Ordinance of "87 did not make Free States of Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois. That these States are free upon his "great principle" of Popular Sover- eignty, because the people of those several States have chosen to make them so. At Columbus, and probably here, he undertook to compliment the people that they themselves have made the State of Ohio free, and that the Ordinance of '87 was not entitled in any degree to divide the honor with them. I have no doubt that the people of the State of Ohio did make her free according to their own will and judgment, but let the facts be remembered. In 1802, I believe it was, you made your first constitution, with the clause prohibiting slavery, and you did it, I suppose, very nearly unanimously; but you should bear in mind that you — speak- ing of you as one people — that you did so unembarrassed by the actual presence of the institution amongst 3'ou ; that you made it a Free State, not with the embarrassment upon you of already having among you many slaves, which if they had been here, and j'ou had sought to make a Free State, you would not know what to do with. If they had been among you, embarrassing difficulties, most prob- ably, would have induced you to tolerate a slave constitution instead of a free one, as indeed these very difficulties have constrained every people on this continent who have adopted slavery. Pray what was it that made you free? What kept you free? Did you not find your country free when you came to decide that ;')(»(» Sl'KKc II OF LINCOLN. Oliio sliould ho :i Free State? It is important to inquire by what reason you found it so. Let us take an illustration between the States of Ohio and Kentucky. Kentucky is separated by this River Ohio, not a niilc wide. A portion of Kentucky, by reison of the course of the Ohio, is further north than this portion of Ohio, in which we now stand. Kentucky is entirely covered with slavery; Ohio is entirely free from it. What made that (lilference? Was it climate? No A portion of Kentucky was further north than this portion of Ohio. Was it soil? No. There is nothing in the soil of the one more favorable to slave lajjor than the other. It was nt>t climate or soil that caused one side of the line to be en- tirely covered with slavery, and the other side free of it. What was it? Study over it. Tell us, if you can, in all the range of conjecture, if there be anything 30U can conceive of that made that dilb'rciice, other than that there was no law of any sort keeping it out of Kentucky, while the Ordinance of '87 kept it out of Ohio. If there is any other reason than this, I confess that it is wholly beyond my |)ower to conceive of it. This, then, I otTer to combat — the idea that that Ordinance has never made any State free. I do n't stop at this illustration. I come to the State of Indi- ana; and what I have said as between Kentucky and Ohio, I repeat as between Indiana and Kentucky: it is equally applicable. One additional argument is applicable also to Indiana. In her Terri- torial condition she more than once petitioned Congress to abrogate the Ordinance entirely, or at least so far as to suspend its operation for a time, in order that they should exercise the " Popular Sover- eignty " of having slaves if they wanted them. The men then controlling the General Government, imitating the men of the licvolution, refused Indiana that i)rivilege. And so we have the evitlcnce that Indiana supposed she could have slaves, if it were not for that Ordinance; that she besought Congress to put that barrier out of the way; that Congress refused to do so; and it all ended at last in Indiana being a Free State. Tell me not then that the Ordinance of '87 had nothing to do with making Indiana a Free State, when we find some men chafing against, and only restrained by, that barrier. Come down again to our State of Illinois. The great Northwest Territory, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wis- consin, was acquired first, I believe, by tbo British Government, in part, at least, from the French. Before the cstMblishinent of our independence it l)ecomes u part of \'irginia, enabling Virginia after- CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBP]R 17, ISfi!). 501 ward to transfer it to the General Government. There were French settlements in what is now Illinois, and at the same time there were French settlements in what is now Missouri,— in the tract of coun- try that was not purchased till about 1803. In these Frencii settlements negro slavery had existed for many years, — perhaps more tlian a hundred, if not as much as two hundred years, — at Kaskaskia, in Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, in Missouri. The number of slaves was not very great, but there was about the same number in "each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory. There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave, and even the Ordi- nance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slavery in Illinois; nor did the Ordinance apply to Missouri at all. What I want to ask your attention to, at this point, is that Illinois and Missouri came into the Union about the same time, Illinois in the latter part of 1818, and Missouri, after a struggle, I believe sometime in 1820. They had been lllling up with Ameri- can people about the same period of time; their progress enabling them to come into the Union about the same time. At the end of that ten years, in which they had been so preparing (for it was about that period of time), the number of slaves in Illinois had actually decreased; while in Missouri, beginning with very few, at the end of that ten years there were about ten thousand. This being so, and it being remembered that Missouri and Illinois are, to a certain extent, in the same parallel of latitude; that the north- ern half of Missouri and the southern half of Illinois are in the same parallel of latitude, so that climate would have the same effect upon one as upon the other, and that in the soil there is no material difference so far as bears upon the question of slavery being settled upon one or the other, — there being none of those natural causes to produce a difference in filling them, and yet there beuig a broad difference in their filling up, we are led again to in- quire what was the cause of that difference. It is most natural to say that in Missouri there was no law to keep that country from filling up with slaves, while in Illinois there was the Ordinance of "87. The Ordinance being there, slavery de- creased during that ten years; the Ordinance not being in the other, it increased from a few to ten thousand. Can anybody doubt the reason of the difference? I think all these facts most abundantly prove that ray friend Judge Douglas's proposition, that the Ordinance of '87, or the na- 502 SPEECH ()[■' LINCOLN, tioiml restriction t>f slavery, never had ii tendency to make a Free State, is a fallacy, — a proposition without the shadow or substance of truth about it. l)onn of labor in well-regulated communities of agricultur- ists. Thus much for that part of the subject. Again: The assumption that the slave is in a better condition than the hired laborer, includes the further assumption that he who is once a hired laborer always remains a hired laborer; that there is a certain class of men who remain through life in a dependent condition. Then they endeavor to point out that when they get old, they have no kind masters to take care of tlu'Ui, and that they fall dead in the traces, with the harness of actual labor up«)n their backs. In jjoint of fact that is a false assumption. There is no Buch thing as a man who is a hired laborer, of a necessity, always remaining in his early condition. The general rule is otherwise. I know it is so, and I will tell yon why. When at an early age, I was myself a hiri-il lal)orer. at twelve dollars per month; and therefore I do know that there is not always the necessity for actual labor beeause once tlu're was jjiopriety in being so. My Uiiries which belong to us, which are God-given for that purpose. If, then, you will go to those Territories that j'ou may improve your condition, you have a right to keep them in the best conilition for those going into them, and can they niake that natural ailvance in their condition if they find the institution of slavery planted there? My good friends, let me ask you a question — you who have come from A'irginia or Kentucky, to get ritl of this thing of slavery — let me ask you what headway would you have made hi getting rid of it, if by Popular Sovereignty you found slavery on that soil which you looked for to be free when you got there? You would not have made much headway if you had found slavery alread}' here, if you had to sit down to your labor by the side of the unpaid workman. I say, then, that it is due to yourselves as voters, as owners of the new Territories, that you shall keej) those Territories free, in the best condition for all such of your gallant sons as ma}- choose to go there. I do not desire to elaborate this branch of the general subject of political discussion at this time further. I did not think I would get upon this topic at all, and I have detained you already too long in its discu-ssion. W.V.NT OF A NATIO.N.VL POI.irV. I have taken iqion myself, in Ihe name of some <»f you, to say that we expect upon these principles to ultimately lieat them. In order to do so, I think we want and must have a national policy in CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, 1859. -,07 regard to the institution of slavery, that acknowledges and deals with that institution as being wrong. Whoever desires the preven- tion of the spread of slavery and the nationalization of that institu- tion, yields all, when he yields to any policy that either recognizes slavery as being right, or as being an indifferent thing. Notiiing will make you successful but setting up a policy which shall treat the thing as being wrong. When I say this, I do not mean to say that this General Govern- ment is charged with the duty of redressing or preventing all the wrongs in the world, but I do think that it is charged with prevent- ing and redressing all wrongs which are wrongs to itself. This Government is expressly charged with the duty of providing for the general welfare. We believe that the spreading out and perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe — nay, we know — that that is the only thing that has ever threat- ened the perpetuity of the Union itself. The only thing which has ever menaced the destruction of the Government under which we live, is this very thing. To repress this thing, we think, is provid- ing for the general welfare. Our friends in Kentucky differ from ns. We need not make our argument for them, but we w^ho think it is wrong in all its relations, or in some of them at least, must decide as to our own actions and our own course, upon our own judgment. I sny that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists, because the Constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so. We must not withhold an efficient Fugitive -Slave law, because the Constitution requires us, as I understand it, not to withhold such a law. But we must prevent the outspreading of the institution, because neither the Constitution nor general welfare requires us to extend it. We must prevent the revival of the African slave trade, and the enact- ing by Congress of a Territorial slave-code. We must prevent each of these things being done by either Congres.ses or Courts. The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Con- gresses and Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to over- throw the men who pervert the Constitution. To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We must hold conventions; we must adopt platforms, if we conform to ordi- nary custom; we must nominate candidates; and we must carry elections. In all these things, I think that we ought to keep in view our real purpose, and in none do anything that stands adverse 508 SPEi:C!l OK LINCOLN. to our puriwso. If we shall adopt a platform that fails to recognize or express our purpose, or elect a man that tleclares himself inimi- cal to our purpose, we not only make nothing by our succi'ss, but we tiicitly admit that we act upon no other principle than a desire to have "the loaves and fishes," by which, in the end, our ai)i)arent success is reall}' an injury to us. I know that this is very desiral)le with mo, as with everybody else, that all the elements of the opposition shall unite in the next Presidential election and in all fiilure liiiic I am anxious that that should be; but there are things seriously to be considered in relation to that matter. If the terms can be arranged, I am in favor of the Union. Hut suppose we shall take up some man, and put liim upon one end or the other of the ticket, who declares him- self against us in regard to the prevention of the spread of slavery, who turns up his no.se and says he is tired of hearing anything more about it, who is more against us than against the enemy, what will be the issue? Wh}', he will get no Slave States, after all, — he has tried that already until being l)eat is the rule for him. If we nomi- nate him upon that ground, he will not carry a Slave State; and not onl}' so, but that portion of our men who are highstrung upon the principle we really fight for, will not go for him, and he won"t get a single electoral vote anywhere, except perhaps, in the Slate of Mary- land. There is no use in saying to us that we are stubborn and obstinate because we won't do some such thing as this. We cannot do it. We cannot get our men to vote it. I speak by the card, that we cannot give the State of Illinois in such case b}' fifty thou- sand. We would be flatter down than the "Negro Democracy" themselves have the heart to wish to see us. After saying this much, let me say a little on the other side. There are plenty of men in the Slave States that are altogether good enough for me to be either President or Vice-President, provided they will jjrofess their sympathy with our jjurpose, and will i)Iace themselves on the ground that our men, upon [jrinciple, can vote for them. There are scores of them, good men in their character for intelligence and talent and integrity. If such a one will place him.self upon the right ground, I am for iiis occupying one place upon the ni'Xt Republican or opposition ticki't. I will heartily go for him. Hut unless he does so place himself, I think it a matter of perfect nonsen.se to attempt to bring about u union upon any other basis; that if a union be made, the I'lements will scatter so that there can be no smcc«'ss for such a ticket, nor anything like success. ^T, ..'tk«. r * i- CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, 18.19. 509 The good old maxims of the Bible are applicable, and tndy :ip- plicable, to human affairs, and in this, as in other things, we njny say here that he who is not for us is against us; he who gaUieivlh not with us, scattereth. I should be glad to have some of Uie many good, and able, and noble men of the South to place themselves where we can confer upon them the high honor of an election upon one or the other end of our ticket. It would do my soul good to do that thing. It would enal)le us to teach them that inasmuch as we select one of their own number to carry out our i)iinciples, we are free from the charge that we mean more than we say. But, my friends, I have detained you much longer than ] ex- pected to do. I believe I may do myself the compliment to s:iy that you have stayed and heard me with great patience, for which I return you my most sincere thanks. COOPER INSTITUTE SPEECH. Delivered at Cooper Institute, New York City, February 27, ISGO. [In the fall of 1859, some young men of New York City, in arranping for a lecture to promote a benevolent object, asked Mr. Henry C. Bowen, proprietor of the Independent, to name a speaker who would draw such a crowd as to insure success to their effort. Mr. Bowen named Mr. Lincoln as "the best man to fill Cooper Institute." He was accordingly invited, and accepted the invitation ; and in a letter dated Nov. 13, 1859, closing the arrangement, said : "I believe, after all, I shall make a political speech of it." And the following is the speech. This great speech, more than an}' other one, is supposed to have secured Lincoln the nomination for President.] Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens of New York : The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and famil- iar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelt}', it will be in the mode of pre- senting the facts, and the references and observations following that presentation. In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the 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," 510 SPEECH or lincdln. I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it lit'causf it furnishfs a precise and an agreed starting- lM)int fur a diseussion between Republicans and that wing of De- ujoeraey lu-aded by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: "What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned? What is tlie franu- of government under which we live? 'i'lie answi-r must 1k' : " Tlie Constitution of the United States." Tliat Constitution consists of the original, framed in 17H7 (and under which the present ( rovernmi'nt lirst went into operation), and twelve sidist'Ciui'Utly-frauntl amenduienls, the lirsL ten of which weri' framed in 178:i. TlIK KATIIKKS AM> TllK ("ONSTlTirTlO.N. Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the " thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of our present (Jovernment. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to saj' they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names })eing familiar U) nearly all, and accessil)le to quite all, need not now be repeated. I take these "thirt^'-niue," for the present, as 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 Federal authority, or aiu'thing in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Cfovernment to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories? Upon this Seiuitor Douglas holds the allirmative, anil Ju-pub- licans the negative. This affirmative and denial form an issue; and this i.ssue — this (piestion — is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood better than we. Let us now inipiire whether the " thirty-nine" or any of thrm, ever actcil upon this question ; and if they did, how tlicy acted upon il — -how tlicy exi)ressetl that better understanding. In 17S4 — three years before the Constitution — the United Stiites then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other — the Congress of the Confederation had before thciu tlic question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the " thirty-nine'" who afterward framed tlie Constitution were in that Congress, and voted <»n that question. Of these, Roger Slu'rman, Thomas Milllin, NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27, 18G0. -)] 1 and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, ill their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal au- thority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal (J(jvernment to control as to slavery in Federal Territory. The other of the four, James McIIenry, voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it. In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the convention was in session framing it and while the Northwest Territory still was the only Territory owned by the United States — the same fjues- tion of prohibiting slavery in the Territory again came 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 voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything else, i)roperly forbade tlie Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal Territory. This time the pro- hibition became a law, being a part of what is now known as the Ordinance of '87. The question of Federal control of slavery in the Territories seems not to have been directly before the convention which framed the original Constitution, and hence it is not recorded that the " thirty-nine " or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question. In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the pro- hibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territor}'. The bill for this act was reported by one of the " thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsim- mons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Penn- sylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas or nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Con- stitution. They were: — John Langdon, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, Nicholas Gilman, William Few, George Read, William S. Johnson, Abraham Baldwin, Pierce Butler, Roger Sherman, Rufus King, Daniel Carroll, Robert Morris, William Patterson, James Madison, Thomas Fitzsimmons. 512 SPEECH OF LINCOLN, Tliis shows that in thi-ir un(k'rstandin<; no line dividing local frtnu Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly f(irl»ade Congress to prohibit slavery in the Feileral Territory; else both their fulelity to correct principle, and their oatii to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the pro- hibition. Again : George Washington, another of the " thirty-nine," was then President of the United SUites, and, as such, approved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus show- ing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the ConstituticMi, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal Trrritory. No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution,, Nortli Carolina ceded to the Federal 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 Ala- bama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal Government should not prohibit slaver}- in the ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then ac- tually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it — take control of it — even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization, they pro- hibited the bringing of slaves into the Territories, from any place without the United States, by line, and by giving freedom to slaves 80 brought. This act passed both branches of Congress with- out yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty- nine " who framed the original Ccjnstilution. They were John Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. Tlu-y 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 Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal Territory. In ls((:{, the Federal Government i)urchased the Louisiana coun- try. Our former Territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1S()4, Congress gave a Territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes tlu' State of Louisiana. New Or- lf tl thirty-nine," so far as I havi* discovered, have left no record of tiieir understanding upon the direct (juestion of Federal control of slavery in tiie I'ederal Territo- ries. Hut there is much n-ason to believe that their understanding U|M»n that (juestion would not havt- appeariMl dilFerent from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifcslc«l at all, NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27, 18(iO. 515 For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested i»v any person, however distinguished, other than the " thirty-nine " fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have heen mani- fested by any of the " thirty-nine" even, on any other phase of the general question of slaver}-. If we should look into their acts and declarations on these other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of Federal control of slavery in 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 J)r. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris; while there Avas not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina. The sum of the whole is, that of our '-thirty-nine ' fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one, a clear majority of the whole, certainly understood that no proper division of local from Federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Terri- tories, while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution ; and the text aUirms that they un- derstood the question better than w-e. THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. But, SO far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amend- ing it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of Govern- ment 'under which we live consists of that original and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now in- sist that Federal control of slavery in Federal Territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Died Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that " no person shall be deprived of property v/ithout due process of law;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amend- r)16 SPEECH uF l.lNt (»LN, ment, providing that " the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution " •• are reserved to the States respec- tively or to the people." Now it so hapiK'US thiit these ainemlim-nls were fniincd by the liret Congress which sal under the Cimstitiilion — the identical Congress which passed the aet already mentioned, enforcing the prt>hihition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress. Imt they were the ich'ntical .same indivitlual men who, at tlie same session, and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in {irogress towtird maturity, these Constitutional amenihnenls and this aet prohiliiting slavery in all the territory tlie nation then owned. The Constitutional amend- ments were introduced before and pas.sed after the act enforcing the Ordinance of 1787; so tiiat during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending. That Congress, consisting in all of seventy-six members, inclutl- ing sixteen of the framers of the original Constituti(jn, as before stated, were pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of the government under which we live which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal (lovernn)cnt to control slavery in the Federal Terri- tories. Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to alllrm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such atlirmation become impu- dently absurd when coupled with the other atlirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to be in- consistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we — better tiian he who allirms that they are inconsistent? It ii? surely safe to assume that the "thirty-nine" framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Con- gress which franjcd the amendments thereto, taken together, do cer- tainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who frameil the (Jovernment under which we live." And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever in his whole life dcclarcil that, m his understanding, any propiT division of local from Federal authority, (»r any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Terri- tories. I go a stc|i fiiitlicr. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27. 1860. 517 present century (and I might almost say prior to tliu beginning of the hist half of the present century), declare that, in his under- standing, 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. To those who now so declare, I give, not only "our fathers who framed the (Govern- ment under which we live," but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to lind the evidence of a single man agreeiug with them. Now, and here, let me guard against ])eiiig 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 iiglits of current experience, to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers iu any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclu- sive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand ; and most assuredly not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we. If au}^ man, at this day, sincerely believes that a proper divis- ion of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument wdiich he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who have less aocess to history and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that " our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," were of the same opinion, thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evi- dence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers, who framed the Government 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 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 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 we live, understood this question just 518 SPEECH OF LINCOLN. P.S w?U, and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. Tliis is uU Ki-pultrK-aiis ask all ll.-piililicans (Ifsiiv — in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, hut tt) \k> tolerated and protected only because of and so far us its actual presence amonj; us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guarantees those fathers ijave it, l)e, not j^rudgingly, but fully and fairly, maintained. For this, llepubli- cans contend, and with this, so far as 1 know or believe, they will be content. And now. if they would listen — as I suppose they will not — 1 would address .\ VKW Words Tu TIIK .SorTIIKIl.V peopi.k. I would say to them; You consider youselves u rea.sonable and just people, and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Kei)ublicans, you do so oidy to donounce us as n-ptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, liut nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems au unconditional condemnation of " Black l{('i)ulilican- ism " as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemna- tion of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite — license, so to speak — among j'ou. 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 (juite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring for- ward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. You say we are sectional. \Ve urselves as to what tliat substitute shall be. You have consider- able variety of new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the okl policy of the fathers. Some of 3'ou are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional slave code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to pr(>hil)it slavery within their limits; some for maintaining shivery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the " gur-reat pur-rinciple " that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should ol)ject," fantastically called '•Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the practice of our fathers who framed the Government under which we live. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stal)le foundations. Again, you say we have made the slaver}' question more promin- ent 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, j-our innovation ; and thence comes the greater promin- ence 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 the old times, re-adopt the precepts and policy of the old times. You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; aiul what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John IJrown ! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republicai. in his Harpers Ferry enterprise. If un) 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 inexcusal)le not to designate tlie man and jjrove the fact. If 3'ou ilo not know- it, 30U are inexcusable to as.sert it, and especially to persist 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 slander. NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27. 18G0. 521 Some of 3'ou admit that no Republican (lesiiiiiediy -.inU'il or en- couraged the Harper s Ferry affair, but still insist that o.i;- doctrines and declarations necessaiily lead to sueii results. We ilo ncjt be- lieve it. We know we hold to no doctrines, and make no declara- tions, which were not held to and made by our fathci's who framed the Government under which we live, You never dealt fairly l»y us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important 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 advan- tage of us in those elections. The elections came, and ycur exi)ecta- tions were not quite fullilled. Every Kepublican man knew that, as to himself at least, j^our charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in j^our favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference 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 belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For any- thing we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Re- publican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing. In 5'our political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to be simply insurrec- tion, and blood and thunder, among the slaves. Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were be- fore the Republican party was organized. What induced the South- ampton insurrection, 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 South- ampton was got 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 insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary free men, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels: but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains. Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true 522 SPEECH (»F LINCOLN, A plDt for the uprising fould sctiively Iil* devised and communicated to twenty iniliviiliials before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. Tliis is the rule; and the slavi- revolution in Ilayti was not an exception to it, but a case i>ccurring under peculiar circumstances. 'I'iic gunpowder plot of British history, though not conniH-lcd with slaves, was more in pt»int. In that case only al»out twenty were atlmitteil to the secret; and yet one of tliem, in his anxiety to save a frienil, i)etrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consecjuence, averted the calamity. Occasi(jnal poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the iield, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this coun- try lor a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed. In the language of Mr. Jellerson, uttereil many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and de- portation peaceal)ly. and in such slow ilegrees, as that the evil will wear olf insensibly; and their places be, puri passu, filled up bj' free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up." Mr. Jetferson did not mean to sa^', nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal riovernmeut, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution — the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery. John Hrowns eJFort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrec- tion. It was an attempt by white men to get \\\) a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all tlu-ir ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corres- ponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassina- tion of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than in liis own execution. Orsini s attempt on Louis Najioleon, and .John Brown s atti-mpt at Harper's Ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27, 1860. 523 on old England in the one case, and on New England in the otiici-, does not disprove the sameness of the two things. And how much would it avail you, if you could, hy the use of John Brown, Helpers 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 judgment 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 sentiment — by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter 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 cre- ated it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? \Vould the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation? But you will break up the Union, rather than submit to a denial of 3'our Constitutional rights. That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of num- bers to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Con- stitution. But we are proposing no such thing. 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 property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitu- tion. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Con- stitution, even by implication. Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will destroy the Government unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Con- stitution as 3'ou please, on all points in dispute between 3'ou and u>. You will rule or ruin in all events. This, plainly stated, is N'our lan- guage to us. Perhaps you will say that the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The court have substantially said it is 30ur Constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, T mean it was- made in a divided court, by a bare majority of the judges, and 524 SPEECH nF LINCOLN. tluy not quite agreeing witii one another in the reasons for making il. thai it is so made as tliat its avoweij supporters disagree with one ant)lher about its meaning; and thai it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact — the statement in tiie opinion that •• the riglit of property in a shive is distinctly an disturb thcin. niT, SrtlXll OF LINCOLN. Tlu'si* naiunil uiul iippurcntly acU'quato means all failing, what will convinci' tlu'iu? This, and tins only. CV'ase to call slavtTV wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly — done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated — we must place ourselves avowedl}- with them. Senator Douglas's new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppres- sing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. \Vc must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State Constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disin- fected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this wav. Most of them would pnjbably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing 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 .sny which dissatisfies them. The}' will continue to ac- cuse us of ifniiif/ until we cease xiti/inij. I am also aware the}' have not, as yet, Tn terms, deniainled tli«* overthrow of <»ur Free State Constitulions. Vet those Constitutions declare the wrong (tf slavery with more solemn emphasis than do all other sayings again.st it ; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the ovt-rlhrow of these Constitutions will be demauiled, and nothing be left to resist the demand It is nothing to the con- trary that they do not demand the whole of this just now Demand- ing what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this.consummation. Holding, as they do, that shivery is morally right and socialU' elevating, they can not cease to demand a full national recognition 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 Constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced and swejjt away. If it is right, y,o can not justly object to its nationality — its universalit} : if it is wrong, they can not justly insist upon its extension — its enlargement All they ask we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right ; all we ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong Their thinking it right, :iinl our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depemls the whole controversy Thinking it right, »s th<*y do, Ihey are not to blame for desiring its fidl recognition, NEW YORK CITY. FEBRUARY 27, 1860. 527 as being riglit; 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 responsibilities, can we do this ? Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet :i(Tord 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 prevent it, allow it to spread into the national Territories, 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 wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored — contrivances such as groping for some middle 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 "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care; such as Union appeals, beseeching true Union men to yield to dis- unionists, reversing the Divine rule, and calling, not. the sinners, but the righteous to repentance ; — such as invocations to Washing- ton — imploring men to unsay what Washington said and undo what Washington did. Neither let us be slandered from our 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. LIN( OL.N AM) TllK .^I'UlNCiFlKi.l) J'UKAC'llKKS. From lliiliiiid'n " Life of Abraham rjnrn/u." Mr. Newton Batcmtm, Superintendent of I'lihlic Instruction for the State of Illinois, occupiccl a room adjoining and opening into tlie Kxeeutive Chainher. Freciuentiy this door was open during Mr. Lincoln's n-ceptions ; and throughout the seven months or more of his occupation, Mr. IJateman saw him nearly every da}'. Often when Mr. Lincoln was tired he closed his door against all intrusic>n, and called Mr. iiateman into his room for a quiet talk. On one of these occasions Mr. Lincoln took up a book containing a careful canvass of the city of Springfield in which he lived, showing the candidate for whom each citizen had declared it his intention to vote in the approaching election. Mr. Lincoln s friends had, doulitless at his own recjuest, placed the result of the canvass in his hands. This was toward the close of October, and only a fiw days before the election. Calling Mr. Bateman to a seat at his side, having previously locked all the doors, he said: " IjCt us look over this Itook. I wish particularly to see how the ministers of Springfield are going to vote.'' The leaves wc-re turned, one by one, and as the names were examined, Mr. Lincoln frecpiently asked if this one and that were not a minister, or an elder, or the mem- ber of such or such a church, and sadly expressed his surprise on receiving an afllrmative answer. In that manner they went through the book, and then he closed it and sat silently and for some min- utes regarding a memorandum in pencil which lay before him. At length he turned to Mr. Bateman with a face full of sadness, and said: " Here are twentj'-three ministers, of different denominations, and all of tlitni are against me but three; and here are a great many prominent members of the cliurehes, a very large majority of wlioni are against me. Mr. Bateman, I am not a Christian — y the Presi- dent " before he enters on the executitJii of his ollice."' I do not c(msider it necessary, at present, for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that, by the accession of a Republican administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such appreiiension. Indei-d, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches, wiien I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the insti- tution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right U) do so; and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with the full knowledge that I had made this and man}' similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which 1 now read: — '• /iVWr«'oliti- cjil fabric di-jM-nd; unf of a peaceful solution of the national tn.ul)k-.s, and tiic restoration of fraternal sympathies and airections. That there are persons, in one section or another, who seek to destroy the Vuum at all ev.nts, and are glad of any pretext to (!<. it, I will neither allinn nor deny. Hut if there be such, I need ad- ilress no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union, may I not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, wouUl it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you tly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you lly to are greater than all the real ones yon fly from? Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mis- take? All profess to be content in the Union, if all Constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. llap- jMly, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly-written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly-written Constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution ; it certainly would, if such right were a vital one. I>iit such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by allirmations and negations, guaranties and pro- hibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concern- ing them. liut no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question whicli may occur in practi- cal administration. No foresight can antieii)ate, nor any dociimi'iit of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all jiossible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by nati..u.il (»r by State authorities? The Constitution does not expressly say. .}fay Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories ? The Constitution dm-s not expressly say, M,>st Congress protect slavery in the Terri- tories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions WASHINGTON. MARCH 1, ISni 535 of lliis class, spring all our Constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. Tluro is no alternative for contiiiuiny takiutx time: hut no <;oo(l oI)ieet ean he frustrated by it. tSueh of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitu- tion unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no imme- diate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatislied hold the right side in the dispute, there is still no single good rea.son for ))recipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favcjred land, are still com- petent to adjust, in the best way, all present didiculties. In 3'our bands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrj'men, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The (lovernment will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being 3'ourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destro}' the Government; while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and de- fend it. I am loth to close. We are not enemies, hut friends. AVe mus;t not l)e enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not hn':ik, our ])onds of ali'ection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, v/ill yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT LLNCUEX At the Dedication of the Oettysburr/ National Cemetery, X<>rernhrr If), 1SC3. Fourscore Jind seven years ago our fathers brought forward on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dccbcated, to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing wlieliier that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long en- dure. We are met on a great biittle-field of that war. "We liave come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate — we cannot conse- crate — we cannot hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work Avhich they who fought here have thus far §o nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion ; that we here highly resolve th.at these dead shall not have died in vain ; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birfli of freedom ; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth. [539] LINCOLN'S SECOND LNALdlKAL ADDRESS. Dtlirrrfii .Vitrrfi 4, 1S<'>.'>, nt Wa*hington. Fellow-Countuymkn: At this soooiul appcarint:; to take the oath of the Pn'sulential oUlee, theiv is less oeeasiou for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in (U'tail, of a conrse to be pnrsued, seemed very fittinij and proper. Xo>v, at the expiration of four veal's, during whieh pul)lic d'-c-hu-.i- tions have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest whieh still absorbs the attt^ntioa and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chietly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, rea- simably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no pretlictiou in regard to it is ventured. On the occasion corresponding to this, four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it; all sought to avoid it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the cit}' seeking to destroy it without war — seeking to dissolve the Union and divide the effects by negotiation. IJoth parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather t!>rin let it perish. And the war came. One eighth o{ the whole po|)ulation were colored slaves, not dis- tributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar ami powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somelu»w the cause of the war. To strengthen, pt-rpetuate, and exteiul this interest, was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the (lovemment claimed no right to do more than to restrict the Terri- torial enlargement of it. Neither party expei'te.l for the war the magnitmle or the dura- tion which it has already attiiined. Neither anticipated that the cauHC of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict [510] WASH I N(, 'ION, MAIl' ii i |>v;:,. r,|j iiHcW hUouUI (•asm;. K;u;)i look«-- ported the Missouri Compromise, i'^; Douglas relates death-lied sci-ne, 117; statement of, as to how slavery en- tered the Colonies, 157; Lincoln de- scribes the death-bed scene, l.V<: on slavery. 193; on slavery in District <»f Columbia, 30;i; leader of the Union men in lff49-'r>0, 2.39, 240, IKHi :W; the Colonization Society and slavery, '.VU; on equality clause in Declaration of Independence, 410, 411, 4;i3, 4:14; and Lincoln. 4.30 ct xc*;. Climate, influence of. on slavery. 10. Colonies, how slavery entered the. l.'i". Compromise of 1850, analysis of. 7; en- dorsed by Democrats and Whigs as a •• liuality " of slavery (luestiou. 7. 10.5, [3431 :tu IXDKX. 1(W, i'lT; prlnolplo of oqnlvnlonts In, i:t, U; wlillc Lliu-oln fiiilorsiil tlii". 14, l.">; I)i>u>;las vliiUlfutos, IC; illcl in»t n-pnil tlif MlsMjtirl t'omproiiiLsf, i')7; uttoiiipt to tun-v Kansas In under Let'onipton (Uiiistitution, a »;rrtnerly owned part of Olilo, L'; alM)llilon of slavery In, 417. Congress. See l'. S. Conuuess. Congressional. See l'. S. <'(>Nt;itKSS. Conspiracy to nationalize slavery. Lin- coln'-, speecli at ."^prlnj;ll»'lli; l>ou^'lits replies to Lincoln's cliafKe of, IX et *(•<;., i:u, ;J04 .Irti, 3rt); to make slavery " jjerpi-liial, national, and universal." Lincoln. I.VI .lli(); tlic cliar;;i' of conspiracy a fair ojie, Lin- «'oln. ls't-ls«>; U'tween President Pierce. President lUiclianan. the .ludpesof tlie Supreme Court, and Stephen A. Dou;;- las, ilO ft .s((/. Constitution. Sie l'. S. ('(institittion. Correspondence, between Lim-oln and l», cuuceruluK the jt)lnt debates, li'.t 11.4. Crittenden-Montgomery Bill, to refer the Li- compton Constitution back to the peo- ple of Kansas. G:.'; supported by Re- publii-ans. '.Hi. VSk Critienden, John J., of Kentucky, opposed Lecoiiiptoii Constitution. '.»i. IZ'}. Curtis. Judge B. R., on the ne^iro's jjart In franiin;; the T'. S. Constitution, 4.'>; opinion of. in the Dred Scott t-ase. 4.'). Davis, Jeflerson, on slavery in the Tei-ri- tories. 4:r>. Debates between Lincoln and Douglas, con-e- s|).in(leri imcci niiiL'. lill-liH. Decisions. See .Ir nu i \i. KKtisio.NS. Decbralicn of Independence, Liiimln mi: vlol.iieil by repeal <.f Missouri Com- promisi', h. 0; ei|iiullty cluu.se In, ill. 47; "let us readopt the," :ci; "sni-eredal. and construed, and liawketl at," 4*1; e(|nallty cl.-iuse In, to be ii stiini- bliii;; bliH-k lo all who would brln^' desiMitism, 4^•, .ludtre Douglas's "ver- sion" of, 4U; Contains the suKKcstlon of tlie Individual rights of nuin, 4!l; shall It be frittered awayV 49; "pop- ular sovereignly" orl^'lnaled In, Ts; what the worils nu-an to forel;;n«'rs In the I'niled Stales, Mt; <»bject of fourth of ,luly celebrations, m»; If «)n<> suy. the e<|uallty clause In It does not mean nejfro. " why not another say It olyj?amy self-f;overnment (|uestion, 40. 41 ; no such thiiiL,' as " Free State Democrats" In Kansas. 42; the loftlc of their position on slavery meant aiual^:imation, r>0, ol ; "rulon- savers,".'"):i; did not defeat the Lecomi>- ton Constitution, 79, 80; division in, 9S; either abolition o."tlemocratic prin- ciples must no down, iW; Cincinnati platform, only authoritative declara- tion of jjrlnciples of, 9S; ctjndition of the party In IsVs '.»s 100; bolting I)euu> crat.s, Sii); tlid not i-onsider itself bound by the Supreme Court decision in the National bank case. l.'iO; Its ])ositioii on slaviry prior to l.s">4, 2:ki, ::40. ;«Vi-:i05t; some Democratic resolutions as to slavery. iMl-aXi; convention at NaiK-r- vllle, 111., endorses " Wllniot Proviso" and thinks all nieti should be fre4', ^14; a fundamental article of the Demo- cratic creed that ther«' should lie niui- Interference and non-lntervi-ntlon with slavery In the St;ites or Terri- tories, iNi; rejiudlate and abandon the Kn^llsh bill, .MO. 4:i.'; l(»ck to all who would brlnj;. 4s; unlforndty the pa- rent of. OS. District of Cjlumbia. slavi-ry In. 7; abol- ished by Compromise of KMI, 7; Con- Kre.ss on slavery in, 14; Liucolu uot, INDEX. 545 pledged to aljolition of slavery in, 201 ; Lincoln's wish for abolition of slavery in, 203. Divine Right of Kings, iirfjuments in helialf <; a test of political orthodoxy, 3:58; a test In Illinois, 340; repudiated and aban- doned by tho Democratic party, 340. Equality, of all men can save the Union and make it worthy of being saved, 32; points of, between negroes and whites, 47; tho Fathers did not place all white men on an e(|uality, 47; meaning of equality clause in the Declaration of Independence, 47, 48; lot us have, as nearly as we can, 91; among States of the United States a cardinal principle. 94, 339; right of the negro to be on an equality with tho white man, a divine right, 112; negroes equal to whites, 139; " who shall say, 'I am the superior'?" 1.59; the negro not equal to the white man, 173, 174; Lincoln's whole idea on, 178- ISO; of blacks and whites, Judge Mayo's views on. 264, 2(j5; views of Colonel Richard M. Johnson on, 3.S4; Fathers of the United States Constitution, op- posed to carrying slavery into new United States Territories, 29; objected to slavery, only admitted it as a neces- sity, 29, 30; blamed nritish king for in- troducing slavery, 29; foreboro U) use tlie words "slave" or "slavery" in U. S. Constitution, 29; spirit of *76 and spirit of Nebraska antagonistic. 31; what they meant by the equality clause in tho Declaration of Independ- ence, 47; were wise when they or- 540 INDEX. dainod that thf ro should l>o sovorolun StatfS, 6S; expoctt'd the ultimate ex- tlnetloii of slavery, >t;; their ijosltlon «>n slavery, I>()u;;las, 171 -17-4 ; policy as to slavery, Liiu-oln, i'>l, iV>, 40(i, 407. 470 ct HCii.; a clear majority "of the ;(it "opposed to slavery, ."il4; did not liii- derstaiidthat the Federal Coiistitut ion forbade them to control slavery in United Stales Terrltorii's. ."ilG; wean- not liound to follow implicitly all that they s;iy, Lincoln, .')17 Federal Union, IJncoln l>elioves In. 2."); he would r.-ither see slavery than dissolu- tion of, :i'>; equality of all men can save and make worthy of heinj; saved, '.H; Lincoln declares Ids devotion to It, 3.'^; Democratic party, " I'liion savers." 53; will not ho dissolved, Lincoln, !i2; can only Ijo preserved hy mainlainin.-; fraternal feeling between the Nortli and the Soutli, Douglas, US; Is a '•House dividid against itself," ISl; Douglas exi)resses devotion to, KS); why It cannot endure half Slave and half Free, Lincoln, 354; how does Lincoln propose to save it, Douglas, 395; slavery the only thing that has ever threatened the existence of, Liti- coln, 444; is per|)otual according to the United States Constitution, 'r!S; much older than United States Consti- tution, 5:t2; was formed by the Articles of .Association in 1774, 5.'J2. Florida, secession of, fvJS. Freedom, white man's charter of, In danger, 31; if it cannot be given to all. give to as many as possible, 91; down- trodden people of all the world look to the United States as the home of free- dom aiKl self-government. 2:.'0. Free Slates, should not have adv.-mtage over Slave States, 94; Lincoln did not Intend that the people of the Free States should enter the Slave States and interfere with slavery, 10:3. Free Soil Party, Kd. Fugitive Slave Law, j)assed In 18.50, 7; jjart of l.s.'iO Compromise, 7; Douglas states Lincoln's position on, 195, 220-2i-i; Liii'-oln's position on. 201, 202. Georgia, formerly owned Mississippi. :I: sccisslnti of. .'VCJ. Giddings, J. R.. Ohio Congressman, 2. Harper's Magazine, Stejjlien A. Douglas's essay In. 4C.:.'. UV-i. House Divided Against Itself, Lincoln's speech on. .52 .5!t; Douglas's opinion of the "house divided against itself" argument, firt-(lH, 100 104, 171-174, 217 ;.M".t. 252, Ziii, 410, 417; Lincoln's argument on, W) K2, 12ft rt Hr/].. 151-1.54, 2)H, 4:15, 4:!i!, iS3 ct 8Cfj.; "docs the Judge say u 00. Individual Rights, Lincoln on, Ki. Institutions, preservation and perpetuity of, 24. Iowa, formerly part of Louisiana Terri- tory, 4; slavery prohibited in, by Mis- souri Compromise, 4; entered as a Free State, If). Jackson, General Andrew, President of the United States, disregards t lie decision of the Supremo Court in the National Bank case, 4:i; considi-rs mere prece- dent a dangerous source of authority, 4:j; holds that it is the duty of each Ijublic functionary to support the Constitution as he understands It, 4\ 41; vetoes the recharter of the Na- tional Bank, 85, 8t>. IM\; opinion on the sacredness of judicial decisions, ft), 81), 1.50. Jefferson, Thomas, a slave holder, 3; pre- vailed on N'irginia legislature to nuike tlie prohibition of slavery a condition of cession of the Northwestern Ter- ritory to the National Government, 3, on the power of the courts In Con- stitutional questions, 1.5(5; letter of, to .Tarvls, 1.5erty, ;{02; on emanci|)a{lou of slaves in the United States. .5-.'2. Johnson, Colonel R. M., views on the equal- ily of neLTiiies and whites, 2H4. Judicial Decisions, have two uses. Lincoln, 42. s.">; Lincoln on the respect !ind obedience which should be pal: Ilie.sat'rcdru'ssof.W). S(i; HL'ed confinnalion bcfoi'e rcLrardcd as si'tth^d law, K"); the Deniocratit- party was not hound by them in the Na- tional Bank case, 150; are they a "Thus saith the Lord?" I')l. 1<«; the National Bank decision, 1!):; .Tudt;i' Douglas's record concerninR, T.i:i; Douglas attacks Lincoln's position on, 249-352. Kansas, formerly part of Louisiana Ter- iit()7-y, 4; slavery i)rohibited in, by Missouri Compromise, 4; Kansas- Nebraska bill passed, 8; Free Stal'- men in, did not vote at the Constitu- tional convention, 41; 18.)7 election in.* 41; no Free State Democrats in, 42; at- tempt of a minoritj' to force into the Union under Lec^ompton Constitution. 93; proposition of Congress to, 95; "bogus" legislature of, 109; Lincoln questions Douglas concerning his views on the admission of, 266; confer- ence among United States Senators in regard to "enabling act." 2.s7 ct scq.; Trumbull's charge of plot to form con- stitution for, 287 ct scq. ; Douglas re- views Trumbull's arraignment of hi;ii (Douglas) for participating in a plot 1 > force a constitution upon Kansas, 29< et seq. ; plot to form a constitution for, and bring into the Union, without sub- mitting the constitution to a vote of the people, 334, 3J.>; " whenever Kansas has enough population for a Slave State she has enough for a Frei^ State," Douglas, 3!;); right of, to be a Slave State, 340; Lecompton Constitu- tion rejected by the people of, 341: Douglas on the admission of,- under the Lecompton Constitution, 420, 421. Kansas-Nebraska Bill, when passed, 8; an- alysis of, 8; object of, 17; urged as a " Union-saving" measure, 3i); peculiar structure of, 26; authors of, not satis- fied with the destruction of tin- Missouri Compromise, 28; principle sought to bo esta'ulished by, 2s ; sla- very would not be extended by, Doug- las, 32; what the principles of it did for Illinois, 33; Judge Douglas compares principles of, to princii)le ; enunciated in Eden, i54; Lincoln replies to Judge Douglas's " Eden " argument on, 34; argument for. likened to ofd ar- gument on divine right of kings, Lin- coln, M; ditfers from Utali. New Mc\- ico and Washington Territorial acts. 37; "grand, gloomy, and peculiar," 37; left the people (if the Territories free to Inive or e.xclude slavery, ni; "the people null/ e.xclude slavery," amend- ment defeated, ni; to carry slavery into all the Free States, jV; ()bje<'tof, t o secure the right of sel f-governmunt, Douglas 64; introduced Into United States Senate, 9:1; object of. Douglas, 92; great principles of, endorsed by lte|)ul)lican party, %; In conformity witli principles of the Compromise of I8.-)0, Dougla.s, 97, 10!), 124; d<-clared Missouri Compromise act unconstitu- tional and void, Douglas, 132; why the amendment stating that the people of a Territory may exclude slavery was voted down, ISO 188; why the word "State" was in it, Lincoln, IS7; the Chase amendment to, 198, 199; why the word "State" was in it, Douglas, 199; why the Chase amendment was voted down, Lincoln, 207 211; Dred Scott case not on i, 428. Kentucky, formerly owned by Virginia, 2; no abolitionist would enter to fight, 102; why a Slave State, Lincoln, ">00. Labor and Capital, Lincoln on, 50-3-.506. Lawgiver, the intention of the, is the law, .Vil. Lecompton Constitution, quarrel between I'residenti Uuchaiian M'ld .fudge I>oug- las as to whether it wa-> made by tlie people or not. 54; hist()ry and analysis of, 60-62; basis of Judge Douglas's ol> j»>ctions to, ()i>, 92, 93, 420. 421; the liepulj- licans, not the Democrats, defeated it. Lincoln, 79, 80; made by a minority of the people of Kansas, 93; Douglas did not oppose on account of slavery clause in, 93; provisions of the Eng- lish bill concerning. 91. 120; a(iuestion of fact, not principle, between the lUichanan and the Douglas men and Republicans, 148; Lincoln tells who defeated it, 148-151; why not an emination of the people, l.V); Douglas styles the attempt to force Kansas into Uw. Union under, a gross viola- tion of the principle enunciated in the Compromise Measures of iS'iO, .'tl8; re- jected by the people of Kansas. 341; posit i(ni of President Buchanan on. 421. 422. 548 TN'DFA'. Liberties, Lincoln on the proscrvutlon iiikI |M-riM-ii)ity of, ^2^. Lli>«rt^ liiiN itiimmI to Ih< r*'V('Pt»d as h j)rliu'l|il<', Lliifolii, :.'<.•; Lincoln (li-cliinvs till- tt-at-liliit; of l>out;liis will "ruliout tlie MMitinicnt of IllH-rty," IR); It Istlu; rljjhl of i>vi>ry liiinian ln-lnu, Madison, 91: iic-;;r«K>s fnlltli'd U). 1M>; Lincoln tifclan-s I)on;;las not In favor of niaU- InK any tJHTtTcni'i' In'twoi-n slavery iind lilHTty. :ri);; .JctTtTson on. ;*>:i: Lin- coln tlilnks tliat tlu> wliltc man's lib- erty Is tlircaifiu'd hy tbA bluck man's sliivi-ry. 44-J. Lovejoy. Owen, preamble and resolutions for ICt'imlillcan party In Senatorial conlcNt. ii'>, '^\. Louisiana, entered I'nlon us a Slave Stale, A: secession of. .'vC. Louisiana Territory, purchased from l"raiic-e. 4; Staler Included in, 4; part of. orj;anlzed as a Terrltijry. ."ili; Con- gressional regulations concerning slaves in, HVi. Madison. James, would not bring " Billey " back to Ixmiiage. 01; liberty the right nf every liuiii.'in being. 91. Mayo, Judge 2. 8., views on the equality of Macks and wliiles, •2i'i4. 2C>.">. Methodist Church. dividelave? y ([uestlon, 441. Mexico. Mexican Acquisition, etc., war wlili. .">; resoliit ions In Hou>e coMi'erning. .">; treaty of pe;ice wit h, tl; ai'ijuircd Mexi- can territory, would lie south of Mis- souri Cloniproniiso line, if said line were extc-nded. tj; New ^Mexico. T'tali. and California Included In Mexican ac(|ulsltion. li; resolutions concertdng slavi'ry In .Mexican ac(|uisltion, 6; Lin- coln n'views. r)ouglas's charges in re- gard to his (Lincoln's) position on, 3::i. :C2. Michigan, formerly part of Northwestern Teriiliiry. L'. Ministers of Springfieid, position of, on slavery. .'»:>. .VJli. Minnesota, formerly part of Louisiana Terrlt4iry. 4; slavery prohibited in, by MUMiurl Coinproinise, 4. Minority, when Just Hied in breaking out liiio revolution. .'VIM. Mississippi, former ownership of, 2; ter- ril4)rlal organixatlon of, rtl'2; r«'gula- tlons concerning slaves In, .'>12; succes- sion of. Xii. Motony, R. S., nondnated for Congress. 3'i2; vlew> of, on slav«'ry. Ji'ii. "JiVI; ap- (Mtlnted to o(Il<'e. '.ilU: , Iti; reasons why it ought to Ih- resfore; tlie Compromise of 'r>0; did not repeal the old Missouri Compro- mise, 2,">"; u bill substantially repeal- ing the Missouri Compromise. 257. Missouri Compromise, Ji/dj/r Dmifilnn itn: upliolds it. .">; admits tliat it was de- cl.ired unconstitutional and void by Kansas-Nebraska bill, 132. Mulattoes, number of. In United States in 1S.V1. ,">0; numlx>r of. In Free States in 1 s">(), .'.0. National Bank, Supreme Court decision as to tiie constitutionality of. 43, 44; .lud,;e D.iuglas denounced the decision on tile. 44; President .lackson vetoed re-charter of. S"!. 1:V5. 1>7. l.">s. P.O. Nebraska ,Bill, See Kansas-Nebr.vsk.\ lUi.i,. Nebraska, formeily part of Louisiana Territory, 4; slavery prohiljlted in, by Missouri Compromise, 4, H; Kansas- Nebraska Hill passed. S; right of the National (Jovernnient to control, 22; slavery in, u national question, 2t; spirit of, antagonistic to the spirit of LTiJ, ai. Negroes, Lincoln on: numlKT of free ne- groes in tin' United States, 19; in our greedy chase to make profit out of, wi' <'ancel a.Mil tear to plei;es evt-n the whlt« man's charter of freedom, id; how the free negnn's in the Slave Stat4?s were counted as voters, X>; are human, .'(7; the Uidti-d States Consti- tution was made In part, at least, liy and for negroids. 44, 4."); rightof free ne- groes to voti' taken away in New .Ters»>y and Nortit Carolina and abridged In New ^'ork, 4.">; free negroes were vot- ers In live Stat»'s when United States Constitution was made. 4.'*; (Hilnts in widch they are equal to white m«-n, 47; the ndxlng of the races. 49 .'C; niynlM'rof negriH's in New Hampshire and ill Virginia, ,'iO: slavery ine.ans amalgamation. .Vi; "counterfeit logic " of l>onglason negr«jes and their rela- ilou to whites, 6S; "why, .Indkre, If INDEX. 549 we do not let them [tlic negroes and whites] get together n the Territories, they won't mix there," 88; argumeiKs for enslaving tlie negro sami- as ar- guments used by kings to enslave their i)eople, 90; the legal effects of the Dred Scott decision, such as (o deprive the negro of the rights of clll- zenshii), i:t(> et gcq.; not necessary to set up a court of negroes in order to reverse the Dred Scott decision, l.'W; rights of the negro, l.V.t, KiO; Lincoln's whole idea on the eijuallly question, 178, ITlt; negroes entitled to all the natural rights eiiuraerated in the Dec- laration of IndejH'ndence, 180; Lincdhi not in favor of maUing voters or jurois of negroes, 2H.i; not in favor of negro citizenship, 317; our e(iuals under tlic Declaration of Independence, in re- spect to rights of "life, liberty, ami the pursuit of happiness," ;t.'')3; Lincoln does not believe in negro sutfrage. 4.59; thinks the enslavement of the negro is an Injury to the white man. 490; Lincoln reviews Douglas's w- marks on "the negro and the croco- dile," 490, 491. Negroes, Judue D(nnjl. Northwestern Territory. .MKsourl Compro- nilst! ap|)lled to it only, 3; orlglnully owned by Virginia, 3; comprised the prinr-li)al i>arl of (ihlo, all Indiana, all Illinois, all Michigan, all \Vls.-..nslii, 3; slavery prohlliitc00, .'•OI. See also OKDI.NANTB OK I7s7. Ohio, part of, was C(»riiprlsed In North- western Territory, 3; part of, furinerty belonged to Ctmni-i-tlcul. 3; requests pei'mlsslon to violate the Ordinani-e of '87, and lo bring in slaves, 47J; Imw Ohio lu'came a Free State, 49'.l, .'iOft; Ordinance o! 1787, restrains shivery. 3, 470; the proiiiltltion of slavery by, aciiuiesced in till ls48, 3; petition of Indiana and Ohio to bring in slaves in spite of the Ordinance of 's7, 4?3; how it made a Free State of Ohio, 4911. .'WO; not so enforced as to destroy tlu> existing Institution of slavery In Illi- nois, rM; Act of tlrst United States Congress to enforci' the Ordinance, ■)1 1 ; Washington on. 510. Oregon, Territory of Washington formed a part of. 36. Pettit. Senator John, styles the "eciuallty " statement of the I )i'cl:irat ion nf I ndv- l)i'ndence "a self-i\ iilrni lie " 31, Cc'. Pierce, Franklin B., President of United States. Lincoln charges him with being in a (;onspiracy t ) nationalize slavery, 197, 310. 330, 331, 304 et ncpu- lar sovereignty theory a "miner and sapper," 461, 4.S0; Lincoln's distinction between Douglas's popular .sover- eignty and true popul.ir sovereignly, 4(11; the Douglas popular sovereignty applied. 461. 463, ri03. ri03; as a principle. 478 480; what will follow if it Is estab- lished, 4.S0; Douglas's popular sover- eignty doctrine means the esfabllsh- nieiit of the slave trade. 491, 493; Lin- coln defines true popular sovereignty. 503, .503. r»r>o INDEX. Precedentt. » ilanRcmus soun-o tit uu- tliiitily, 4^1; all pri-ct'dcnts u;;:iiiist tlu' 111.. I >f4.il l».-.Kl,.ii, 44. St'o als«» Jl- I>1«IA1. llKl l^lllNS. Preib)(i.rian General Assembly, dIsturlH'd by nI.i vrry ((UinI Ion. 4JI. Protidencjf ol United Slates. lUnivrla-^. I>>-i:i<>- cnitli- : l.iiu-olii, Kf- Itulilli-aii caiidUlalc for. 14.">. Principle, slavery Mriij:Kl<'. om- of, 14.">. Profit, "our Krt'wly chusi- to luako ])r<)lll of till- iii';rro." 31. Property, I'liltrd States Huprcnu' Court tIc.-Klnii In the Unil Si-olI >a>f assi-rt s that tlie riilt<oiii;las, 7:t; Lincoln on the "allied army" of the, 7.">, 7i'>; Uncoln says It iH'lleves In popular sover- t'ltriity, 7H; the Kepublicaiis not the iH'nicKTat.s defeated the Li'coniptoii Constitution, Tit, Nl; what the endorse- ment of .ludjre ]>on;:las would mean to the, h?; supi)Orted the Crlttt-iiden- Moiit;;oniery l)ill, iKi; endorsed the Kansas-Nebraska bill, Dou^'las. »>: ]>ou);las on the "Republican creed," 12.">; disadvantapes sulferi'd by the party In Illinois, 14.'1, 144; Kinesis of the, lf*\, lt',7; lirst resolutions of, ac- cordln;^ t4, li»4, lll'i; platform of, adopted by tlie llockford, III., Convention, in lK.%4, i.'0-2i"); Ke- ])Ublican party and llie l''u;;itlve-Slave law, 2:33 22s; a sectional organization, 'M2; LiiK'oln reviews .ludpe Doujflas's ar;.'U!ni'nt tliat the jjarty is a sectional one, ;C>2 '.VA; dllTerence between the K<-pul>lican party and .Tud>re Douglas, .i.V,; think slavery wronu, '-isi. 44.1; .Iud).'e DoU);las says that the party ap- IH-als to the North a);alnst the South. :: " we for^'el riK'ht." -V; Jud^e DouclaH Hays that the negro .should not have all the riglits that tli<> white tnan has, 111; the negrii's, to Ih> on an i-<|iiallty with the white man, a divine rl-'lii 11 ; of 11 iMoi.le to form llnir own C9, 160; negnx-s ciililled to all the rights enumerali'd hi the Declaration of In- dependence, Isii; "right makes ndght," " Sacred Right ol Slavery," :iO, :tl. Secession, of seven States, .lit;. Se.l-government. the sacred right of, 30; what Is ^elf-government, at; the right of, iM'longs to communities, 2U; detini- flon of, -1; "sa«'red riglit tif sidf-gov- ernment" and tlie slavt; tratle, lU; as relat<'(i to the int roduct ion of slavery into a Territory, :i'i; slavi-ry a sacred right of, ;>1; doctrine of, for the Terri- tories a deceitful pret»'iise for the benefit of slavery, 40; the sacred right of, for I'tali and polygamists, 4<». 41; if one man diooses to en>.la ve anotiier, 11) third man may i;ilerfere, Lincoln on. "I'l; the most sacred ])rlnci|)le of, Douglas, (JO, 421), 4')i:irt «<<;.; right of the pi'ople to decide ujion their own laws, (j"i: I'n-e Stati'S should not Interfere wit h Slave States, Lincoln, ^G; Illinois 1,'gislature's resolutions on self-gov- ernment, 124; the right of the people to form their own Constitution, 147; the downtrodden people of all the world look to America as tlie home of, 2.'!t; tlio Almighty did not make the negro cai)able of, Douglas, 2d0; Jeffer- son Davis on, 4:l."i. Cenate. Sei- I'MTKn States Senate. - Slavery, LinvtAiiou: Missouri Compromise a part of the domestic slavery tjui's- tiori, 2; restraiiieii in Northwestern Territory by Ordinance of 's7. .t; agita- tion commenced over Missouri, 4; re- strained North of :«!°;{0'nortli latitude by Missouri Comiiromlse, 4; California ])rolill)ited from entering tlie I'nion bei-ause opposed to, G; Texas western bouiulary iiuestion Involved slavery (|iU'Stlon, 7; Lincoln does not know what to do with the existing institu- tion of, 9; in the Territories, 14; influ- ence of climate on, Itl; In Missouri, 10; introduced without law. 17; admitting, to new States perpetuatt'S the institu- tion of, IS; the Fathers <)piK).sed to car- rying it Into new Territories, 21,22. 2r>4, 2.V1; right of tlie Natlon:il Govi-rninent to prohibit slavery in the Territories. 22; Introduction of, into the Territi'st way for iKith races, :J20; Douglas Is not in favor of making any dllTerence Im- tween slavery and liberty, :i.V;; Demo- cratic arguments do not allow that there is anything wrong in slavery. 356; a moral, social, and jmlltlcal evil. .1.57; the Itepiiblican parly thinks sla- very wrong, 3^1,443; Douglas will not .say that slavery is wrong, .■tK.5-.W7, 4N7; the groat disturbing elirn<-nt In reli- gion as well as In politics, 441 ; why we ought to keep It out of new Terri- tories, 442; the real Issue In the case. 443; Democratic parly dues not treat slavery as a wrong. 414; where slavery must not be talked about, 445; what follows, if slavery Is not a wrong, 44«: the ctmdition of the country with ref- erence to slavery on .January 1, ls.54, 4.59, 460; when there was pi'ace on the (juestion, 46.3 ct xeq.; not an unlntijor- tant matter, 4(i5. 46N; Douglas's ik)sI- tion that the jjeople of the Territories have j)owi'r to control slavery "as other property." 475; on the ultimate extint^tion of, iKlet xai.; no power un- der the United States Government to interfere with, in tho Stales, 4s4 ct »cq., .5:}0; the logic of J>ouglas's statement that he "do n't care whether slavery is voted up or voti-d down," 487; to argue that slavery is right ac- cording to the Bible, an unwise argu- ment for the Iventuckians, 4S9, 490; the slavery of the negro an injury to the white man, 490; review of r>oug- las's position on tho people of tho Territories "controlling slaverj-," 494; the Ordinance of '87 was not so en- forced as to destroy the exi.sting In- stitution of slavery in Illinois, ."iOl ; dissertation on slavery and hired labor, 50.3, 504; " slavery or the Gov- ernment must be destroyed," 529; the United States Constitution dtK's not expressly say that Congress may prohibit or muKt protect slavery In the Territories, 534. See also Negkoes, Slaves, and Missouri Co.mpromise. Slavery, Ji/'/yc Doi/pJas on: resolution in the Uiuled Stales Senate to admit sla- very to the southern part of the Mexi- can acquisition, 6; the object of the Kansas-Nebraska bill not to leglshite siavary into Territories or .'l»^t tlic will of i1m> pt'ople, lay, 110, i:i,>; tlu- jjiacti- ciil «|Uf*thiii of hluvi-ry nol affiH-ti-tl by tho DrvHl .'^fott lk>i-l.sloii, 110; hla- viTy la Illinois, IJii; Wlil^saiKl Dt-iiio- crats M}rr«'i> on lln- ixillcy i-nnrcrnln;:, ]a.'>, 10(S, :^K),:.'4 I'alliiTs on, 171 17-1; the jkiwit of a Tt-rrltory to fxi'ludtf shivory prior to tin* forma- tion of tlio Constitution, ::i:i. ::M: u fundamental artirli* of tlic l>rmo- ••ratU" (Tfi'd that tln-rt- sr'x'uld In- non- IntorftToni'i- and non-lnli'rvi'nti«)n hy I'onnrt'ss with slavi-ry In tin- T«'rrl- torlfs, :X>; cannot Ik* m.'ilntalni'd In a Territory where the people arc unfriendly t») It, 2f>2; cannot be Intro- duced Into a Territory witlmut friendly legislation, ;W7 ft xi -/• ^*'" also Nkohoks, Si^AVES, and Missoi'iii COMI'ItOMISK. Slavery, opiniun of Preston S. Urooks on, I'ii, l.Vl, io; Thompson Canipbell's views on, 'XI, '2&i; K. :^. Molony's views on, 2l5:J, 'Jii3; resolutions of the Demo- cratic district convention at Xaper- vUle, III., on, 2»54; views of Jud^e Muyo on, 'Mi, 'M,'>; resolutions concern- ing passed by Vermont State Demo- cratic convention, 2(V); the ])rohibitlon of, by ConRress, In Territories, uncon- stitutional, 367; wo could not get our Constitution unless wo permitted sla- very, IK-nry Clay, 4.'t:!, i'.U; regulations con<"erniiig. In Mississii)pi, 51:2; ri-gu- lutlons I'oncerning, in Louisiana, 513. See also Neukoes, Slaves, and Mis- 80UHI COMI'IIOMI.SE. Slaves, Lincoln does not know what to do with them, i); would not hold one himself, 9; number of. North of Mis- souri Compromise lint-, 10; condition of, in Nebraska, 17; number of, woulil be Increased by admitting slavery Into Nebraska, \X; decrease of. In Illinois, and Increase of. In Missouri. Si; there were slaves In Illinois when the land was Urst ac(|uired, Xi; how counted as voters, 35; laws forbidding emunclpatlon of, 4.'i, 46; liberation of, 56; Lincoln diH'S not want a black or a slave fossess no legal |)ower in Virginia to make a choice, l.Vl; are projHTty, a;7; If Dred Scott Decision bo«'orrect, a constitutional right ex- ists to hold slaves In Territories, Lin- coln. UH. Sri- NKIinoES. Slave Ownert, know that negroes have natural riglils, lU; the way tbey gov- ern, 21. Slate States, live north of Missouri ( om- promlse line, hi; hiul C4jnsti( ntional ailvantages, SJ, L'4; their advantages in regard to counting voters, ;J4, a,"i; IM-ople of the Free States have no right to dictate to the people if the. tii; sliuuUI Milt have i.d v:iiita;-i; '•whenever K'ansas has enough popu- 1. it Ion for a .'■^lave .State, .sin- has enough for a I'reo State," Douglas, ;cj<.»; no power under tho United Stales Gov- ernment to Intt-rfere with slavery In tlie, Lincoln, 4.'<4 c( «c<;. Slave Trade, did not end with isus, 18; nor the ■•>acrt-d right of self-govern- ment," iJ; lirst I'nited Stales Congress on the, :)(); Lincoln not pledged a;;ainst the, iK'tween different States, 203 204; Douglas's popular sovereignty means the revival of the African Slave Trade, 4'.tl, 4K. South Carolina, "who expects to live to see slavery abolished in South Caro- lina'/" Dou^'las, 103; secession of, .'i;C Southern States. Lincoln did not Intend tliat the i)eople of the Northern .states should enter to Interfere with slavery, Kr.'. Springfield Resolutions, 1ii7, 108, 205, 300, 219, :.';:ii, :{.".: :i(»i, :i.;'.i :!ru'; 411, 412. Squatter Sovereignty, otlii'rwise called "tin- siicred tight of si'lf-governmeiil," .'».(; ".siiuatted out of existence," uiuler the Dred Scott Decision, .'>.">; nnoiber name for "popular sovereignty," 70; the right to govern a Territory not your own, 77; what has become of s(|Uatter soveri'ignty, 77. State Legislatures, at tirsl held tin- power to :il)olish ^l;lvery, 40; no wish to have them blotted out, 84. State Rights, admission of Territories into the rnion with or without sla- very. IW; sovi-ieign, to decide slaveiy i|uestion, 200; to regulate domi'stlc In- stitutions, 207, 410; .st'ttled by the Coin- prondse Measures of 1S.-|0, 2:i9, 240. State Rights under the United States Constitu- tion. ii'.i., ii;r, 171. irj. i'><'. in>. .-.'is. '.'.rx 2.s;t. :ii:. :fi;i. State Rights, DintuUui on: deiinltlon of, 07, iW; each State must decide on tin* rights of the black man, 70; asks Lin- coln questions on, lOS; general re- marks on. 174. ;.••> :r«i. :i?2. Stephens. Alexander H., opinion of. on tlie Kaiisas-N.-braska bill. 4'^,. 420. Taney. Chief Justice, insists that the Dec- laration of Iiide|M-udence and the Con- INDEX. 553 stitution of tho T'nitocl States vfvvc not made for iK-groes. U; on tho state of public opinion concurninK lu-firoi's when United States Constitution was made, 45; Lincoln's chart;e of con- spiracy against, 197, 210, 2:i0, ,3K<,); tlic first to say tliat tlie term '"all men " in the Declaration of Independence did not include the ne-^ro. WS. Tennessee, formerly owned by Nortli (Carolina and ceded to tiie National Government, 2, 512. Territories, tho question of slaveiy in, 14; t'ongress on slavery in, 14; ri'laiion of slavery to self-government in. 2:!; slavery in, a national question, 211; doctriiu^, of self-government for, a de- ceitful pretence for the benefit of sla- very, 40; Drod Scott Decision, declared that Congress could not prohibit sla- very in, 42; "popular sovereignty " and organization of, Lincoln, (12; if negroes are not admitted to tho Territories they cannot mix with tho whites therts Lincoln, 88; Douglas's answer to Lin- coln's argument that under the Dred Scott Decision slavery would enter the Territories, 109 111; Douglas de- clares that tlie practical question of slavery in tho Territories is not af- fected by the Dred Scott Decision, 110. i;i5; light of tho people of, to form a constitution for themselves, Douglas, 148; policy to plant slavery in, exactly the same as that which planted sla- very in tho Colonies, 1.58; must decide what rights and privileges are con- sistent with the public good, 174; why the amendment to the Kansas-Ne- braska hill, expressly authorizing the people of a Territory to exclude sla- very was voted down, Lincoln, 18U- 188; Lincoln contends that Congress has tho right to proliibit slavery in, 202; Douglas on the power of the peo- ple of a Territory to exclude slavery prior to tho formation of their consti- tution, 213, 214; policy of the Fathers, concerning slavery in the, Lincoln, 255; decision of tho United States Su- preme Court that the prohibition of slavery in, by Congress, is unconstitu- tional. 2()7; Dred Scott Decision forbids exclusion of slaves from the, 267; a fundamental article of the Democratic creed that there should be non-inter- fereuco and non-intervention by Con- gress with slavery iu tho Territories, 280; slavery cannot bo maintained in a Territory where the people are un- friendly to It, Douglas, 282; Douglas on the Dred Scott Decision and slavery in the, :U7 et scq. ; right of the, to sett le slavoiy (lucstlon fur t lieniselvc-v -iiKi 4(15; .lelVerson Davison shivery In, 42.1; why keep slavery oul of new Terrl- t.)rles, Lincoln. 442; accordhn; to the Ured Sett DecM.ui there Ua.-..nstl- tullonal right to hold slaves In. UH ct acq.; have the right to control slaves as other property, 475; actions of tho Kathers In regard to slavery In, Lincoln, 510 ff xiv/. ; i;nlti-54 INDEX. •slave ■■ not found In. Cfl; rfi|uli-<>s tlu" ^np|>^essl(>n «if th«> Afrirun Sliivo 'I'nidc, ii iiilstaki- in |xiint of fact, Lin- coln, '.U; (>:i('li |iul)lii- ollicfr ta support tlio Constitution as Ik- iindcrstuiKls It. I'n'sltlcnt Jackson. -W; noi made by or for licjirocs, Tani-y, 41; was made in part at least, l>y and fur nc^jrocs, Lin- «-oln, -J.'t; bound to stick to it fr«)in bt'- (rlnnin); to end, Lincoln, S-l; turn tlii' (iovi-rnnu-nt back to wbcrctbc fraincrs of tlid'onstitutlonori^'liially placed it, LliK'oln, '.11; sliould be maintained us to e any right established un- der, 209; must be sustaine; Dred Scottcourtand Fiflii Amend- ment to, 515, .516; Fifth and Tentli Ai'iendments to, by whom framed, 510; the union older than t}i(\ .'XC; does not expressly say that Congress may proidbit slavery in the Terri- tories, 'Hi; does not expressly say that Congress muKt protect slavery In the Territories, "ktl. United States Congress, the lirst Congress under t lie (^ 'oust it uiion,on slavery and the slavt" tr;id<', ;J0; enactments on slavery unci the slave trade by, till liO). :jO; Judge Douglas says that in- t4'rvi'nIlon by, never prohibitenrt by legislation any right estab- lished under the Const it ut ion, ^O'.l; a fundamental artlcU- of tlie Demo- cratic creed that there sh*^)uld be non- interference and non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories, 2so; tlie first Congress ))asses an act to enforce the<)r4; made upon the great basis of the sovereignty of the States, 41G; no power under the, to interfere with slavery in the States, Lincoln, 484 et seq.; charged with the duty of promoting the gen- eral welfare, 507; "slavery or the Gov- ernment must be destroyed," Lincoln, .52^1; if the ptillcy of the Government Is to bo Irrevocably fixed by the decis- ions of the Supreme Court the people h.'ive cea.sed to be their own rulers, Lincoln, 5.'J5. United States Senate, Douglas vindicates his coiiisi' in, '.rj- Lincoln and Douglas can(lis for. lU-UC. United States Supreme Court, decision of, in the Dred Scott case, 42 ct xcq. ; Lin- coln's estimate of th«» n-spect that should be i)ald to, 42 cf nc(;. ; Douglas's estimate of the respect due to decis- ions of, 4:i; General Jackson's estimate of respect due to its decisions, 4;t, 44; ilei'islon of, on the National Hank ((uestion. 4;i, 44; relation of, to the co- ordinate branchesof the (Jovernment, 44; ,ludge Douglas denounces decision INDEX. of, in National Bank case, 44; dociilcs that Conf,'ress lias no lislit to proliililt slavery in thi! Tt'i-ritorics, 40; Lincoln looks for another Drod Scott di'cisidii by, 57, 5«; Douglas says there is no ap- peal from decisions of, 09, 70, 1ft"), ;t7,'2-:i74, :i90, :iy7; Douglas arraigns Lincoln's position on, 09, 70; Douglas styles it anar('liy if its decisions ;tro not obeyed, 10."); to whom woukl Lincoln ajjpeal ': Douglas, 105, i:i;.'. i:i4; no lawful mode of i-eversing the decisions of, Douglas, 106; how Lincoln Intended to ai)i)eal from decision of, Douglas, 100, 107, \-\'Z; wh.Lt Linc^oln meant by reversing a decision, 100; and the Constitution, 100; Douglas says thiit war sliould not bo waged on. 107-109; individual opin- ions must be set aside when the Su- preme Court speaks, Douglas, lOS, 1(19, 281; Douglas says ho is bound by the decisions of, i:i4; Lincoln's position on obedience to decisions of, 155-158; .Jef- ferson on det'isionsof, l,5t); Democratic party was not bound by decisions of, in the National Bank case, 15(); would not violate the United States Consti- tution, Douglas, 21.5, 21(); Douglas at- tacks Lincoln's position on decisions of, 249-2.52; de(!ided that Congressional prohibition of slavery in the Territo- ries is unconstitutional, 207; decision of, that the United States Constitu- tion recognizes property in slaves, 267; Lincoln reviews Douglas's argument as to whether the people of a Terri- tory can e.xclude slavery prior to the Tormation of a constitution — a ques- tion to be decided by the Supreme Court, 267, 268; charge of conspiracy against the, to nationalize slavery, 304 ct seq. ; our only safety lies in standing by the decisions of, 456; will decide all legislation hostile to slavery as un- constitutional, 475, 476; if the policy of the Government is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of, the people will lia ve ceased to be their own rulers. .5:i"). See also Dred Scott Decision. Utah, part of Mexl<'an acfinlsltioti, 0; shi- very laws of, a'l, ;>i; express provision of Congress that Utah might enter the I'nion as a Slave State If the people of, wished It, :«i; rebellion In. 4(1; " the sacred right" of self-government for, and polygamy, 40; the Compromise of 1H.")0 and the organlzjillon of. as a Ter- ritory, XA; territorial organization of, did not estalillsh a general principle on the slavery (juestion, :W, :j.V). Vermont, resolutions on slavery iiassed by Vermont Democratic St.-ite Con- vi'ntion. :Hji>. Virginia, owned the Northwestern Ter- ritory, 2; owned what has since been foruH'd into Kent ui'kj', 2; slaves jms- sess no legal power to make a choice In, 1.54. Washington, Territory of, territorial law for, did not re|)eal the Ordinance of 'm7, :t6; no provision in its territorial law to allow the Territory to enter the Union as a Slave Stale, :i7; its terri- torial law not intended to Im- a copy of the Utah and New Me.xlco laws, ;J7. Webster, Daniel, Lincoln his friend, Doug- las his enemy, 38; supported the Mis- souri Compromise, 38; the "god-like," 117. Whig Party, indorse 1850 Compromise, 7, 105, h)(i; the good old Whig ground. 29; position not sectional, 165; position of, on slavery prior to 18.54, 2,19, 240, :j(>; ;1C9. Wilmot, David, Democratic representative at Wasliington and author of the " Wilmot Proviso,'' 5, 6. Wilmot Proviso, to forbirl slavery in terri- tory to be acquired from Mexico, 5; history of, 6; defeated by treaty of 1848, 0; intended to keep slavery out of the Mexican acquisition, 12; "in- structions" of, repealed by Illinois legislature, 63; resolutions concern- ing, passed by Democratic Convcntlo.n at Naperville, 111., 264. Wisconsin, formerly part of Nortbwest- ein Territory, 2. 3i^77-l