It-. :!;;:;{!:; iij];:;;:;: :: ;:; f r:-^ :;:;■ ;;:t;:;:J ::::;:: 111; ;-^i ^U :;;■;•:;':.■"•■: : :;U;5::: . - ' * ' -1 - . - LINCOLN ROOM UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY MEMORIAL the class of 1901 founded by HARLAN HOYT HORNER and HENRIETTA CALHOUN HORNER •^^ /.^/. ^-^^ ^s ^v }. '^/.^■'~^^7 t / CD i'-ir- POLITICAL DEBATES BETWEEN LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS. POLITICAL DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS In the Celebrated Campaign of 1858 in Illinois, including the preceding Speeches of each at Chicago, Springfield, etc. ALSO, THE TWO GREAT SPEECHES OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN IN OHIO IN 1859. THE BURROWS BROTHERS COMPANY, ClebelantJ, (©Ijto. 1894. ^tiitn JLpntixzt} anti jl^iftg Copies rcprinteti far (IL\)t Biirrotos ISrotl^Ers Compang bg 3a\)n Wiihan anti Son, at t\)z ^tnibersitg ^rcss, Camtirftjge, 189^. m ./<^/ 7 7^' '^^~- -' Cf I TABLE OF CONTENTS. 5> !» )) )> >> )1 J> » J? Page Speech of Mr. Lincoln, at Springfield, June 17, 1858 7 AT Chicago, July 10, 1858 22 AT Springfield, July 17, 1858 68 AT Columbus, Ohio, September, 1859 283 „ „ „ AT Cincinnati, Ohio, September, 1859 .... 300 Speech of Mr. Douglas, at Chicago, July 9, 1858 12 „ „ „ AT Bloomington, July 16, 1858 34 „ „ „ AT Springfield, July 17, 1858 62 Correspondence between Messrs. Lincoln and Douglas, preliminary to the Debates 80 First Joint Debate at Ottawa, August 21, 1858 83 Mr. Douglas's Opening Speech 83 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 90 Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder 103 Second Joint Debate, at Freeport, August 27, 1858 107 Mr. Lincoln's Opening Speech 107 Mr. Douglas's Reply 114 Mr. Lincoln's Rejoinder 129 Third Joint Debate, at Jonesboro, Sept. 15, 1858 133 Mr. Douglas's Speech 133 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 143 Mr. Douglas's Re.joinder 157 Fourth Joint Debate, at Charleston, Sept. 18, 1858 163 Mr. Lincoln's Speech 163 Mr. Douglas's Reply 173 Mr. Lincoln's Rejoinder 187 Extract from Mr. Trumbull's Speech at Alton 192 Extract from Douglas's Speech at Jacksonville 197 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page Fifth Joint Debate, at Galesburgh, Oct. 7, 1858 202 Mr. Douglas's Speech 202 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 210 Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder 222 Sixth Joint Debate, at Quincy, Oct. 13, 1858 227 Mr. Lincoln's Speech 227 Mr. Douglas's Reply 235 Mr. Lincoln's Rejoinder 248 Seventh and Last Joint Debate, at Alton, Oct. 15, 1858 253 Mr. Douglas's Speech 253 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 263 Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder 278 POLITICAL DEBATES BETWEEN LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS. SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, At Springfield, June 17, 1858. [The following speech was delivered at Springfield, 111., at the close of the Eepublican State Convention held at that time and place, and by which Con- vention Mr. Lincoln had been named as their candidate for United States Senator. Mr. Douglas was not present.] Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention : If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. " A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure per- manently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved ; I do not expect the house to fall ; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition ? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination — piece of machinery, so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider, not only what w^ork the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning. The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the National territory by Con- 8 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN gressional prohibition. Four days later, commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the National territory to_slavery, and was the first point gained. But, so far, Congress only had acted ; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more. This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of " squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this : That if any one man choose to enslave another, no tliird man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incor- porated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows : " It being the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into any Ter- ritory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of " squatter sovereignty," and " sacred right of self-government." " But," said opposition members, " let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slav- ery." " Not we," said the friends of the measure ; and down they voted the amendment. While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case, involv- ing the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free State, and then into a Territory covered by the Con- gressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri ; and both Nebraska bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negro's name was "Dred Scott," which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next Presi- dential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States ; but the decision of it was deferred until after the elec- tion. Still, before the election. Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state Ms opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits ; and the latter answers : " That is a question for the Supreme Court." The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thou- sand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again, did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument. The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court ; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision. The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 9 and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained ! At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecorapton Con- stitution was or was not in any just sense made by the people of Kansas ; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted uj). I do not undei'stand his declaration, that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind, — the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle ! If he has any parental feeling, well may lie cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision " squatter sovereignty " squatted out of exist- ence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding ; like the mould at the foundry, served through one blast, and fell back into loose sand ; helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Eepublicans, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point — the right of a people to make their own constitution — upon which he and the Eepub- licans have never differed. The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas's " care not " policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are : — First, That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that terra as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution which declares that " The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Secondly, That, " subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States Territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. Thirdly, Tliat whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State. Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are ; and partially, also, whither we are tending. It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. 2 10 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN The people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to after- > ward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no free- dom 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 decision. Why was the court decision held up ? Why even a Senator's individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election ? Plainly enough now : the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement ? Why the delay of a re-argument ? Why the incoming President's advance exhor- tation in favor of the decision ? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others ? We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen, — Stephen, Pranklin, Eoger, and James, for instance, — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all tlie lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, — not omitting even scaffolding, — or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in, — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Eoger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft dra,wn up before the first blow was struck. It should not be overlooked that by the Nebraska bill the people of a State as well as Territory were to be left " perfectly free," " subject only to the Con- stitution." Why mention a State ? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States ; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely Territorial law ? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same ? While the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the 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 omission ; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a State to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska bill, — I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other ? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, ■ using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska Act. On one occasion, his exact language is, "Except in cases where the power is AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 11 restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject 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 Constitu- tion of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not wliether slavery be voted down or voted up " sliall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of INIissouri are on the verge of makinu; their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it ? There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whis- per us softly that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. They wish us to infer all, from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty, and that he has reg- ularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never dif- fered. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But " a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work is at least a ■; caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery ? He don't care anything about it. His avowed mission is irapres.sing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist tlie revival of the African slave trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching ? He has not said so. Does he really think so ? But if it is, how can he resist it ? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest ? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property ; and, as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade, — how can he refuse that trade in that " property " shall be " perfectly free," — unless he does it as a protection to the home pro- duction ? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to- day than he was yesterday ; that he may rightfully change wlien he finds him- self wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he himself has given no intimation ? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference ? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and 12 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN we can couie together on principle so that our 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 do care for the result. Two years ago the Eepublicans 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 we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle througli, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then, to falter now, — now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belli- gerent ? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail ; if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come. SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS, On the Occasion of his Public Reception at Chicago, Friday Evening, July 9th, 1858. (Mr. Lincoln was present.) Mr. Douglas said, — Mr. Chairman and Fellow-Citizens : I can find no language which can adequately express my profound gratitude for the magnificent welcome which you have extended to me on this occasion. This vast sea of human faces in- dicates how deep an interest is felt by our people in the great questions which agitate the public mind, and which underlie the foundations of our free insti- tutions. A reception like this, so great in numbers that no human voice can be heard to its countless thousands, — so enthusiastic that no one individual can be the object of such enthusiasm, — clearly shows that there is some great principle which sinks deep in the heart of the masses, and involves the rights and the liberties of a whole people, that has brought you together with a una- nimity and a cordiality never before excelled, if, indeed, equalled on any occa- sion. I have not the vanity to believe that it is any personal compliment to me. It is an expression of your devotion to that great principle of self-govern- ment, to which my life for many years past has been, and in the future will be, devoted. If there is any one principle dearer and more sacred than all others in free governments, it is that which asserts the exclusive right of a free people to form and adopt their own fundamental law, and to manage and regu- late their own internal affairs and domestic institutions. Wlien I found an effort being made during the recent session of Congress to force a constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, and to force that State into the Union with a constitution which her people had rejected by more than ten thousand, I felt bound as a man of honor and a rep- resentative of Illinois, bound by every consideration of duty, of fidelity, and AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 13 of patriotism, to resist to the utmost of my power the consummation of that fraud. With others, I did resist it, and resisted it successfully until the at- tempt was abandoned. We I'orced them to refer that constitution back to the people of Kansas, to be accepted or rejected as they shall decide at an election which is fixed for the first Monday in August next. It is true that the mode of reference, and the form of the submission, was not such as I could sanc- tion with my vote, for the reason that it discriminated between Free States and Slave States ; providing that if Kansas consented to come in under the Lecompton Constitution it should be received with a population of thirty-five thousand ; but that if she demanded another constitution, more consistent with the sentiments of her people and their feelings, that it should not be received into the Union until she has 93,420 inhabitants. I did not consider that mode of submission fair, for the reason that any election is a mockery which is not free, that any election is a fraud upon the rights of the people which holds out inducements for affirmative votes, and threatens penalties for nega- tive votes. But whilst I was not satisfied with the mode of submission, whilst I resisted it to the last, demanding a fair, a just, a free mode of submission, still, when the law passed placing it within the power of the people of Kansas at that election to reject the Lecompton Constitution, and then make another in harmony with their principles and their opinions, I did not believe that either the penalties on the one hand, or the inducements on the other, would force that people to accept a constitution to which they are irreconcilably opposed. All I can say is, that if their votes can be controlled by such con- siderations, all the sympathy which has been expended upon them has been misplaced, and all the efforts that have been made in defence of their right to self-government have been made in an unworthy cause. Hence, my friends, I regard the Lecompton battle as having been fought, and the victory won, because the arrogant demand for the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution unconditionally, whether her people wanted it or not, has been abandoned, and the principle which recognizes the right of the people to decide for themselves has been submitted in its place. Fellow-citizens, while I devoted my best energies — all my energies, men- tal and physical — to the vindication of the great principle, and whilst the result has been such as will enable the people of Kansas to come into tlie Union with such a constitution as they desire, yet the credit of tliis great moral victory is to be divided among a large number of men of various and different political creeds. I was rejoiced when I found in this great contest the Eepublican party coming up manfully and sustaining the principle that the people of each Territory, when coming into the Union, have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. I have seen the time when that principle was controverted. I have seen the time when all parties did not recognize the right of a people to have slavery or freedom, to tolerate or prohibit slavery as they deemed best, but claimed that power for the Congress of the United States, regardless of the wishes of the people to be affected by it ; and when I found upon the Critten- den-Montgomery bill the Republicans and Americans of the North, and I may say, too, some glorious Americans and old-line Whigs from the South, like Crittenden and his patriotic associates, joined with a portion of the Democracy to carry out and vindicate the right 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. 14 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN The Crittenden-Montgomery bill 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 devised. It proposed to refer the Lecompton Constitution back to the people of Kansas, and give them the right to accept or reject it as they pleased, at a fair election, held in pursuance of law, and in the event of their rejecting it, and forming another in its stead, to permit them to come into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. It was fair and just in all of its provisions. I gave it my cordial support, and was rejoiced when I found that it passed the House of Eepresentatives, and at one time I enter- tained high hope that it would pass the Senate. I regard the great principle of popular sovereignty as having been vindi- cated and made triumphant in this land as a permanent rule of public policy in the organization of Territories and the admission of new States. Illinois took her position upon this principle many years ago. You all recollect that in 1850, after the passage of the Compromise measures of that year, when I returned to my home there was great dissatisfaction expressed at my course in supporting those measures. I appeared before the people of Chicago at a mass meeting, and vindicated each and every one of those measures ; and by reference to my speech on that occasion, \vhich was printed and circulated broadcast throughout the State at the time, you will find that I then and there said that those measures were all founded upon the great principle that every people ought to possess the right to form and regulate their own domes- tic institutions in their own way, and that that riglit being possessed by the people of the States, I saw no reason why the same principle should not be extended to all of the Territories of the United States. A general election was held in this State a few months afterward, for members of the Legislature, pending which all tliese questions were thoroughly canvassed and discussed, and the nominees of tlie different parties instructed in regard to the wishes of their constituents upon them. When that election was over, and the Legisla- ture assembled, they proceeded to consider the merits of those Compromise measures, and the principles upon which they 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 tlieir own form of government and establish their own institutions. That resolution is as follows : — Resolved, That our liberty and independence are based upon the right of the people to form for themselves such a government as they may choose ; that this great principle, the birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, secured to 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 Territorial Government or State Constitution, provided the Government so established shall be Republican, and in conformity with the Coastitulio:i of the United States. That resolution, declaring the great principle of self-government as appli- cable to the Territories and new States, passed the House of EejDresentatives of this State by a vote of sixty-one in the affirmative, to only four in the nega- tive. Thus you find that an expression of public opinion — enlightened, educated, intelligent public opinion — on this question by the representa- tives of Illinois in 1851 approaches nearer to unanimity than has ever been obtained on any controverted question. That resolution was entered on the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 15 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 carry out that principle in all future cases. Illinois, therefore, stands pre-eminent as tlie State which stepped forward early and established a platform applicable to this slavery question, concurred in alike by Whigs and Democrats, in which it was declared to be the wish of our people that thereafter the people of the Territories should be left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, and that no limitation should be placed upon that right in any form. Hence what was my duty in 1854, when it became necessary to bring for- ward a bill for the organization 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 incor- porate 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 any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States ? " I did incorpo- rate that principle in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, 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. I then defended that principle against assaults from one section of the Union. During this last winter it became my duty to vindicate it against assaults from the other section of the Union. I vindicated it boldly and fearlessly, as the people of Chicago can bear wit- ness, when it was assailed by Free-soilers ; and during this winter I vindicated and defended it as boldly and fearlessly when it was attempted to be violated by the almost united South. I pledged myself to you on every stump in Illinois in 1854, I pledged myself to the people of other States, North and South, wherever I spoke ; and in the United States Senate and elsewhere, in every form in which I could reach tlie public mind or the public ear, I gave the pledge that I, so far as the power should be in my hands, would vindicate the principle of the right of the people to form their own institutions, to establish Free States or Slave States as they chose, and that tliat principle should never be violated either by fraud, by violence, by circumvention, or by any other means, if it was in my power to prevent it. I now submit to you, my fellow-citizens, whether I have not redeemed that pledge in good faith. Yes, my friends, I have redeemed it in good faith ; and it is a matter of heart- felt gratification to me to see these assembled thousands here to-night bearing their testimony to the fidelity with which I have advocated that principle, and redeemed my pledges in connection with it. I will be 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 Constitution was not predicated upon the ground that it was a pro-slavery constitution, nor would my action have been differ- ent 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 fundamental principles of free government ; on the ground that it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas ; that it did not embody their will ; that they were averse to it ; and 16 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN hence I denied 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 slavehokling 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 commu- nity to judge and decide for itself whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would he good or evil for them to adopt it ; and tlie right of free action, the right of free thought, the right of free judgment, upon the question 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 tlie people of Kansas against their will, in opposition to their wishes, and thus violated the great 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. You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is a good or an evil. You allow them to decide for themselves 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 system 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 ? AVhenever you put a limi- tation upon the right of any people to decide what laws they want, you have destroyed the fundamental principle of self-government. In connection with this subject, perhaps, it will not be improper for me on this occasion to allude to the position of those who have chosen to arraign my conduct on this same subject. I have observed from the public prints that but a few days ago the Eepublican party of the State of Illinois assembled in Convention at Springfield, and not only laid down their platform, but nom- inated a candidate for the United States Senate, as my successor. I take great pleasure in saying that I have known, personally and intimately, for about a quarter of a century, tlie worthy gentleman who has been nominated for my place, and I will say that I regard him as a kind, amiable, and intelli- gent gentleman, a good citizen and an honorable opponent ; and whatever issue I may have with him will be of principle, and not involving personalities. Mr. Lincoln made a speech before tliat Eepublican Convention which unan- imously nominated him for the Senate, — a speech evidently w^ell prepared and carefully written, — in which he states the basis upon Avhich he proposes to carry on the campaign during this summer. In it he lays down two dis- tinct propositions which I shall notice, and upon which I shall take a direct and bold issue with him. His first and main proposition I will give in his own language, scripture quotations and all [laughter] ; I give his exact language : " ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure, perma- nently, half slave and half /rcr. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, I do not expect the house to fall ; but I do expect it to cease to be divided. It will become all one tliins^, or all the other." In other w^ords, ]\Ir. Lincoln asserts, as a fundamental principle of this government, that there must be uniformity in the local laws and domestic institutions of each and all the States of the Union ; and he therefore invites all the non-slaveholding States to band together, organize as one bod}^ and make war upon slavery in Kentucky, upon slavery in Virginia, upon the Carolinas, upon slavery in all of the slaveholding States in this Union, and to AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 17 persevere in that war until it shall be exterminated. He then notifies the slaveholdinfT States to stand tOLjether as a unit and make an arro-ressive war upon the Free States of this Union with a view of establishing slavery in them all ; of forcing it upon Illinois, of forcing it upon New York, upon New England, and upon every other Free State, and that they shall keep up the warfare until it has been formally established in them all. In other words, Mr. Lincoln advocates boldly and clearly a war of sections, a war of the North against the South, of the Free States against the Slave States, — a war of exter- mination, — to be continued relentlessly until the one or the other shall be subdued, and all the States shall either become free or become slave. Now, my friends, I must say to you frankly that I -take bold, unqualified issue with him upon that principle. I assert that it is neither desirable nor possible that there should be uniformity in the local institutions and domestic regulations of the different States of this Union. The fraraers of our govern- ment never contemplated uniformity in its internal concerns. The fathers of the Revolution and the sages who made the Constitution well understood that the laws and domestic institutions which would suit the granite hills of New Hampshire would be totally unfit for the rice plantations of South Carolina ; they well understood that the laws which would suit the agricultural districts of Pennsylvania and New York would be totally unfit for the large mining regions of the Pacific, or the lumber regions of Maine. They well understood that the great varieties of soil, of production, and of interests in a Republic as large as this, required different local and domestic regulations in each locality, adapted to the wants and interests of each separate State, and for that reason it was provided in the Federal Constitution that the thirteen original States should remain sovereign and supreme within their own limits in regard to all that was local and internal and domestic, while the Federal Government should have certain specified powers which were general and national, and could be exercised only by Federal authority. The framers of the Constitution well understood that each locality, having separate and distinct interests, required separate and distinct laws, domestic institutions, and police regulations adapted to its own wants and its own con- dition ; and they acted on the presumption, also, that these laws and institu- tions would be as diversified and as dissimilar as the States would be numerous, and that no two would be precisely alike, because the interests of no two would be precisely the same. Hence I assert that the great fundamental principle which underlies our complex system of State and Federal govern- ments contemplated diversity and dissimilarity in the local institutions and domestic affairs of each and every State then in the Union, or thereafter to be admitted into the Confederacy. I therefore conceive that my friend Mr. Lincoln has totally misapprehended the great principles upon which our government rests. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs would be destructive of State rights, of State sovereignty, of personal liberty and personal freedom. Uniformity is the parent of despotism the world over, not only in politics, but in religion. Wherever the doctrine of uniformity is proclaimed, that all the States must be free or all slave, that all labor must be white or all black, that all the citizens of the different States must have the same privileges or be governed by the same regulations, you have destroyed the greatest safeguard which our institutions have thrown around the rights of the citizen. How could this uniformity be accomplished, if it was desirable and pos- sible ? There is but one mode in which it could be obtained, and that must 3 18 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN be by abolishing the State Legislatures, blotting out State sovereignty, merg- ing 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 the Eepublic. When you shall have done this, you will have uniformity. Then the States M'ill all be slave or all be free ; then negroes will vote 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 and domestic, by the authority of the Federal Government. But when you attain that uniformity, you will have converted these thirty-two sovereign, independent States into one consolidated empire, with the uniformity of disposition reigning triumphant throughout the length and breadth of the land. From this view of the case, my friends, I am driven irresistibly to the conclusion that diversity, dissimilarity, variety, in all our local and domestic institutions is the great safeguard of our liberties, and that the framers of our institutions were wise, sagacious, and patriotic when they made this gov- ernment a confederation of sovereign States, with a legislature for each, and conferred upon each legislature the power to make all local and domestic insti- tutions to suit the people it represented, without interference from any other State or from the general Congress of the Union. If we expect to maintain our liberties, we must preserve the rights and sovereignty of the States ; we must maintain and carry out that great principle of self-government incorporated in the Compromise measures of 1850, indorsed by the Illinois Legislature in 1851, emphatically embodied and carried out in the Kansas- Nebraska bill, and vindicated this year by the refusal to bring Kansas into the Union with a constitution distasteful to her people. The other proposition discussed by Mr. Lincoln in his speech consists in a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States on account of the Dred Scott decision. On this question also I desire to say to you unequivo- cally, that I take direct and distinct issue with him. I have no warfare to make on the Supreme Court of the United States, either on account of that or any other decision which they have pronounced from that bench. ', The Con- stitution of the United States has provided that the powers of government (and the Constitution of each State has the same provision) shall be divided into three departments, — executive, legislative, and judicial. The right and the province of expounding the Constitution and constructing the law is vested in the judiciary established by the Constitution. As a lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear before the court and controvert any principle of law while the question is pending before the tribunal ; but when the decision is made, my private opinion, j^our opinion, all other opinions, must yield to the majesty of that authoritative adjudication. I wish you to bear in mind that this in- volves a great principle, upon which our rights, our liberty, and our property all depend. What security have you for your property, for your reputation, and for your personal rights, if the courts are not upheld, and their decisions respected when once fairly rendered by the highest tribunal known to the Constitution ? I do not choose, therefore, to go into anv arfiument with Mr. Lincoln in reviewing the various decisions which the Supreme Court has made, either upon the Dred Scott case or any other. I have no idea of appealing from the decision of the Supreme Court upon a constitutional ques- tion to the decisions of a tumultuous town meeting. I am aware that once an eminent lawyer of this city, now no more, said that the State of Illinois had the most perfect judicial system in the world, subject to but one exception, AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 19 which could be cured by a slight amendment, and that amendment was to so change the law as to allow an appeal from the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, on all constitutional questions, to justices of the peace. My friend Mr. Lincoln, who sits behind me, reminds me that that proposi- tion was made when I was judge of the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, I 'do not think that fact adds any greater weight or authority to the suggestion. It matters not with me who was on the bench, whether Mr. Lincoln or myself, whether a Lockwood or a Smith, a Taney or a Marshall ; tlie decision of the highest tribunal known to the Constitution of the country must be final till it has been reversed by an equally high authority. Hence, I am opposed to this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, by which he proposes to take an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of the L'^nited States, upon this high constitu- tional question, to a Republican caucus sitting in the country. Yes, or any other caucus or town meeting, whether it be Republican, American, or Demo- cratic. I respect the decisions of that august tribunal; I shall always bow in deference to them. I am a law-abiding man. I will sustain the Constitution of my country as our fathers have made it. I will yield obedience to the laws, whether I like them or not, as I find them on the statute book. I will sustain the judicial tribunals and constituted authorities in all matters within the pale of their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution. But I am equally free to say that the reason assigned by Mr. Lincoln for resisting the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case does not in itself meet my approbation. He objects to it because that decision declared that a negro descended from African parents who were brought here and sold as slaves is not, and cannot be a citizen of the United States. He says it is wrong, because it deprives the negro of the benefits of that clause of the Con- stitution which says that citizens of one State shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States ; in other words, he thinks it wrong because it deprives the negro of the privileges, immunities, and rights of citizenship, which pertain, according to that decision, only to the white man. I am free to say to you that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should determine. It is also true that a negro, an Indian, or any other man of inferior race to a white man should be permitted to enjoy, and humanity requires that he should have, all the rights, privileges, and immunities which he is capable of exercising consistent with the safety of society. I would give him every right and every privilege which his capacity would enable him to enjoy, con- sistent with the good of the society in which he lived. But you may ask me, What are these rights and these privileges? My' answer is, that each State must decide for itself the nature and extent of these rights. Illinois has decided for herself. We have decided that the negro shall not be a slave, and we have at the same time decided that he shall not vote, or serve on juries, or enjoy political privileges. I am content with that system of policy which we have adopted for ourselves. I deny the right of any other State to complain of our policy in that respect, or to interfere with it, or to attempt to change it. On the other hand, the State of Maine has decided that in that State a negro man may vote on an equality with the white man. The sovereign power of Maine had the right to prescribe that rule for herself Illinois has no right to com- plain of Maine for conferring the right of negro suffrage, nor has Maine any right to interfere with or complain of Illinois because she has denied negro suffrage. 20 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN The State of New York lias decided by her Constitution that a negro may vote, provided that he own $250 worth of property, but not otherwise. The rich negro can vote, but the poor one cannot. Although that distinction does not commend itself to my judgment, yet I assert that the sovereign power of New York had a right to prescribe that form of the elective franchise. Ken- tucky, Virginia, and other States have provided that negroes, or a certain class of them in those States, shall be slaves, having neither civil or political rights. Without indorsing the wisdom of that decision, I assert that Virginia has the same power, by virtue of her sovereignty to protect slavery within her limits, as Illinois has to banish it forever from our own borders. I assert the right of each State to decide for itself on all these questions, and I do not subscribe to the doctrine of my friend Mr. Lincoln, that uniformity is either desirable or possible. I do not acknowledge that the States must all be free or must all be slave. I do not acknowledge that the negro must have civil and political rights everywhere or nowhere. I do not acknowledge that the Chinese must have the same rights in California that we would confer upon him here. I do not acknowledge that the coolie imported into this country must necessarily be put upon an equality with the white race. I do not acknowledge any of these doctrines of uniformity in the local and domestic regulations in the different States. Thus you see, my fellow-citizens, that the issues between Mr. Lincoln and myself, as respective candidates for the United States Senate, as made up, are direct, unequivocal, and irreconcilable. He goes for uniformity in our domestic institutions, for a war of sections, until one or the other shall be subdued. I go for the great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, — the right of the people to decide for themselves. On the other point, Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States because of their judicial decision in the Dred Scott case. I yield obedience to the decisions in that court, — to the final determination of the highest judicial tribunal known to our Constitution. He objects to the Dred Scott decision because it does not put the negro in the possession of the rights of citizenship on an equality with the white man. I am opposed to negro equality. I repeat that this nation is a white people, — a people com- posed of European descendants ; a people that have established this government for themselves and their posterity, — and I am in favor of preserving, not only the purity of the blood, but the purity of the government from any mixture or amalgamation with inferior races. I have seen the effects of this mixture of superior and inferior races, — this amalgamation of white men and Indians and negroes ; we have seen it in Mexico, in Central America, in South America, and in all the Spanish-American States ; and its result has been degeneration, demor- alization, and degradation below the capacity for self-government. I am opposed to taking any step that recognizes the negro man or the Indian as the equal of tlie white man. I am opposed to giving him a voice in the administration of the government. I would extend to the negro and tlie Indian and to all dependent races every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety and welfare of the white races ; but equality they never should have, either political or social, or in any other respect whatever. My friends, you see that the issues are distinctly drawn. I stand by the same platform that I have so often proclaimed to you and to the people of Illinois heretofore. I stand by the Democratic organization, yield obedience AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 21 to its usages, and support its regular nominations. I indorse and approve the Cincinnati platform, and I adhere to and intend to carry out, as part of that platform, the great principle of self-government, which recognizes tlie right of the people in each State and Territory to decide for themselves their domestic institutions. In other words, if the Lecompton issue shall arise again, you have only to turn back and see where you have found me during the last six months, and then rest assured that you will find me in the same position, battling for the same principle, and vindicating it from assault from whatever quarter it may come, so long as I have the power to do it. Fellow-citizens, you now have before you the outlines of the propositions which I intend to discuss before the people of Illinois during the pending campaign. I have spoken without preparation and in a very desultory man- ner, and may have omitted some points which I desired to discuss, and may have been less explicit on others than I could have wished. I have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination which has beeu made against me. The Eepublican leaders have formed an alliance — an unholy, unnatural alliance — with a portion of the unscrupulous Federal office-holders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. I know they deny the alliance, while avoiding the common purpose ; but yet these men, who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Picpublican Senator in my place, are just as much the agents, the tools, the supporters of Mr. Lincoln as if they were avowed Kepublicans, and expect their reward for their services when the Eepublicans come into power. I shall deal with these allied forces just as the Eussians dealt with the Allies at Sebastopol. The Eussians, when they fired a broadside at the common enemy, did not stop to inquire whether it hit a Frenchman, an Englishman, or a Turk, nor will I stop, nor shall I stop to inquire whether my blows hit the Eepubli- can leaders or their allies, who are holding the Federal offices, and yet acting in concert with the Eepublicans to defeat the Democratic party and its nomi- nees. I do not include all of the Federal office-holders in this remark. Such of them as are Democrats and show their Democracy by remaining inside of the Democratic organization and supporting its nominees, I recognize as Democrats; but those who, having been defeated inside of the organization, go outside and attempt to divide and destroy the party in concert with the Eepublican leaders, have ceased to be Democrats, and belong to the allied army, whose avowed object is to elect the Eepublician ticket by dividing and destroying the Democratic party. My friends, I have exhausted myself, and I certainly have fatigued you, in the long and desultory remarks winch I have made. It is now two nights since I have been in bed, and I think I have a right to a little sleep. I will, however, have an opportunity of meeting you face to face, and addressing you on more than one occasion before the November election. In conclusion, I must again say to you, justice to my own feelings demands it, that my grati- tude for the welcome you have extended to me on this occasion knows no bounds, and can be described by no language which I can command. I see that I am literally at home when among my constituents. This welcome has amply repaid me for every effort that I have made in the public service during nearly twenty-five years that I have held office at your hands. It not only compensates me for the past, but it furnishes an inducement and incentive for future effort which no man, no matter how patriotic, can feel who has not witnessed the magnificent reception you have extended to me to-night on my return. 22 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN. IN REPLY TO SENATOR DOUGLAS. Delivered at Chicago, Saturday Evening, July 10, 1858. (Mr. Douglas was not present.) Mr. Lincoln was introduced by C. L. Wilson, Esq. ; and as he made his appearance he was greeted with a perfect storm of applause. For some moments the enthusiasm continued unabated. At last, when by a wave of his hand partial silence was restored, Mr. Lincoln said : — My Fellow-Citizens : On yesterday evening, upon the occasion of the reception given to Senator Douglas, I was furnished with a seat very conven- ient for hearing him, and was otherwise very courteously treated by him and his friends, and for which I thank him and them. During the course of his remarks my name was mentioned in such a way as, I suppose, renders it at least not improper that I should make some sort of reply to him. I shall not attempt to follow him in the precise order in which he addressed the assembled multitude upon that occasion, though I shall perhaps do so in the main. There was one question to which he asked the attention of the crowd, which I deem of somewhat less importance — at least of propriety for me to dwell upon — than the others, which he brouglit in near the close of his speech, and which I think it would not be entirely proper for me to omit attending to, and yet if I were not to give some attention to it now, I should probably forget it altogether. While I am upon this subject, allow me to say that I do not intend to indulge in that inconvenient mode sometimes adopted in public speaking, of reading from documents ; but I shall depart from that rule so far as to read a little scrap from his speech, which notices this first topic of which I shall speak, — that is, provided I can find it in the paper. " I have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination that has been made against me; the RepubHcan leaders having formed an alliance — an unholy and unnatural alliance — M'ith a portion of unscrupulous Federal office-hold- ers. I intend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. I know they deny the alliance ; but yet these men who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Republican Senator in my place are just as much the agents and tools of the supporters of Mr. Lincoln. Hence I shall deal with this allied army just as the Russians dealt with the Allies at Sebastopol, — that is, the Russians did not stop to inquire, when they fired a broadside, whether it hit an Englishman, a Frenchman, or a Turk. Nor will I stop to inquire, nor shall I hesitate, whether my blows shall hit these Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the Federal offices, and yet acting in concert with them." Well, now, gentlemen, is not that very alarming ? Just to think of it ! right at the outset of his canvass I, a poor, kind, amiable, intelligent gentle- man, — I am to be slain in this way ! Why, my friend the Judge is not only, as it turns out, not a dead lion, nor even a living one, — he is the rugged liussian Bear ! Rut if they will have it — for he says that we deny it — that there is any such alliance, as he says there is, — and I don't propose hanging very much AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 23 upon this question of veracity, — but if lie will have it that there is such an alliance, — that the Administration men and we are allied, and we stand in the attitude of English, French, and Turk, he occupying the position of the Eussian, in that case 1 beg that he will indulge us while we barely suggest to him that these allies took Sebastopol. Gentlemen, only a few more words as to this alliance. For my part, I have to say that whether there be such an alliance depends, so far as I know, upon what may be a right definition of the term " alliance." If for the Eepublican party to see the other great party to which they are opposed divided among themselves, and not try to stop the division, and rather be glad of it, — if that is an alliance, I confess I am in ; but if it is meant to be said that the Kepub- licans had formed an alliance going beyond that, by which there is contribu- tion of money or sacrifice of principle on the one side or the other, so far as the Eepublican party is concerned, — if there be any such thing, I protest that I neither know anything of it, nor do I believe it. I will, however, say, — as I think this branch of the argument is lugged in, — I would before I leave it, state, for the benefit of those concerned, that one of those same Buchanan men did once tell me of an argument that he made for his opposition to Judge Douglas. He said that a friend of our Senator Douglas had been talking to him, and had, among other things, said to him : " Why, you don't want to beat Douglas ? " " Yes," said he, " I do want to beat him, and I will tell you why. I believe his original Nebraska bill was right in the abstract, but it was wrong in the time that it was brought forward. It was wrong in the application to a Territory in regard to which the question had been settled; it was brought forward at a time when nobody asked him; it wrs tendered to the South when the South had not asked for it, but when they could not well refuse it ; and for this same reason he forced that question upon our party. It has sunk the best men all over the nation, everywhere ; and now, when our President, struggling with the difficulties of this man's getting up, has reached the very hardest point to turn in the case, he deserts him and I am for putting him where he will trouble us no more." Now, gentlemen, that is not my argument ; that is not my argument at all. I have only been stating to you the argument of a Buchanan man. You will judge if there is any force in it. Popular sovereignty ! everlasting popular sovereignty ! Let us for a moment inquire into this vast matter of popular sovereignty. What is pop- ular sovereignty ? We recollect that at an early period in the history of this struggle there was another name for the same thing, — " Squatter Sover- eignty." It was not exactly Popular Sovereignty, but Squatter Sovereignty. What do those terms mean ? What do those terms mean when used now ? And vast credit is taken by our friend the Judge in regard to his support of it, when he declares the last years of his life have been, and all the future years of his life shall be, devoted to this matter of popular sovereignty. What is it ? Why, it is the sovereignty of the people ! What was Squatter Sover- eignty ? I suppose if it had any significance at all, it was the right of the people to govern themselves, to be sovereign in their own affairs while they were squatted down in a country not their own, while they had squatted on a Territory that did not belong to them, in the sense that a State belongs to the people who inhabit it, — when it belonged to the nation ; such right to govern themselves was called " Squatter Sovereignty." Now, I wish you to mark. What has become of that Squatter Sovereignty ? What has become of it ? Can you get anybody to tell you now that the 24 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN people of a Territory have any authority to govern tliemselves, in regard to this mooted question of slavery, before they form a State Constitution ? No such thing at all, although there is a general running fire, and although there has been a hurrah made in every speech on that side, assuming that policy had given the people of a Territory the right to govern themselves upon this ques- tion ; yet the point is dodged. To-day it has been decided — no more than a year ago it was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, and is insisted upon to-day — that the people of a Territory have no right to exclude slavery from a Territory ; that if any one man chooses to take slaves into a Territory, all the rest of the people have no right to keep them out. This being so, and this decision being made one of the points that the Judge approved, and one in the approval of which he says he means to keep me down, — put me down I should not say, for I have never been up. He says he is in favor of it, and sticks to it, and expects to win his battle on that decision, which says that there is no such thing as Squatter Sovereignty, but that any one man may take slaves into a Territory, and all the otlier men in the Territory may be opposed to it, and yet by reason of the Constitution they cannot prohibit it. When tliat is so, how much is left of this vast matter of Squatter Sovereignty, I should like to know ? When we get back, we get to the point of the right of the people to make a Constitution. Kansas was settled, for example, in 1854. It was a Territory yet, without having formed a constitution, in a very regular way, for three years. All this time negro slavery could be taken in by any few individuals, and by that decision of the Supreme Court, which the Judge approves, all the rest of the people cannot keep it out ; but when they come to make a consti- tution, they may say they will not have slavery. But it is there; they are obliged to tolerate it some way, and all experience shows it will be so, for they will not take the negro slaves and absolutely deprive the owners of them. All experience shows this to be so. All that space of time that runs from the beginning of the settlement of the Territory until there is sufficiency of people to make a State constitution, — all that portion of time popular sov- ereignty is given up. The seal is absolutely put down upon it by the court decision, and Judge Douglas puts his own upon the top of that; yet he is appealing to the people to give him vast credit for his devotion to popular sovereignty. Again, when we get to the question of the right of the people to form a State constitution as they please, to form it with slavery or without slavery, — if that is anything new, I confess I don't know it. Has there ever been a time wlien anybody said that any other than the people of a Territory itself should form a constitution ? What is now in it that Judoe Douolas should have fought several years of his life, and pledge himself to fight all the remain- ing years of his life for ? Can Judge Douglas find anybody on earth that said that anybody else should form a constitution for a people ? [A voice, "Yes."] Well, I should like you to name him ; I should like to know who he was. [Same voice, " John Calhoun."] Mr. Lincoln : No, sir, I never heard of even John Calhoun sa5nng such a thing. He insisted on the same principle as Judge Douglas ; but his mode of applying it, in fact, was wrong. It is enough for my purpose to ask this crowd whenever a Republican said anything against it. They never said anything against it, but they have constantly spoken for it ; and whoever will under- take 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 AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 25 from anybody in the Eepublican ranks opposed to that Popular Sovereignty which Judge Douglas thinks that he has invented. I suppose that Judge Douglas will claim, in a little while, that he is the inventor of the idea that the people should govern themselves ; that nobody ever thought of such a tiling 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 equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There" is the origin of Popular Sovereignty. Who, then, shall come in at this day and claim that be invented it ? The Lecompton Constitution connects itself with tliis question, for it is in this matter of the Lecompton Constitution that our friend Judge Douglas claims such vast credit. I agree that in opposing the Lecompton Constitu- tion, so far as I can perceive, he was right. I do not deny that at all ; and, gentlemen, you will readily see why I could not deny it, even if I wanted to. But I do not wish to ; for all the Republicans in the nation opposed it, and they would have opposed it just as much without Judge Douglas's aid as with it. They had all taken ground against it long before he did. Why, the reason that he urges against that Constitution, I urged against him a year before. I have the printed speech in my hand. The argument that he makes, w^hy that Constitution should not be adopted, that the people were not fairly represented nor allowed to vote, I pointed out in a speech a year ago, which I hold in my hand now, that no fair chance was to be given to the people. ["Ptead it, Read it."] I shall not waste your time by trying to read it. ["Read it, Read it."] Gentlemen, reading from speeches is a very tedious business, particularly for an old man 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 ? A 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 twenty. That is what he did to defeat it. In the House of Representatives he and his friends furnished some twenty votes, and the Republicans furnished ninety odd. Now who was it that did the work ? A voice : Douglas. Mr. Lincoln : Why, yes, Douglas did it ! To be sure he did. Let us, however, put that proposition another way. The Republicans could not have done it without Judge Douglas. Could he have done it without them ? Which could have come the nearest to doing it without the other ? A voice : Who killed the bill ? Another voice : Douglas. Mr. Lincoln : Ground was taken against it by the Republicans long before Douglas did it. The proportion of opposition to that measure is about five to one. A voice : Why don't they come out on it ? 4 26 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Mr. Lincoln : You don't know what you are talking about, my friend. I am quite willing to answer any gentleman in the crowd who asks an intelligent question. Now, who in all this country has ever found any of our friends of Judge Douglas's way of thinking, and who have acted upon this main question, that has ever thought of uttering a word in behalf of Judge Trumbull ? A voice : We have. Mr. Lincoln : I defy you to show a printed resolution passed in a Demo- cratic 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 Trum- bull, or any of the five to one Eepublicans who beat that bill. Everything must be for the Democrats ! They did everything, and the five to the one that really did the thing they snub over, and they do not seem to remember that they have an existence upon the face of the earth. Gentlemen, I fear that I shall become tedious. I leave this branch of the subject to take hold of another. I take up that part of Judge Douglas's speech in which he respectfully attended to me. Judge Douglas made two points upon my recent speech at Springfield. He says they are to be the issues of this campaign. The first one of these points he bases upon the language in a speech which I delivered at Springfield, which I believe I can quote correctly from memory. I said there that " we are now far into the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed object, and with the confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation ; under the operation of , that policy, that agitation had only not ceased, but had constantly augmented." " I believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this Gov- ernment cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free." " I do not expect the Union to be dissolved," — I am quoting from my speech, — "I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest, in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, North as well as South." AVhat is the paragraph ? In this paragraph, which I have quoted in your hearing, and to which I ask the attention of all, Judge Douglas thinks he dis- covers great political heresy. 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 in all their internal regulations ; that in all their domestic con- cerns I am in favor of making them entirely uniform. He draws this inference from the language I have quoted to you. He says that I am in favor of mak- ing war by the North upon the South for the extinction of slavery ; that I am also in favor of inviting (as he expresses it) tlie South to a war upon the North for the purpose of nationalizing slavery. Now, it is singular enough, if you will carefully read that passage over, that I did not say that I was in favor of anything in it. I only said what I expected would take place. I made a pre- diction only, — it may have been a foolish one, perhaps. I did not even say that I desired that slavery should be put in course of ultimate extinction. I do say so now, however, so there need be no longer any difliculty about that. It may be written down in the great speech. Gentlemen, Judge Douglas informed you that this speech of mine was prob- ably carefully prepared. I admit that it was. I am not master of language ; AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 27 I have not a fine education ; I am not capable of entering into a disquisition upon dialectics, as I believe you call it ; but I do not believe the language I employed bears any such construction as Judge Douglas puts upon it. But I don't care about a quibble in regard to words. I know what I meant, and I will not leave this crowd in doubt, if I can explain it to them, what I really meant in the use of that paragraph. I am not, in the first place, unaware that this Government has endured eighty-two years half slave and half free. I know that. I am tolerably well acquainted with the history of the country, and I know that it has endured eighty-two years half slave and half free. I hclieve — and that is what I meant to allude to there — I hcUcve it has endured, because during all that time, until the introduction of the Nebraska bill, the public mind did rest all the time in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. That was what gave us the rest that we had through that period of eighty-two years, — at least, so I believe. I have always hated slavery, I think, as much as any Abolitionist, — I have been an Old Line Whig, — I have always hated it ; but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska bill began. I always believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction. [Pointing to Mr. Browning, who stood near by.] Browning thought so ; the great mass of the nation have rested in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. They had reason so to believe. The adoption of the Constitution and its attendant history led the people to believe so ; and that such was the belief of the framers of the Constitution itself, why did those old men, about the time of the adoption of the Constitu- tion, decree that slavery should not go into the new Territory, where it had not already gone ? Why declare that within twenty years the African Slave Trade, by which slaves are supplied, might be cut off by Congress ? Why were all these acts ? I might enumerate more of these acts ; but enough. What were they but a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution intended and expected the ultimate extinction of that institution ? And now, when I say, as I said in my speech, that Judge Douglas has quoted from, when I say that I think the opponents of slavery will resist the farther spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest with the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction, I only mean to say that they will place it where the founders of this Government originally placed it. 1 have said a hundred times, and 1 have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination, in the people of the Free States to enter into the Slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always ; Judge Douglas has heard me say it, if not quite a hundred times, at least as good as a hundred times ; and when it is said that I am in favor of interfering with slavery where it exists, I know it is unwarranted by anytliing I have ever intended, and, as I believe, by any- thing I have ever said. If, by any means, I have ever used language which could fairly be so construed (as, however, I believe I never have), I now cor- rect it. So much, then, for the inference that. Judge Douglas draws, that I am in favor of setting the sections at war with one another. I know that I never meant any such thing, and I believe that no fair mind can infer any such thing from anything I have ever said. Now, in relation to his inference that I am in favor of a general consoli- dation of all the local institutions of the various States. I will attend to that 28 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN for a little while, and try to inquire, if I can, liow on earth it could be that any man could draw such an inference from anything I said. I have said, very many times, in Judge Douglas's hearing that no man believed more than I in the principle of self-government; that it lies at the bottom of all my ideas of just government, from beginning to end. I have denied that his use of that term applies properly. But for the thing itself, I deny that any man has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion to the principle, whatever he may have done in efficiency in advocating it. I think that 1 have said it in your hearing, that I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man's rights ; that each community, as a State, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within that State that interferes with the right of no other State ; and that the General Government, upon principle, has no right to interfere with anything other than that general class of things that does concern the whole. I have said tliat at all times. I have said, as illustrations, that I do not believe in the right of Illinois to interfere with the cranberry laws of Indiana, the oyster laws of Virginia, or the liquor laws of Maine. I have said these things over and over again, and I repeat them here as my seutiments. How is it, then, that Judge Douglas infers, because I hope to see slavery put where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, that I am in favor of Illinois going over and interfering with the cranberry laws of Indiana ? What can authorize him to draw any such inference ? I suppose there might be one tiling that at least enabled him to draw such an inference that would not be true with me or many others, that is, because he looks upon all this matter of slavery as an exceedingly little thing, — this matter of keeping one-sixth of the population of the whole nation in a state of oppression and tyranny unequalled in the world. He looks upon it as being an exceedingly little thing, — only equal to the ques- tion of the cranberry laws of Indiana ; as something having no moral ques- tion in it ; as something on a par with the question of whether a man shall pasture his land with cattle, or plant it with tobacco ; so little and so small a thing that he concludes, if I could desire that if anything should be done to bring about the ultimate extinction of that little thing, I must be in favor of bringing about an amalgamation of all the other little things in the Union. Now, it so happens — and there, I presume, is tlie 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. They look upon it as a vast moral evil ; they can prove it as such by the writings of those who gave us the blessings of liberty which we enjoy, and that they so looked upon it, and not as an evil merely confining itself to the States wdiere it is situated ; and wliile we agree that, by the Con- stitution we assented to, in the States wliere 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, then, as to my disposition — my wish — to have all the State Legislatures blotted out, and to have one consolidated government, aud a uni- formity of domestic regulations in all the States, by which I suppose it is meant, if we raise corn here, we must make sugar-cane grow here too, and we must make those which grow North grow in the South. All this I suppose he understands I am in favor of doing. Now, so much for all this nonsense ; AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 29 for I must call it so. The Judge can have no issue with me on a question of establishing uniformity in the domestic regulations of the States, A little now on the other ])oint, — the Dred Scott decision. Another of the issues he says that is to be made with me is upon his devotion to the Dred Scott decision, and my opposition to it. I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposition to the Dred Scott decision ; but I should be allowed to state tlie 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 difftculty that Judge Douglas speaks of, of interfer- ing 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 Con- gress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be pro- hibited 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 deci- sion when it was made ; but after it was made he would abide by it until it was reversed. Just so ! We let this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse that decision. We will try to put it where Judge Douglas would not object, for he says he will obey it uutil it is reversed. Somebod}'- 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 tliey say to everybody else, that persons 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. 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 thing. Why, decisions apparently contrar}^ to that decision, or that good lawyers thought were contrary to that decision, have been made by that very court before. It is the first of its kind ; it is an astonisher in legal history. It is a new wonder of the world. It is based upon falsehood in the main as to the facts ; allegations of facts upon which it stands are not facts at all in many instances, and no decision made on any question — the first instance of a decision made under so many unfavorable circumstances — thus placed, has ever been held by the profession as law, and it has always needed confirmation before the lawyers regarded it as settled law. But Judo'e Douglas will have it that all hands must take this extra- ordinary decision, made under these extraordinary 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 National Bank was declared to be constitutional ? Such is the truth, whether it be remembered or not. The Bank charter ran out, and 30 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN a re-cliarter was granted by Congress. That re-charter was laid before Gen- eral Jackson. It was urged upon him, when he denied the constitutionality of the Bank, that the Supreme Court had decided that it was constitutional ; and tliat General Jackson then said that the Supreme Court had no right to lay down a rule to govern a co-ordinate branch of the Government, the mem- bers of which had sworn to support the Constitution ; that each member had sworn to support that Constitution as he understood it. I will venture here to say that I have heard Judge Douglas say that he approved of General Jackson for that act. What has now become of all his tirade about " resist- ance to the Supreme Court " ? My fellow-citizens, getting back a little, — for I pass from these points, — when Judge Douglas makes his threat of anniliilation upon the " alliance," he is cautious to say that tliat warfare of his is to fall upon the leaders of the Eepublican party. Almost every word lie utters, and every distinction he makes, has its significance. He means for the Republicans who do not count themselves as leaders, to be his friends ; he makes no fuss over them ; it is the leaders that he is making war upon. He wauts it understood that the mass of the Eepublican party are really his friends. It is only the leaders that are doing something, that are intolerant, and that require extermination at his hands. As this is clearly and unquestionably the light in which he presents that matter, I want to ask your attention, addressing myself to the Republicans here, that I may ask you some questions as to where you, as the Republican party, would be placed if you sustained Judge Douglas in his present position by a re-election ? I do not claim, gentlemen, to be unselfish ; I do not pretend that I would not like to go to the United States Senate, — I make no such hypocritical pretence ; but I do say to you that in this mighty issue it is noth- ing to you — nothing to the mass of the people of the nation, — whether or not Judge Douglas or myself shall ever be heard of after this night; it may be a trifle to either of us, but in connection with this mighty question, upon which hang the destinies of the nation, perhaps, it is absolutely nothing : but where will you be placed if you re-indorse Judge Douglas ? Don't you know how apt he is, how exceedingly anxious he is at all times, to seize upon any- thing and everything to persuade you that something he has done you did yourselves ? Why, he tried to persuade you last night that our Illinois Legis- lature instructed him to introduce the Nebraska bill. There was nobody in that Legislature ever thought of such a thing ; and when he first introduced the bill, he never thought of it ; but still he fights furiously for the proposi- tion, and that he did it because there was a standing instruction to our Senators to be always introducing ISTebraska bills. He tells you he is for the Cincinnati platform, he tells you he is for the Dred Scott decision. He tells you, not in his speech last night, but substantially in a former speech, that he cares not if slavery is voted up or down ; he tells you the struggle on Lecomp- ton is past ; it may come up again or not, and if it does, he stands where he stood when, in spite of him and his opposition, you built up the Republi- can party. If you indorse him, you tell him you do not care whether slavery be voted up or down, and he will close, or try to close your mouths with his declaration, repeated by the day, the week, the month, and the year. Is that what you mean ? [Cries of " No," one voice " Yes."] Yes, I have no doubt you who have always been for him, if you mean that. No doubt of that, soberly I have said, and I repeat it. I think, in the position in which Judge Douglas stood in opposing the Lecompton Constitution, he was right ; he does not know that it will return, but if it does we may know where to AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 31 find him, and if it does not, we may know where to look for him, and that is on the Cincinnati platform. ISTow, I could ask the Eepublican party, after all the hard names that Judge Douglas has called them by, — all his repeated charges of their inclination to marry with and hug negroes ; all his declara- tions of Black Eepublicanism : by the way, we are improving, the black has got rubbed off, — but with all that, if he be indorsed by Eepublican votes, where do you stand? Plainly, you stand ready saddled, bridled, and har- nessed, and waiting to be driven over to the slavery extension camp of the nation, — just ready to be driven over, tied together in a lot, to be driven over, every man with a rope around his neck, that halter being held by Judge Douglas. That is the question. If Eepublican men have been in earnest in what they have done, I think they had better not do it ; but I think that the Republican party is made up of those who, as far as they can peaceably, will oppose the extension of slavery, and who will hope for its ultimate extinction. If they believe it is wrong in grasping up the new lands of the continent, and keeping them from the settlement of free white laborers, who want the land to bring up their families upon ; if they are in earnest, although they may make a mistake, they will grow restless, and the time will come when they will come back again and reorganize, if not by the same name, at least upon the same principles as their party now has. It is better, then, to save the work while it is begun. You have done the labor ; maintain it, keep it. If men choose to serve you, go with them ; but as you have made up your organi- zation upon principle, stand by it ; for, as surely as God reigns over you, and has inspired your mind, and given you a sense of propriety, and continues to give you hope, so surely will you still cling to these ideas, and you will at last come back again after your wanderings, merely to do your work over again. We were often, — more than once, at least, — in the course of Judge Douglas's speech last night, reminded that this government was made for white men ; that he believed it was made for white men. "Well, that is put- ting it into a shape in which no one wants to deny it ; but the Judge then goes into his passion for drawing inferences that are not warranted. I protest, now and forever, against that counterfeit logic which presumes that because I did not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I need not have her for either, but, as God made us separate, we can leave one another alone, and do one another much good thereby. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women ; and in God's name let them be so married. The Judge regales us with the terrible enormities that take place by the mixture of races ; that the inferior race bears the superior down. Why, Judge, if we do not let them get together in the Territories, they won't mix there. A voice : Three cheers for Lincoln. (The cheers were given with a hearty good will.) Mr. Lincoln : I should say at least that that is a self-evident truth. Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometimes about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them. We are now a mighty nation ; we are thirty, or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about 32 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN eighty-two years, and we discover that we were then a very small people iu point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country, with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men ; we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers ; they were iron men ; they fought for the principle that they were contending for ; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity wliich we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual cele- bration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time, of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it ; and we go from these meetings in better humor with 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 themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals iu 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 them- selves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us ; but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ; " and then they feel that that moral senti- ment, taught in that day, evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration ; and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of " don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down," for sustaining the Dred Scott decision, for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now, I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and indorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that tlie inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying ; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments ? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were of this class ; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 33 is tlieir argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says, You work, and I eat ; You toil, and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will, whether it come from the mouth of a king, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent ; and I hold, if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if, taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop ? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man ? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book, in which we find it, and tear it out ! Who is so bold as to do it ? If it is not true, let us tear it out! [Cries of "No, no."] Let us stick to it, then ; let us stand firmly by it, then. It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities and impose them upon us ; and to the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man, he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established this government. We had slavery among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more ; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let that charter stand as our standard. My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand to quote scripture. I will try it again, however. It is said in one of the admonitions of our Lord, " As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." The Saviour, I suppose, did not expect that any human creature could be perfect as the Father in heaven ; but he said, " As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also per- fect." He set that up as a standard ; and he who did most toward reaching that standard, attained the highest degree of moral perfection. So I say in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can. If we cannot give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature. Let us then turn this fvoverument back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitu- tion originally placed it. Let us stand firmly by each other. If we do not do so, we are turning in the contrary direction, that our friend Judge Douglas proposes — not intentionally — as working in the traces tend to make this one universal slave nation. He is one that runs in that direction, and as such I resist him. My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I have only to say. Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man ; this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position ; discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. My friends, I could not, without launching off upon some new topic, which would detain you too long, continue to-night. 1 thank you for tliis most extensive audience that you have furnished me to-night. I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal. 6 34 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS. Delivered at Bloomington, III., July 16, 1858. (Mr. Lincoln was present.) Senator Douglas said : — Mr. Chairman, and Fellow-citizens of McLean County: To say that I am profoundly touched by the hearty welcome you have extended me, and by the kind and complimentary sentiments you have expressed toward me, is but a feeble expression of the feelings 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 in the Senate of the United States upon the great public questions which have agitated the country since I last addressed you. 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 Demo- cratic party, and yet acting in alliance with the enemies of that party, for the purpose of electing Eepublicans to Congress in this State, in place of the pre- sent Democratic delegation. I desire your attention whilst I address you, and then I will ask your verdict whether I have not in all things acted in entire good faith, and honestly carried out the principles, the professions, and the avowals which I made before my constituents previous to my going to the Senate. During the last session of Congress the great question of controversy has been the admission of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Constitu- tion. I need not inform you that from the beginning to the end I took bold, determined, and unrelenting ground in opposition to that Lecompton Constitu- tion. My reason for that course is contained in the fact that that instrument was not tlie act and deed of tlie people of Kansas, and did not embody their will, I hold it to be a fundamental principle in all free governments — a principle asserted in the Declaration of Independence, and underlying the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of every State of the Union — that every people ought to have the right to form, adopt, and ratify the Constitution under which they are to live. When I introduced the Nebraska bill in the Senate of the United States, in 1854, I incorporated in it the pro- vision that it was the true intent and meaning of the bill, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their own domestic insti- tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. In that bill the pledge was distinctly made that the people of Kansas should be left not only free, but perfectly free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions to suit themselves ; and the question arose, when the Lecompton Constitution w-as sent into Congress, and the admission of Kansas not only asked, but attempted to be forced under it, "whether or not that Con- stitution was the free act and deed of the people of Kansas ? No man pre- tends that it embodied their wilh Every man in America knows that it w-as rejected by the people of Kansas, by a majority of over ten thousand, before the attempt was made in Congress to force the Territory into the Union under that Constitution. I resisted, therefore, the Lecompton Constitution because it was a violation of the great principle of self-government, upon which all our institutions rest. I do not wish to mislead you, or to leave you in doubt as AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 35 to the motives of my action. I did not oppose the Lecompton Constitution upon the ground of the slavery clause contained in it. I made my speech against tliat instrument before the vote was taken on the slavery clause. At the time I made it I did not know whether that clause would be voted in or out ; whether it would be included in the Constitution, or excluded from it ; and it made no difference with me what the result of the vote was, for the reason that I was contending for a principle, under which you have no more right to force a Free State upon a people against tlieir will, than you have to force a Slave State upon them without their consent. The error consisted in attempting to control the free action of the people of Kansas in any respect whatever. It is no argument with me to say that such and such a clause of the Constitution was not palatable, that you did not like it ; it is a matter of no con- sequence whether you in Illinois like any clause in the Kansas Constitution or not ; it is not a question for you, but it is a question for the people of Kansas. They have the right to make a Constitution in accordance with their own wishes, and if you do not like it, you are not bound to go there and live under it. We in Illinois have made a Constitution to suit ourselves, and we think we have a tolerably good one ; but whether we have or not, it is nobody's busi- ness but our own. If the people in Kentucky do not like it, they need not come here to live under it ; if the people of Indiana are not satisfied with it, what matters it to us ? We, and we alone, have the right to a voice in its adoption or rejection. Reasoning tlms, my friends, my efforts were directed to the vindication of the great principle involving the right of the people of each State and each Territory to fprm and regulate their own domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject only to the Constitution of our common country. I am rejoiced to be enabled to say to you that we fought that battle until we forced the advocates of the Lecompton instrument to abandon the attempt of inflicting it upon the people of Kansas, without first giving them an opportu- nity of rejecting it. When we compelled them to abandon that effort, they resorted to a scheme. They agreed to refer the Constitution back to the people of Kansas, thus conceding the correctness of the principle for which I had contended, and granting all I had desired, provided the mode of that refer- ence and the mode of submission to the people had been just, fair, and equal. I did not consider the mode of submission provided in what is known as the " English " bill a fair submission, and for this simple reason, among others : It provided, in effect, that if the people of Kansas would accept the Lecompton Constitution, that they might come in with 35,000 inhabitants ; but that, if they rejected it, in order that they might form a constitution agreeable to their own feelings, and conformable to their own principles, that they should not be received into the Union until they had 93,420 inhabitants. In other words, it said to the people. If you will come into the Union as a slaveholding State, you shall be admitted with 35,000 inhabitants ; but if you insist on being a Free State, you sliall not be admitted until you have 93,420. I was not will- ing to discriminate between Free States and Slave States in this Confederacy. I will not put a restriction upon a Slave State that I would not put upon a Free State, and I will not permit, if I can prevent it, a restriction being put upon a Free State which is not applied with thesame force to the slaveholding States. Equality among the States is a cardinal and fundamental principle in our Con- federacy, and cannot be violated without overturning our system of government. Hence I demanded that the Free States and the slaveholding States should be kept on an exact equality, one with the other, as the Constitution of the United States had placed them. If the people of Kansas want a slaveholding 36 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN State, let them have it ; and if they want a Free State they have a right to it ; and it is not for the people of Illinois, or Missouri, or New York, or Ken- tucky, to complain, whatever the decision of the people of Kansas may be upon that point. But while I was not content with the mode of submission contained 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 different 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, because whatever deci- sion the people shall make at that election must be final, and conclusive of the whole question. If the people of Kansas accept the proposition submitted by Congress, from that moment Kansas will become a State of the Union, and there is no way of keeping her out if you should try. The act of admission would 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 terminates 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 constituency. 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 wide reputation, renowned all over America, who led the van, and are entitled to the greatest share of the credit. Foremost among them all, as he was head and shoulders above them all, was Kentucky's great and gallant statesman, John J. Crittenden. By his course upon this question he has shown himself a worthy successor of the immortal Clay, and well may Kentucky be proud of him. I will not withhold, either, the meed of praise due the Eepublican party in Congress for the course which they pursued. In the language of the " New York Tribune," they came to the Douglas platform, abandoning their own, believing that under the peculiar circumstances they would in that mode best subserve 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 principle. I never hesitate in my course when I find those who on all former occasions differed from me upon the principle finally coming to its support. Nor is it for me to inquire into the motives which animated the Republican members of Congress in supporting the Crittenden- Montgomery bill. It is enough for me that in that case they came square up AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 37 and indorsed the great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which declared that Kansas should be received into the Union, with slavery or without, as its Constitution should prescribe. I was the more rejoiced at the action of the Eepublicans on that occasion for another reason. I could not forget, you will not soon forget, how unanimous that party was, in 1854, in declaring that never should another Slave State be admitted into this Union under any cir- cumstances whatever ; and yet we find that during this last winter they came up and voted to a man, declaring that Kansas should come in as a State with slavery under the Lecompton Constitution, if her people desired it, and that if they did not, that they might form a new Constitution, with slavery or with- out, just as they pleased. I do not question the motive when men do a good act ; I give them credit for the act ; and if they will stand by tliat principle in the future, and abandon their heresy of " no more Slave States even if the people want them," I will then give them still more credit. I am afraid, though, that they will not stand by it in the future. If they do, I will freely forgive them all the abuse they heaped upon me in 1854 for having advocated and carried out that same principle in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Illinois stands proudly forward as a State which early took her position in favor of the principle of popular sovereignty as applied to the Territories of the United States. When the Compromise measure of 1850 passed, predicated upon that principle, you recollect the excitement which prevailed throughout the northern portion of this State. I vindicated those measures then, and defended myself for having voted for them, upon the ground that they embo- died the principle that every people ought to have the privilege of forming and rejzulatin'i- their own institutions to suit themselves ; that each State had that right, and I saw no reason why it should not be extended to the Territories. When the people of Illinois had an opportunity of passing judgment upon those measures, tliey indorsed them by a vote of their representatives in the Legislature, — sixty-one in the affirmative, and only four in the negative, — in which they asserted that the principle embodied in the measures was the birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, a principle vindicated by our revolu- tionary fathers, and that no limitation should ever be placed upon it, either in the organization of a Territorial Government or the admission of a State into the Union. That resolution still stands unrepealed on the journals of the Legislature of Illinois. In obedience to it, and in exact conformity with the principle, I brought in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, requiring tliat the people should be left perfectly free in the formation of their institutions and in the organization of their government. I now submit to you whether I have not in good faith redeemed that pledge, that the people of Kansas should be left perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions to suit themselves. And yet, while no man can arise in any crowd and deny that I have been faithful to my principles and redeemed my pledge, we find those who are struggling to crush and defeat me, for the very reason that I have been faithful in carry- ing out those measures. We find the Eepublican leaders forming an alliance with professed Lecompton men to defeat every Democratic nominee and elect Eepublicans in their places, and aiding and defending them in order to help them break down Anti-Lecompton men, whom they acknowledge did right in their opposition to Lecompton. The only hope that Mr. Lincoln has of defeating me for the Senate rests in the fact that I was faithful to my prin- ciples and that he may be able in consequence of that fact to form a coalition with Lecompton men who wish to defeat me for that fidelity. This is one element of strength upon which he relies to accomplish his 38 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN object. He hopes be can secure tbe few nieu clainiing to be friends of the Lecompton Constitution, and for that reason you will find he does not say a word against the Lecompton Constitution or its supporters. He is as silent as the grave upon that subject. Behold Mr. Lincoln courting Lecompton votes, in order that he may go to the Senate as the representative of Eepublican principles ! You know that the alliance exists. I think you will find that it will ooze out before the contest is over. Every Eepublican paper takes ground with my Lecompton enemies, en- couraging them, stimulating them in their opposition to me. and styling my friends bolters from the Democratic party, and their Lecompton allies the true Democratic party of the country. K they think that they can mislead and deceive the people of Hlinois, or the Democracy of Illinois, by that sort of an unnatural and unholy alliance, I think they show very little sagacity, or give the people very little credit for intelligence. It must be a contest of principle. Either the radical Abolition principles of Mr. Lincoln must be maintained, or the strong, constitutional, national Democratic principles with which I am identified must be carried out. There can be but two great political parties in this country. The contest this year and in 1860 must necessarily be between the Democracy and the Eepublicans, if we can judge from present indications. My whole life lias 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 M'as never better united or more harmonious than at this time. The State Convention which assembled on the 2d of April, and nominated Fondey and French, was regularly called by the State Central Committee, appointed by the previous State Convention for that purpose. The meetings in each county in the State for the appointment of delegates to the Convention were regularly called by the county committees, and the proceedings in every county in the State, as well as in the State 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 party there assembled declared their unalterable attachment to the time- honored principles and organization of the Democratic party, and to the Cin- cinnati platform. They declared that that platform was the only authoritative exposition of Democratic principles, and that it must so stand until changed by another National Convention ; that in the mean time they would make no new tests, and submit to none ; tliat they would proscribe no Democrat or permit the proscription of Democrats because of their opinion upon Lecomp- tonism, or upon any other issue which has arisen, but would recognize all men as Democrats who remained inside of the organization, preserved the usages of the party, and supported its nominees. These bolting Democrats who now claim to be the peculiar friends of the National Administration, and have formed an alliance with Mr. Lincoln and the Eepublicans for the purpose of defeating the Democratic party, have ceased to claim fellowship with the Democratic organization, have entirely separated themselves from it, and are endeavoring to build up a faction in the State, not with the hope or expecta- tion of electing any one man who professes to be a Democrat to office in any county in the State, but merely to secure the defeat of the Democratic nomi- nees and the election of Eepublicans in their places. What excuse can any honest Democrat have for abandoning the Democratic organization and join- ing with the Eepublicans to defeat our nominees, in view of the platform established by the State Convention ? They cannot pretend that they were AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 39 proscribed because of their opinions upon Lecompton or any other question, for the Convention expressly declared that they recognized all as good Demo- crats who remained inside of the organization and abided by the nominations. If the question is settled or is to be considered as finally disposed of by the vote on the 3d of August, what possible excuse can any good Democrat make for keeping up a division for the purpose of prostrating his party, after that election is over and the controversy has terminated ? It is evident that all who shall keep up this warfare for tlie purpose of dividing and destroying the party have made up their minds to abandon the Democratic organization for- ever, and to join those for whose benefit they are now trying to distract our party, and elect Republicans in the place of the Democratic nominees. I submit the question to you whether I have been right or wrong in the course I have pursued in Congress. And I submit, also, whether I have not redeemed in good faitli every pledge I have made to you. Then, my friends, the question recurs, whether I shall be sustained or rejected ? If you are of opinion that Mr. Lincoln will advance tlie interests of Illinois better than I can ; that he will sustain lier honor and her dignity higher than it has been in my power to do ; that your interests and the interests of your children require his election instead of mine, it is your duty to give him your support. If, on the contrary, you think that my adherence to these great fundamental principles upon which our government is founded is the true mode of sustain- ing the peace and harmony of the country, and maintaining the jierpetuity of the Eepublic, I then ask you to stand by me in the efforts I have made to that end. And this brings me to the consideration of the two points at issue between Mr. Lincoln and myself. The Republican Convention, when it assembled at Springfield, did me and the country the honor of indicating the man who was to be their standard-bearer, and the embodiment of their principles, in this State. I owe them my gratitude for thus making up a direct issue between IVIr. Lincoln and myself. I shall have no controversies of a personal character with Mr. Lincoln. I have known him well for a quarter of a century. I have known him, as you all know him, a kind-hearted, amiable gentleman, a right good fellow, a worthy citizen, of eminent ability as a lawyer, and, I have no doubt, sufficient ability to make a good Senator. The question, tlien, for you to decide is, whether his principles are more in accordance with the genius of our free institutions, the peace and harmony of the Republic, than those which I advocate. He tells you, in his speech made at Springfield, before the Con- vention which gave him his unanimous nomination, that, — " A house divided against itself cannot stand." " I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free." " I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, I don't expect the house to fall ; but I do expect it will cease to be divided." "It will become all one thing or all the other." That is the fundamental principle upon which he sets out in this campaign. Well, I do not suppose you will believe one word of it when you come to examine it carefully, and see its consequences. Althougli the Republic has existed from 1789 to this day, divided into Free States and Slave States, yet we are told that in the future it cannot endure unless they shall become all free or all slave. For that reason he says, as the gentleman in the crowd says, that they must be all free. He wishes to go to the Senate of the United States in order to carry out that line of public policy, which will compel all 40 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN the States in the South to become free. How is he going to do it ? Has Congress any power over the subject of slavery in Kentucky, or Virginia, or any other State of this Union ? How, then, is Mr. Lincoln going to carry out that principle which he says is essential to the 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 abolition 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 Republic, 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 against itself cannot stand. That is Mr. Lincoln's argument upon that question. My friends, is it possible to preserve peace between the North and the South if such a doctrine shall prevail in either section of the ITnion ? 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 heart's blood before 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 lieart's blood to prevent Illinois, or any other Northern State, from interfering to abolish slavery in his State ? Each of these States is sovereign under the Constitu- tion ; and if we wish to preserve our liberties, the reserved rights and sove- reignty of each and every State must be maintained. I have said on a former occasion, and I here repeat, that it is neither desirable nor possible to establish uniformity in the local and domestic institutions of all the States of this Con- federacy. And why ? Because the Constitution of the United States rests upon the right of every 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 and patriotism enough left to make another that will work half so well. Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it, inviolate, at the same time maintaining the reserved rights and the sovereignty of each State over its local and domestic institutions, against Federal authority, or any outside interference. The difference 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 night last, made a speech at Chicago for the purpose, as he said, of explaining his position on this question. I have read that speech with great care, and will do him the justice to say that it is marked by eminent ability, and great success in concealing what he did mean to say in his Springfield 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 AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 41 intended to convey the idea, that he wished the " people of the Free States to enter into the Southern States and interfere with slavery." Well, I never did suppose that he ever dreamed of entering into Kentucky to make war upon her institutions ; nor will any Abolitionist ever enter into Kentucky to wage such war. Their mode of makino- war is not to enter into those States where slavery exists, and there interfere, and render themselves responsible for the consequences. Oh, no ! They stand on this side of the Ohio Eiver and shoot across. They stand in Bloomington, and shake their fists at the people of Lexington; they threaten South Carolina from Chicago. And they call that bravery ! But they are very particular, as Mr. Lincoln says, not to enter into those States for the purpose of interfering with the institution of slavery there. I am not only opposed to entering into the Slave States, for the purpose of interfering with their institutions, hut I am opposed to a sectional agitation to control the institutions of other States. I am opposed to organizing a sectional party, which appeals to Northern pride, and Northern passion and prejudice, against Southern institutions, thus stirring up ill-feeling and hot blood between brethren of the same Eepublic. I am opposed to that whole system of sec- tional agitation, which can produce nothing but strife, but discord, but hostility, and, finally, disunion. And yet Mr. Lincoln asks you to send him to the Sen- ate of the United States, in order that he may carry out that great principle of his, that all the States must be slave, or all must be free. I repeat, how is he to carry it out when he gets to the Senate ? Does he intend to introduce a bill to abolish slavery in Kentucky ? Does he intend to introduce a bill to inter- fere with slavery in Virginia ? How is he to accomplish what he professes must be done in order to save the Union ? Mr. Lincoln is a lawyer, sagacious and able enough to tell you how he proposes to do it. I ask Mr. Lincoln how it is that he proposes ultimately to bring about this uniformity in each and all the States of the Union. There is but one possible mode which I can see, and perhaps Mr. Lincoln intends to pursue it ; that is, to introduce a proposition into the Senate to change the Constitution of the United States, in order that all the State Legislatures may be abolished. State sovereignty blotted out, and the power conferred upon Congress to make local laws and establish the domestic institutions and police regulations uniformly throughout the United States. Are you prepared for such a change in the institutions of your country ? Whenever you shall have blotted out the State sovereignties, abolished the State Legislatures, and consolidated all the power in the Federal Government, you will have established a consolidated Empire as destructive to the liberties of the people and the rights of the citizen as that of Austria, or Russia, or any other despotism that rests upon the necks of the people. How is it possible for Mr. Lincoln to carry out his cherished principle of abolishing slavery every- where or establishing it everywhere, except by the mode which I have pointed out, — by an amendment to the Constitution to the effect that I have suggested ? There is no other possible mode. Mr. Lincoln intends resorting to that, or else he means nothing by the great principle upon which he desires to be elected. My friends, I trust that we will be able to get him to define what he does mean by this scriptural quotation that " A house divided against itself cannot stand ; " that the government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free ; that it must be all one thing, or all the other. Who among you expects to live, or have his children live, until slavery shall be established in Illinois or abolished in South Carolina ? Who expects to see that occur during the life- time of ourselves or our children ? There is but one possible way in which slavery can be abolished, and that 6 42 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN is by leaving a State, according to the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, perfectly free to form and regulate its institutions in its own way. That w^as the principle upon which this Republic was founded, and it is under the operation of that principle that we have been able to preserve the Union thus far. Under its operations, slavery disappeared from New Hampshire, from Rhode Island, from Connecticut, from New York, from New Jersey, from Pennsylvania, from six of the twelve original slaveholding States ; and this gradual system of emancipation went on quietly, peacefully, and steadily, so Ion" as we in the Free States minded our own business and left our neighbors alone. But the moment the Abolition societies were organized throuoliout the North, preaching a violent crusade against slavery in the Southern States, this combination necessarily caused a counter-combination in the South, and a sectional line was drawn which was a barrier to any further emancipation. Bear 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. Eman- cipation went on gradually in State after State so long as the Free States were content with managing their own affairs and leaving the South perfectly free to do as they pleased ; but the moment the North said. We are powerful enough to control you of the South, the moment the North proclaimed itself the determined master of the South, that moment the South combined to resist the attack, and thus sectional parties were formed, and gradual emanci- pation ceased in all the Northern slaveholding States. And yet Mr. Lincoln, in view of these historical facts, proposes to keep up this sectional agitation, band all the Northern States together in one political party, elect a President by Northern votes alone, and then, of course, make a cabinet composed of Northern men, and administer the government by Northern men only, deny- ing all the Southern States of this Union any participation in the administra- tion of affairs 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 business, and discountenancing any attempt at interference on the part of one State with the domestic concerns of the others. Mr. Lincoln makes another issue with me, and he wishes to confine the contest to these two issues. I accept the other as readily as the one to which I have already referred. The other issue is a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States, because of its decision in the Dred Scott case. My fellow-citizens, I have no issue to make wath the Supreme Court. I have no crusade to preach against that august body. I have no warfare to make upon it. I receive the decision of the Judges of that Court, when 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 law- yer, to go before the Supreme Court and argue any question that might arise there, taking either side of it, and enforcing 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 w^e 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 own civil rights. What protects your property AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. ' 43 but the law, and who expounds the law but the judicial tribunals ; and if an appeal is to be taken from the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in all cases where a person 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 re- verse the decision ? If so, how are we to enforce our decrees after we have 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 Lovejoy," and shouts of laughter.] Why, if I understand aright, Lincoln 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 beat again, I thought it better to say no more about it, as I did not know of any lawful mode of reversing the decision of the highest tribunal on earth. To whom is Mr. Lincoln going to appeal ? Why, he says he is going to appeal to Congress. Let us see how he will appeal to Congress. He tells us that on the 8th of March, 1820, Congress passed a law called the Missouri Compromise, prohibiting slavery forever in all the territory west of the Mississippi and north of the Missouri line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, that Dred Scott, a slave in Missouri, was taken by his master to Fort Snelling, in the present State of Minnesota, situated on the west branch of the Mississippi Eiver, and consequently in the Territory where slavery was prohibited by the Act of 1820, and that wlien Dred Scott appealed for his freedom in consequence of having been taken into a free Territory, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that Dred Scott did not become free by being taken into that Territory, but that having been carried back to Missouri, was yet a slave. Mr. Lincoln is going to appeal from that decision and reverse it. He does not intend to reverse it as to Dred Scott. Oh, no ! But he will reverse it so that it shall not stand as a rule in the future. How will he do it ? He says that if he is elected to the Senate, he will introduce and pass a law just like the Missouri Com- promise, prohibiting slavery again in all the Territories. Suppose, he does re-enact the same law which the Court has pronounced unconstitutional, will that make it constitutional ? If the Act of 1820 was unconstitutional in con- sequence of Congress having no power to pass it, will Mr. Lincoln make it constitutional by passing it again ? What clause of the Constitution of the United States provides for an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court to Congress ? If my reading of that instrument is correct, it is to the effect that that Constitution and all laws made in pursuance of it are of the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of a State to the contrary notwithstanding. Hence, you will find that only such Acts of Congress are laws as are made in pursuance of the Constitution. When Congress has passed an Act, and put it on the statute book as law, who is to decide whether that Act is in conformity with the Constitution or not ? The Constitution of the United States tells you. It has provided that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in a Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Thus, by the Consti- tution, the Supreme Court is declared, in so many words, to be the tribunal, 44 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN and the only tribunal, which is competent to adjudicate upon the constitution- ality of an Act of Congress. He tells you that that Court has adjudicated the question, and decided that an Act of Congress prohibiting slavery in the Ter- ritory is unconstitutional and void ; and yet he says he is going to pass another like it. What for ? Will it be any more valid ? Will he be able to convince the Court that the second Act is valid when the first is invalid and void ? What good does it do to pass a second Act ? Why, it will have the effect to arraign the Su])reme Court before the people, and to bring them into all the political discussions of the country. Will that do any good ? Will it inspire any more confidence in the judicial tribunals of the country ? What good can it do to wage this war upon the Court, arraying it against Congress, and Congress against the Court ? The Constitution of the United States has said that this government shall be divided into three separate and distinct branches, — the executive, the legislative, and the judicial ; and of course each one is supreme and independent of the other within the circle of its own powers. The functions of Congress are to enact the statutes, the province of the Court is to pronounce upon their validity, and the duty of the Executive is to carry the decision into effect when rendered by the Court. And yet, notwithstanding the Constitution makes the decision of the Court final in regard to the validity of an Act of Congress, Mr. Lincoln is going to reverse that decision by passing another Act of Congress. When he has become convinced of the folly of the proposition, perhaps he will resort to the same subterfuge that I have found others of his party resort to, which is to agitate and agitate until he can change the Supreme Court and put other men in the places of the present incumbents. I wonder whether Mr. Lincoln is right sure that he can accomplish that reform. He certainly will not be able to get rid of the present Judges until they die, and from pres- ent appearances I think they have as good security of life as he has himself. I am afraid that my friend Lincoln would not accomplish this task during his own lifetime, and yet he wants to go to Congress to do it all in six years. Do you think that he can persuade nine Judges, or a majority of them, to die in that six years, just to accommodate him ? They are appointed Judges for life, and according to the present organization, new ones cannot be appointed during that time ; but he is going to agitate until they die, and then have the President appoint good Eepublicans in their places. He had better be quite sure that he gets a Republican President at the same time to appoint them. He wants to have a Republican President elected by Northern votes, not a Southern man participating, and elected for the purpose of placing none but Republicans on the bench ; and, consequently, if he succeeds in electing that President, and succeeds in persuading the present Judges to die, in order that their vacancies may be filled, that the President will then appoint their suc- cessors. And by what process will he appoint them ? He first looks for a man who has the legal qualifications, perhaps he takes Mr. Lincoln, and says, " Mr. Lincoln, would you not like to go on the Supreme bench ? " " Yes," replies Mr. Lincoln. " Well," returns the Republican President, " I cannot appoint you until you give me a pledge as to how you will decide in the event of a particular question coming before you." What would you think of Mr. Lincoln 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 appointment as to how he will decide each question that may arise upon points affecting the Republican party. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 45 Now, my friends, suppose this scheme was practical, I ask you what con- fidence you would have in a Court thus constituted, — a Court composed of partisan Judges, appointed on political grounds, selected with a view to the decision of questions in a particular way, and pledged in regard to a decision before the argument, and witliout reference to the peculiar state of the facts. Would such a Court command the respect of the country ? If the Eepub- licau party cannot trust Democratic Judges, how can they expect us to trust Eepublican Judges, when they have been selected in advance for the purpose of packing a decision in the event of a case arising ? My fellow-citizens, whenever partisan politics shall be carried on to the bench; whenever the Judges shall be arraigned upon the stump, and their judicial conduct reviewed in town meetings and caucuses ; whenever the independence and integrity of the judi- ciary shall be tampered with to the extent of rendering them partial, blind, and suppliant tools, what security will you have for your rights and your liberties ? I therefore take issue with Mr. Lincoln directly in regard to this warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States. I accept the decision of that Court as 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 admin- ister them. I am bound by our Constitution 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 peaceful means, all attempts at exciting mobs, or violence, or any other revolutionary proceedings against the Constitution and the constituted author- ities of the country. Mr. Lincoln is alarmed for fear that, under the Dred Scott decision, 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 Eepublican 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 bill passed. There was quite a number of slaves iu Kansas, taken there under the Missouri Compromise, and in spite of it, before the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed ; and now it is asserted that there are not as many there as there were before the passage of the bill, notwithstanding that they had local laws sustaining and encouraging it, enacted, as the Eepublicans say, by a " bogus " Legislature, imposed 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 they 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 favorable to it. I tell you, my friends, it is im- possible under our institutions to force slavery on an unwilling people. If this principle of popular sovereignty asserted in the Nebraska bill be fairly carried 46 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN out, by letting the people decide the question for themselves, by a fair vote, at a fair election, and with honest returns, slavery will never exist one day, or one hour, in any Territory against the unfriendly legislation of an unfriendly people. I care not how the Dred Scott decision may have settled the abstract cj^uestion so far as the practical result is concerned ; for, to use the language of an eminent Southern Senator on this very question : — " I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, for it is of no particular consequence ; slavery cannot exist a day or an hour, in any Territory or State, unless it has affirmative laws sustaining and supporting it, furnishing police regula- tions and remedies ; and an omission to furnish them would be as fatal as a con- stitutional prohibition. Without affirmative legislation in its favor, slavery could not exist any longer than a new-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." Hence, if the people of a Territory want slavery, they will encourage it by passing affirmatory 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 constitu- tional prohibition, especially if, in addition, their legislation is unfriendly, as it would be if they were opposed to it. They could pass such local laws and police regulations as would drive slavery out in one day, or one hour, if they were opposed to it ; and therefore, so far as the question of slavery in the Territories is concerned, so far as the principle of popular sovereignty is con- cerned, in its practical operation, it matters not how the Dred Scott case may be decided with reference to the Territories. My own opinion on that law point is well known. It is shown by my votes and speeches in Congress. But be it as it may, the question was an abstract question, inviting no prac- tical results ; and whether slavery shall exist or shall not exist in any State or Territory will depend upon whether the people are for or against it ; and whichever way they shall decide it in any Territory or in any State, will be entirely satisfactory to me. But I must now bestow a few words upon Mr. Lincoln's main objection to the Dred Scott decision. He is not going to submit to it. Not that he is going to make war upon it with force of arms. But he is going to appeal and reverse it in some way ; he cannot tell us how. I reckon not by a writ of error, because I do not know where he would prosecute that, except before an Abolition Society. And when he appeals, he does not exactly tell us to whom he will appeal, except it be the Eepublicau party ; and I have yet to learn that the EepulDlican party, under the Constitution, has judicial powers : but he is going to appeal from it and reverse it, either by an Act of Congress, or by turning out the judges, or in some other way. And why ? Because he says that that decision deprives the negro of the benefits of that clause of the Constitution of the United States which entitles the citizens of each State to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. Well, it is very true that the decision does have that effect. By deciding that a negro is not a citizen, of course it denies to him the rights and privileges awarded to citizens of the United States. It is this that Mr. Lincoln will not submit to. Why ? For the palpable reason that he wishes to confer upon the negro all the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the several States. I will not quarrel with Mr. Lincoln for his views on that subject. I have no doubt he is conscientious in them. I have not the slightest idea but that he con- AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 47 scientious]y believes that a negro ought to enjoy and exercise all the rights and privileges given to white men ; but I do not agree witli him, and hence I cannot concur with him. I believe that this Government of ours was founded on the white basis. I believe that it was established by white men, by men of European birth, or descended of European races, for the benefit of white men and their posterity in all time to come. I do not believe that it was the design or intention of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or the framers of the Constitution to include negroes, Indians, or other inferior races, with white men, as citizens. Our fathers had at that day seen the evil con- sequences of conferring civil and political rights upon the Indian and negro in the Spanish and French colonies on the American continent and the adjacent islands. In Mexico, in Central America, in South America and in the West India Islands, where the Indian, the negro, and men of all colors and all races are put on an equality by law, the effect of political amalgamation can be seen. Ask any of those gallant young men in your own county, who went to Mexico to fight the battles of their country, in what friend Lincoln con- siders an unjust and unholy war, and hear what they will tell you in regard to the amalgamation of races in that country. Amalgamation there, first political, then social, has led to demoralization and degradation, until it has reduced that people below the point of capacity for self-government. Our fathers knew what the effect of it would be, and from the time they planted foot on the American continent, not only those who landed at Jamestown, but at Plymouth Eock and all other points on the coast, they pursued the policy of confining civil and political rights to the white race, and excluding the negro in all cases. Still, Mr. Lincoln conscientiously believes that it is his duty to advocate negro citizenship. He M^ants to give the negro the privilege of citizenship. He quotes scripture again, and says : " As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." And he applies that scriptural quota- tion to all classes ; not that he expects ns all to be as perfect as our Master, but as nearly perfect as possible. In other words, he is willing to give the negro an equality under the law, in order that he may approach as near per- fection, or an equality with the white man, as possible. To this same end he quotes the Declaration of Independence in these words : " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ;" and goes on to argue that the negro was included, or intended to be included, in that Declaration, by the signers of the paper. He says that, by the Declaration of Independence, therefore, all kinds of men, negroes included, were created equal and endowed by their Creator with cer- tain inalienable rights, and, further, that the right of the negro to be on an equality with the white man is a divine right, conferred by the Almighty, and rendered inalienable according to the Declaration of Independence. Hence no human law or constitution can deprive the negro of that equality with the white man to which he is entitled by the divine law. [" Higher law."] Yes, higher law. Now, I do not question Mr. Lincoln's sincerity on this point. He believes that the negro, by the divine law, is created the equal of the white man, and that no human law can deprive him of that equality, thus secured; and he contends that the negro ought, therefore, to have all the rights and privile.^es of citizenship on an equality with the white man. In order to accomplish this, the first thing that would have to be done in this State would be to blot out of our State Constitution that clause which pro- hibits negroes from coming into this State and making it an African colony, 48 * DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN and permit them to come and spread over these charming prairies until in midday they shall look black as night. When our friend Lincoln gets all his colored brethren around him here, he will then raise them to perfection as fast as possible, and place them on an equality with the white man, first re- moving all legal restrictions, because they are our equals by divine law, and there should be no such restrictions, lie wants them to vote. I am opposed to it. If they had a vote, I reckon they would all vote for him in preference to me, entertaining the views I do. But that matters not. The position he has taken on this question not only presents him as claiming for them the right to vote, but their right, under the divine law and the Declaration of Independence, to be elected to office, to become members of the Legislature, to "o to Congress, to become Governors, or United States Senators, or Judges of the Supreme Court ; and I suppose that when they control that court they will probably reverse the Dred Scott decision. He is going to bring negroes here, and give them the right of citizenship, the right of voting, and the right of holding office and sitting on juries ; and what else ? Why, he would per- mit them to marry, would he not ? And if he gives them that right, I sup- pose he will let them marry whom they please, provided they marry their equals. If the diviue law declares that the white man is the equal of the negro woman, that they are on a perfect equality, I suppose he admits the right of the negro woman to marry the white man. In other words, his doctrine that the negro, by divine law, is placed on a perfect equality with the white man, and that that equality is recognized by the Declaration of Independence, leads him necessarily to establish negro equality under the law ; but whether even then they would be so in fact would depend upon the degree of virtue and intelligence they possessed, and certain other qualities that are matters of taste rather than of law. I do not understand Mr. Lincoln as saying that he expects to make them our equals socially, or by intelligence, nor in fact as citizens, but that he wishes to make them our equals under the law, and then say to them, " as your Master in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." Well, I confess to you, my fellow-citizens, that I am utterly opposed to that system of Abolition philosophy. I do not believe that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had any reference to negroes when tliey used the expression that all men were created equal, or that they had any reference to the Chinese or Coolies, the Indians, the Japanese, or any other inferior race. They were speaking of the white race, the European race on this continent, and their descendants, and emigrants who should come here. They were speaking only of the white race, and never dreamed that their language would be construed to include the negro. And now for the evidence of that fact. At the time the Declaration of Independence was put forth, declaring the equality of all men, every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding col- ony, and every man who signed that Declaration represented a slaveholding constituency. Did they intend, when they put their signatures to that instru- ment, to declare that their own slaves were on an equality with them ; that they were made their equals by divine law, and that any human law reducing them to an inferior position was void, as being in violation of divine law ? Was that the meaning of the signers of the Declaration of Independence ? Did Jefferson and Henry and Lee, — did any of the signers of that instru- ment, or all of them, on the day they signed it, give their slaves freedom ? History records that they did not. Did they go further, and put the negro on an equality with the white man throughout the country ? They did not. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. r 49 And yet if they had understood that Declaration as inchiding the negro, which Mr. Lincoln holds they did, they would have been bound, as conscientious men, to have restored the negro to that equality which he thinks the Almighty intended they should occupy with the white man. They did not do it. Slav- ery was abolished in only one State before the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, and then in others gradually, down to the time this Abolition agitation began ; and it has not been abolished in one since. The history of the coun- try shows that neither the signers of the Declaration, or the framers of the Constitution, ever supposed it possible that their language would be used in an attempt to make this nation a mixed nation of Indians, negroes, whites, and mongrels. I repeat, that our whole history confirms the proposition, that from the earliest settlement of tlie colonies down to the Declaration of Inde- pendence and the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, our fathers proceeded on tlie white basis, making the white people the governing race, but conceding to the Indian and negro, and all inferior races, all the rights and all the privileges tliey could enjoy consistent with the safety of the society in which they lived. That is my opinion now. I told you that humanity, philanthropy, justice, and sound policy required that we should give the negro every right, every privilege, every immunity, consistent with the safety and welfare of the State. The question then naturally arises, What are those rights and privileges, and What is the nature and extent of them ? My answer is, that that is a question which each State and each Territory must decide for itself We have decided that question. We have said that in this State the negro shall not be a slave, but that he shall enjoy no political riglits ; that negro equality shall not exist. I am content with that position. My friend Lincoln is not. He thinks that our policy and our laws on that sub- ject are contrary to the Declaration of Independence. He thinks that the Almighty made the negro his equal and his brother. For my part, I do not consider the negro any kin to me, nor to any otlier white man ; but I would still carry my humanity and my philanthropy to the extent of giving him every privilege and every immunity that he could enjoy, consistent with our own good. We in Illinois have the right to decide upon that question for our- selves, and we are bound to allow every other State to do the same. Maine allows the negro to vote on an equality with the white man. I do not quar- rel with our friends in Maine for that. If they think it wise' and proper in Maine to put the negro on an equality with the white man, and allow him to go to the polls and negative the vote of a white man, it is their business, and not mine. On the other hand. New York permits a negro to vote, provided he owns $250 worth of property. New York thinks that a negro ought to be permitted to vote, provided he is rich, but not otherwise. They allow the aristocratic negro to vote there. I never saw the wisdom, the propriety, or the justice of that decision on the part of New York, and yet it never occurred to me that I had a right to find fault with that State. It is her business ; she is a sovereign State, and has a right to do as she pleases ; and if she will take care of her own negroes, making such regulations concerning them as suit her, and let us alone, I will mind my business, and not interfere with her. In Kentucky they will not give a negro any political or any civil rights. I shall not argue the question whether Kentucky in so doing has decided right or wrong, wisely or unwisely. It is a question for Kentucky to decide for her- self. I believe that the Kentuckians have consciences as well as ourselves ; they have as keen a perception of their religious, moral, and social duties as we have ; and I am willing that they shall decide this slavery question for 7 60 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN themselves, and be accountable to their God for their action. It is not for me to arraign them for what they do. I will not judge them, lest I shall be judged. Let Kentucky mind her own business and take care of her negroes, and we attend to our own affairs and take care of our negroes, and we will be the best of friends ; but if Kentucky attempts to interfere with us, or we with her, there will be strife, there will be discord, there will be relentless hatred, there will be everything but fraternal feeling and brotherly love. It is not necessary that you should enter Kentucky and interfere in that State, to use the language of Mr. Lincoln. It is just as offensive to interfere from this State, or send your missiles over there. I care not whether an enemy, if he is going to assault us, shall actually come into our State, or come along the line, and throw his bombshells over to explode in our midst. Suppose England should plant a battery on the Canadian side of the Niagara Kiver, opposite Buffalo, and throw bombshells over, which would explode in Main Street, in that city, and destroy the buildings, and that, when we protested, she would say, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, that she never dreamed of coming into the United States to interfere with us, and that she was just throwing her bombs over the line from her own side, which she had a right to do. Would that explanation satisfy us ? So it is with Mr. Lincoln. He is not going 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 political warfare, and get up strife between the North and the South, until he elects a sectional President, reduces the South to the condition of dependent colonies, raises the negro to an equality, 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 be slave or they must all be free ; and that as we in the North are in the majority, we will not per- mit them to be all slave, and therefore they in the South must consent to the States all being free. Now, fellow-citizens, I submit to you whether these doctrines are consistent with the peace and harmony of this Union ? I sub- mit to you whether they are consistent with our duties as citizens of a common confederacy ; whether they are consistent with the principles which ought to govern brethren of the same family ? I recognize all the people of these States, North and South, East and West, old or new, Atlantic or Pacific, as our brethren, flesh of our flesh, and I will do no act unto them that I would not be willing they should do unto us. I would apply the same Christian rule to the States of this Union that we are taught to apply to individuals, — "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you;" and this would secure peace. Why should this slavery agitation be kept up ? Does it bene- fit the white man, or the slave ? Who 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 gov- ernment as it was made, — a confederacy of sovereign and independent States ? Let us recognize the sovereignty and independence of each State, refrain from interfering with the domestic institutions and regulations of other States, per- mit 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 boundaries which the Constitu- tion has marked out and engraved upon the face of the country ; have no other dividing lines but these, and we will be one united, harmonious people, with fraternal feelings, and no discord or dissension. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 51 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 Constitu- tion, throwing aside partisan feelings in order to restore peace and harmony to a distracted country. 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 upon the principle embodied in the great Compromise measures of 1850, the principle 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 be pre- served 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 expounder 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 testi- mony that never since the sod has been laid upon the graves of these eminent statesmen have I failed, on any occasion, to vindicate the principle with which the last great crowning acts of their lives were identified, or to vindicate their names whenever they have been assailed ; and now my life and energy are devoted to this great work as the means of preserving this Union. This Union can only be preserved by maintaining the fraternal feeling between the Nortli and the South, the East and the West. If that good feeling can be pre- served, the Union will be as perpetual as the fame of its great founders. It can be maintained by preserving the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State and each Territory to settle its domestic concerns for itself, and the duty of each to refrain from interfering with the other in any of its local or domestic institutions. Let that be done, and the Union will be perpetual; 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 State rights and Federal authority ; let us maintain the great principles of popular sovereignty, of State rights, and of the Federal Union as the Constitution has made it, and this Republic will endure forever. I thank you kindly for the patience with which you have listened to me. I fear I have wearied you. I have a heavy day's work before me to-morrow, I have several speeches to make. My friends, in whose hands I am, are tax- ing me beyond human endurance ; but I shall take the helm and control them hereafter. I am profoundly grateful to the people of McLean for the reception they have given me, and the kindness with which they have listened to me. I remember when I first came among you here, twenty-five years ago, that I was prosecuting attorney in this district, and that my earliest efforts were made here, when my deficiencies were too apparent, I am afraid, to be con- cealed from any one. I remember the courtesy and kindness with which I was uniformly treated by you all ; and whenever I can recognize the face of one of your old citizens, it is like meeting an old and cherished friend. I come among you with a heart filled with gratitude for past favors. I have 62 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN been with you but little for the past few years, on account of my official duties. I intend to visit you again before the campaign is over. I wish to speak to your whole people. I wish them to pass judgment upon the correctness of my course, and the soundness of the principles which I 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 princi- ples 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, 1858, at Sprixgfield, III. (Mr. Lixcoln was not present.) Mr. Chairman and Felloav-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 extended to me, — a welcome so numerous and so enthusiastic, bringing me to my home among my old friends, that language cannot express 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 you ; but never before 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 pervad- ing 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 compliment. You but speak rightly when you assert that during the last session of Con- gress there was an attempt to violate one of the fundamental principles upon which our free institutions rest. The attempt to force the Lecompton Consti- tution upon the people of Kansas against their will, would have been, if suc- cessful, subversive of the great fundamental principles upon which all our institutions rest. If there is any one principle more sacred and more vital to the existence 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 corner-stone of the temple of liberty ; it is the foundation upon which the whole structure rests ; and whenever it can be successfully evaded, self-gov- ernment 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 whatever of ability I could command, the consummation of that effort to force a constitution upon an unwilling people. I am aware that other questions have been connected, or attempted to be connected, with that great struggle ; but they were mere collateral questions, not affecting the main point. My opposition to the Lecompton Constitution AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS- 53 rested solely upon the fact that it was not the act and deed of that people, and that it did not embody their will. I did not object to it upon the ground of the slavery clause contained in it. I should have resisted it with the same energy and determination even if it had been a free State instead of a slave- holding State ; and as an evidence of this fact I wish you to bear in mind that my speech against that Lecompton Act was made on the 9th 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 impres- sion was that it would be rejected ; and in my speech I assumed that impres- sion to be true ; that probably it would be voted down ; and then I said to the United States Senate, as I now proclaim to you, my constituents, that you have no more right to force a free State upon an unwilling people than you have to force a slave State upon them against their will. You have no right to force either a good or a bad thing upon a people who do not choose to receive it. And then, again, the highest privilege of our people is to determine for them- selves what kind of institutions are good and what kind of institutions are bad ; and it may be true that the same people, situated in a different latitude and different climate, and with different productions and different interests, mifdit decide the same question one way in the North and another way in the South, in order to adapt their institutions to the wants and wishes of the people to be affected by them. You all are familiar with the Lecompton struggle, and I will occupy no more time upon the subject, except to remark that when we drove the enemies of the principle of popular sovereignty from the effort to force the Lecompton Constitution upon the people of Kansas, and when we compelled them to abandon the attempt and to refer that Constitution to that people for accept- ance or rejection, we obtained 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 against the wishes of the people, I felt anxious to give the proposition 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 and unjust. Sir, it is an axiom with me that in every free government an unfair 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 aftirmative vote. The objection to what is called the " English " proposi- tion, by which the Lecompton Constitution was referred back to the people of Kansas, was this : that if the people chose to accept the Lecompton Constitu- tion they could come in with only 35,000 inhabitants ; while if they deter- mined 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 Con- stitution. I deny the justice, I deny the right, of any distinction or discrimi- nation between the States North and South, free or slave. Equality among the States is a fundamental principle of this government. Hence, while I will never consent to the passage of a law that a Slave State may come in with 35,000, while a Free State shall not come in unless it have 93,000, on the other hand, I shall not consent to adnut a Free State with a population of 35,000, and require 93,000, in a slaveholding State. 54 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN My principle is to recognize each State of the Union as independent, sov^- ereign, and equal in its sovereignty. I will apply that princiiDle, not only to the original thirteen States, but to the States which have since been brou<>'ht into the Union, and also to every State that shall hereafter be received, " as long as water shall run, and grass grow." For these reasons I felt compelled, by a sense of duty, by a conviction of principle, to record my vote against what is called the English bill ; but yet the bill became a law, and under that law an election has been ordered to be held on the first Monday in August, for the purpose of determining the question of tlie acceptance or rejection of the proposition submitted by Congress. I have no hesitation in saying to you, as the chairman of your committee has justly said in his address, that whatever the decision of the people of Kansas may be at that election, it must be final and conclusive of the whole subject ; for if at that election a majority of the people of Kansas shall vote for the acceptance of the Congressional proposition, Kansas from that moment becomes a State of the Union, the law admitting her becomes irrepealable, and thus the controversy terminates forever ; if, on the other hand, the people of Kansas shall vote down that proposition, as it is now generally admitted they will, by a large majority, then from that instant the Lecompton Constitution is dead, — 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 you will be willing, to acquiesce in the death of the Lecompton Constitution. The con- troversy may now be considered as terminated, for in three weeks from now it will be finally settled, and all the ill-feeling, all the embittered feeling which grew out of it shall cease, unless an attempt should be made in the future to repeat the same outrage upon popular rights. I need not tell you that my past course is a sufhcient guarantee that if the occasion shall ever arise again wliile I occupy a seat in the United States Senate, you will find me carrying out the same principle that I have this winter, with all the energy and all the power I may be able to command. I have the gratification of saying to you that I do not believe that that controversy will ever arise again : first, because the fate of Lecompton is a warning to the people of every Territory and of every State to be cautious how the example is repeated ; and, secondly, because the President of the United States, in his annual message, has said that he trusts the example in the Minnesota case, wherein Congress passed a law, called an Enabling Act, requiring the Constitution to be sub- mitted to the people for acceptance or rejection, will be followed in all future cases. [" That was right."] I agree with you that it was right. I said so on the day after the message was delivered, in my speech in the Senate on the Lecompton Constitution, and I have frequently in the debate tendered to the President and his friends, tendered to the Lecomptonites, my voluntary pledge, that if he will stand by that recommendation, and they will stand by it, that thev will find me workino; hand in hand w^ith them in the effort to carry it out. All we have to do, therefore, is to adhere firmly in the future, as we have done in the past, to the principle contained in the recommendation of the President in his annual message, that the example in the Minnesota case shall be carried out in all future cases of the admission of Territories into the Union as States. Let that be done, and the principle of popular sover- eignty will be maintained in all of its vigor and all of its integrity. I rejoice to know that Illinois stands prominently and proudly forward among the States which first took their position firmly and immovably upon this principle of popular sovereignty, applied to the Territories as well as to the States. You AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 55 all recollect when, in 1850, the peace of the country was disturbed in conse- quence of the agitation of the slavery question, and the effort to force the Wilmot Proviso upon all the Territories, that it required all the talent and all the energy, all tlie wisdom, all the patriotism, of a Clay and a Webster, united with other great party leaders, to devise a system of measures by which peace and harmony could be restored to our distracted country. Those compromise measures eventually passed, and were recorded on the statute book, not only as the settlement of the then existing difficulties, but as furnishing a rule of action which should prevent in all future time the recurrence of like evils, if they were firmly and fairly carried out. Those compromise measures rested, as I said in my speech at Chicago on my return home that year, upon the principle that every people ought to have the right to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. They were founded upon the principle that while every State possessed that right under the Constitution, that tlie same right ought to be extended to and exercised by the people of the Territories. When the Illinois Legislature assembled, a few months after the adoption of these measures, the first thing the members did was to review their action upon this slavery agitation, and to correct the errors into which their predecessors had fallen. You remember that their first act was to repeal the Wilmot Proviso instructions to our United States Senators, which had been previously passed, and in lieu of them to record another resolution upon the journal, with which you must all be familiar, — a resolution brought forward by Mr. Ninian Edwards, and adopted by the House of Eepresentatives by a vote of 61 in the affirmative to 4 in the negative. That resolution I can quote to you in almost its precise language. It declared that the great principle of self-government was the birthright of freemen, was the gift of Heaven, was achieved by the blood of our revolutionary fathers, and must be 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 the Democratic party and of the Whig party in 1851 ; all the Whigs and all the Democrats in the Legislature uniting in an affirmative vote upon it, and there being only four votes in the negative, — of Abolitionists, of course. Tliat resolution stands upon the journal of your Legislature to this day and hour unrepealed, as a standing, living, perpetual instruction to the Senators from Illinois in all time to come to carry out that principle of self-government, and allow no limitation upon it in the organization of any Territories or the admission of any new States, In 1854, wlien it became my duty as the chairman of the committee on Territories to bring forward a bill for the organization of Kansas and Nebraska, I incorporated that principle in it, and Congress passed it, thus carrying the principle into practical effect. I will not recur to tlie scenes which took place all over the country in 1854, when that Nebraska bill passed. I could then travel from Boston to Chicago by the light of my own effigies, in consequence of having stood up for it. I leave it to you to say how I met that storm, and whether I quailed 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, too, that when making speeches then, justifying the Nebraska bill and the great principle of self-government, that I predicted that in less than five years you would have to get out a search-warrant to find an anti-Nebraska man. Well, I believe I did make that prediction. I did not claim the power of a prophet, but it occurred to me that among a free people, and an honest people, and an intelligent people, that five years was 56 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN long enough for them to come to an understanding that the great principle of self-government was right, not only in the States, but in the Territories. I rejoiced this year to see my prediction, in that respect, carried out and fulfilled by the unanimous vote, in one form or another, of both Houses of Congress. If you will remember that pending this Lecompton controversy that gallant old Itoman, Kentucky's favorite son, the worthy successor of the immortal Clay, — I allude, as you know, to the gallant John J. Crittenden, — brought forward a bill, now known as the Crittenden-Montgomery bill, in which it was proposed that the Lecompton Constitution should be referred back to the people of Kansas, to be 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. [" 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 Eepublican Sen- ator and Eepresentative in Congress. I have found some Democrats so per- fectly straight that they blame me for voting for the principle of the Nebraska bill because the Eepublicans voted the same way. [Great laughter. " What did they say ? "] What did they say ? Why, many of them said that Douglas voted with the Eepublicans. Yes, not only that, but with the hlack Eepublicans. Well, there are different modes of stating that proposition. The " New York Tribune " says that Douglas did not vote with the Eepublicans, but that on that ques- tion the Eepublicans went over to Douglas and voted with him. My 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 princi- ples merely because Eepublicans 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 Eepublicans, to remove the scales from their eyes, and to impart to them the light of Democratic vision, so that they may 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 Eepublicans of the errors of their ways, 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 Eepublican party will stand firm, in the future, by the vote they gave on the Crittenden-Montgomery bill. I hope we will find, in the resolutions of their County and Congressional Conven- tions, no declarations of "no more Slave States to be admitted into this Union," but in lieu of that declaration that we will find the principle that the people of every State and every Territory shall come into the Union with slavery or without it, just as they please, without any interference on the part of Congress. My friends, wdiilst I was at Washington, engaged in this great battle for sound constitutional principles, I find from the newspapers that the Eepub- lican party of this State assembled in this capital 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, but laid down a platform, and their nominee made a speech, carefully written and prepared, and well delivered, whicli that Conven- tion accepted as containing the Eepublican creed. I have no comment to make on that part of Mr. Lincoln's speech in which he represents me as form- ing a conspiracy with the Supreme Court, and with the late President of the United States and the present chief magistrate, having for my object tlie AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 67 passage of the Nebraska bill, the Dred Scott decision, and the extension 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 States, 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 down his platform of principles, and tells you what he intends to do if he is elected to the Senate of the United States. [An old gentleman here rose on the platform and said : " Be particular now, Judge, be particular."] Mr. Douglas : My venerable friend here says that he will be gratified if I will be particular ; and in order that I may be so, I will read the language of My. Lincoln as reported by himself and published to the country. Mr. Lincoln lays down his main proposition in these words : — " * A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this Union cannot endure permanently, half free and half slave. I do not expect the Union will be dissolved, I do not expect the house to ftill ; but I do expect it to cease to be divided. It wiU become all one thin" or all the other." o 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 every 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 glorious 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 accomplish it ? By an Act of Congress ? Will he contend that Congress has any power under the Constitution to abolish slavery in any State of this Union, 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 abol- ished 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 know the remedy for every wrong. What is his remedy for this imaginary 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 Mr. Lincoln intends to carry this slavery agitation into Con- gress with the view of amending the Constitution so that slavery can be abol- ished 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 be divided against itself. He is going to remedy it by lawful and constitutional means. What are to be these means ? How can he abolish slavery in those States where it exists ? There is but one mode by 8 58 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN which a political organization, composed of men in the Free States, can abolish slavery in the slaveholdiug States, and that would be to abolish 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 the different States ; then the house would be no longer divided against itself; then the States would all be free, or they would all be slave ; then you would have uniformity prevailing throuuhout this whole land in the local and domestic institutions : but it would be a uniformity, not of liberty, but a uniformity of despotism that would triumph. I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, whether this is not the logical consequence 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 he attempts to explain. And how does he explain ? I will give him the benefit of his own language, precisely as it M'as reported in the Republican papers of that city, after undergoing his revision : — " I have said a hundred tiroes, and have now no incHnation to take it back, that I believe there is no right and ought to be no inclination in the people of the Free States to enter into the Slave States and interfere with the question of slavery at all." He believes there is no right on the part of the free people of the Free States to enter the Slave States and interfere with the question 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 and divided by a geographical line, to make war upon the institution of slavery in the slaveholdiug States. He is going to carry it out by means of a political party that has its adherents only in the Free States, — a political party that does not pretend that it can give a solitary vote in tlie Slave States of the Union ; and by this sectional vote he is going to elect a President of the United States, form a cabinet, and administer the govern- ment on sectional grounds, being the power of the North over that of tie South. In other words, he invites a war of the North against the South, a warfare of the Free States against the slaveholdiug States. He asks all men in the Free States to conspire to exterminate slavery in the Southern States, so as to make them all free, and then he notifies the South that unless they are going to submit to our efforts to exterminate tlieir institutions, they must band together and plant slavery in Illinois and every Northern State. He says that the States must all be free or must all be slave. On this point I take issue with him directly. I assert that Illinois has a right to decide the slavery question for herself We have decided it, and I think we have done it M'isely ; but whether wisely or unwisely, it is our business, and the people of no other State have any right to interfere with us, directly or indirectly. Claiming as we do this right for ourselves, we must concede it to every other State, to be exercised by them respectively. Now, Mr. Lincoln says that he will not enter into Kentucky to abolish slav- ery there, but that all he will do is to fight slavery in Kentucky from Illinois. He will not go over there to set fire to the match. I do not think he would. Mr. Lincoln is a very prudent man. He would not deem it wise to go over into Kentucky to stir up this strife, but he would do it from this side of the river. Permit me to inquire whether the wrong, the outrage, of interference AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 69 by one State with the local concerns of another is worse when you actually invade them than it would be if you carried on the warfare from another State ? For the purpose of illustration, suppose the British Government should plant a battery on the Niagara River, opposite Buffalo, and throw their shells over into Buffalo, where they should explode and blow up the houses and destroy the town. We call the British Government to an account, and they say, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, we did not enter into the limits of the United States to interfere with you ; we planted the battery on our own soil, and had a right to shoot from our own soil ; and if our shells and balls fell in Buffalo and killed your inhabitants, why, it is your look-out, not ours. Thus, Mr. Lincoln is going to plant his Abolition batteries all along the banks of the Ohio River, and throw his shells into Virginia and Kentucky and into Mis- souri, and blow up the institution of slavery ; and when we arraign him for his unjust interference with the institutions of the other States, he says, " Why, I never did enter into Kentucky to interfere with her ; I do not propose to do it ; I only propose to take care of my own head by keeping on this side of the river, out of harm's way." But yet he says he is going to persevere in this system of sectional warfare, and I have no doubt he is sincere in what he says. He says that the existence of the Union depends upon his success in firing into these Slave States until he exterminates them. He says that unless he shall play his batteries successfully, so as to abolish slavery in every one of the States, that the Union shall be dissolved ; and he says that a dissolution of the Union would be a terrible calamity. Of course it would. We are all friends of the Union. We all believe — I do — that our lives, our liberties, our hopes in the future, depend upon the preservation and perpetuity of this glorious Union. I believe that the hopes of the friends of liberty throughout the world depend upon the perpetuity of the American Union. But while I believe that my mode of preserving the Union is a very different one from that of Mr. Lincoln, I believe that the Union can only be preserved by main- taining inviolate the Constitution of tlie United States as our fathers have made it. That Constitution guarantees to the people of every State the right to have slavery or not have it ; to have negroes or not have them ; to have Maine liquor laws or not have them; to have just such institutions as they choose, each State being left free to decide for itself. The framers of that Constitution never conceived the idea that uniformity in the domestic insti- tutions of the different States was either desirable or possible. They well understood that the laws and institutions which would be well adapted to the granite hills of New Hampshire would be unfit for the rice plantations of South Carolina ; they well understood that each one of the thirteen States had distinct and separate interests, and required distinct and separate local laws and local institutions. And in view of that fact they provided that each State should retain its sovereign power within its own limits, with the right to make just such laws and just such institutions as it saw proper, under the belief that no two of them would be alike. If they had supposed tliat uniformity was desirable and possible, why did they provide for a separate legislature for each State ? Why did they not blot out State sovereignty and State legis- latures, and give all the power to Congress, in order that the laws might be uniform ? For the very reason that uniformity, in their opinion, was neither desirable or possible. We have increased from thirteen States to thirty-two States; and just in proportion as the number of States increases and our ter- ritory expands, there will be a still greater variety and dissimilarity of climate, of production, and of interest, requiring a corresponding dissimilarity and variety 60 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN in the local laws and institutions adapted thereto. The laws that are neces- sary in the mining regions of California would be totally useless and vicious on the prairies of Illinois ; the laws that would suit the lumber regions of Maine or of Minnesota would be totally useless and valueless in the tobacco regions of Virginia and Kentucky ; the laws which would suit the manufac- turing districts of New England would be totally unsuited to the planting regions of the Carolinas, of Georgia, and of Louisiana. Each State is supposed to have interests separate and distinct from each and every other ; and hence must have laws different from each and every other State, in order that its laws shall be adapted to the condition and necessities of the people. Hence I insist that our institutions rest on the theory that there shall be dissimilarity and variety in the local laws and institutions of the different States, instead of all being uniform ; and you find, my friends, that Mr. Lincoln and myself differ radically and totally on the fundamental principles of this government. He goes for consolidation, for uniformity in our local institutions, for blotting out State rights and State sovereignty, and consolidating all the power in the Federal Government, for converting these thirty-two sovereign States into one empii'e, and making uniformity throughout the length and breadth of the land. On the other hand, I go for maintaining the authority of the Federal Govern- ment within the limits marked out by the Constitution, and then for main- taining and preserving the sovereignty of each and all of the States of the Union, in order that eacli State may regulate and adopt its own local institu- tions in its own way, without interference from any power whatsoever. Thus you find there is a distinct issue of principles — principles irreconcilable — between Mr. Lincoln and myself. He goes for consolidation and uniformity in our government ; I go for maintaining the confederation of the sovereign States under the Constitution as our fathers made it, leaving each State at lib- erty to manage its own affairs and own internal institutions. Mr. Lincoln makes another point upon me, and rests his whole case upon these two points. His last point is, that he will wage a warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States because of the Dred Scott decision. He takes occasion, in his speech made before the Eepublican Convention, in my absence, to arraign me, not only for having expressed my acquiescence in that decision, but to charge me with being a conspirator with that court in devis- ing that decision three years before Dred Scott ever thought of commencing a suit for his freedom. The object of his speech was to convey the idea to the people that the court could not be trusted, that the late President could not be trusted, that the present one could not be trusted, and that Mr. Douglas could not be trusted; that they were all conspirators in bringing about that corrupt decision, to which Mr. Lincoln is determined he will never yield a willing obedience. He makes two points upon the Dred Scott decision. The first is that he objects to it because the court decided that negroes descended of slave parents are not citizens of the United States ; and, secondly, because they have decided that the Act of Congress passed 8th of March, 1820, prohibiting slavery in all of the Territories north of 36° 30', was unconstitutional and void, and hence did not have effect in emancipating a slave brought into that Terri- tory. And he will not submit to that decision. He says that he will not fight the Judges or the United 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 ? Because, 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 AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. ' 61 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 whom ? I know he appealed to the Eepublican State Convention of Illinois, and I believe that Convention reversed the decision ; but I am not aware that they have yet carried it into effect. How are they going to make that reversal effectual ? Why, Mr. Lincoln tells us in his late Chicago speech. He explains it as clear as light. He says to the people of Illinois that if you elect him to the Senate he will introduce a bill to re-enact the law which the court pronounced unconstitutional. [Shouts of laughter, and voices, " Spot the law."] Yes, he is going to spot the law. The court pronounces that law, prohibiting slavery, unconstitutional and void, and Mr. Lincoln is going to pass an Act reversing that decision and making it valid. I never heard before of an appeal being taken from the Supreme Court to the Congress of the United States to reverse its decision. I have heard of appeals being taken from Congress to the Supreme Court to declare a statute void. That has been 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 tlie Constitution, and the Supreme Court of the United States is vested by the Constitution with that very power. The Constitution says that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. Hence it is the province and duty of the Supreme Court to pronounce judgment on the validity and constitutionality of an Act of Congress. In this case they have done so, and Mr. Lincoln will not submit to it, and he is going to reverse it by another Act of Congress of the same tenor. My opinion is that Mr. Lincoln ought to be on the Supreme Bench himself, when the Eepublicans get into power, if that kind of law knowl- edge qualifies a man for the bench. 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 sectional organiza- tion, a party confined to the Free States, making war upon the slaveholding States until he gets a Eepublican President elected. [" He never will, sir."] I do not believe he ever will. But suppose he should ; when that Eepublican President shall have taken his seat (Mr. Seward, for instance), will he then proceed 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 so happen ; I do not see a very great prospect for Mr. Lincoln to reverse the Dred Scott decision. But suppose they should die, then how are the new judges to be appointed ? Why, the Eepublican 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 fill Chief Justice Taney's place, and when he applied to Seward, the latter would say, " Mr. Lincoln, I cannot appoint you until I know how you will decide tlie Dred Scott case ? " Mr. Lincoln tells him, and he then asks him how he will decide Tom Jones's case, and Bill 62 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN 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 before it arose, — what confi- dence 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 person or property was secure, if the Supreme Bench, that august tribunal, the highest on earth, was brought down to that low, dirty pool wherein the judges are to give pledges in advance how they will decide all the questions which may be brought before them ? It is a proposition to make that court the corrupt, unscrupulous tool of a political party. But Mr. Lincoln cannot conscientiously submit, he thinks, to the decision of a court composed of a majority of Democrats. If he cannot, how can he expect us to have confidence in a court composed of a majority of Eepublicans, selected for the purpose of deciding against the Democracy, and in favor of the Eepublicans ? The very proposition carries with it the demoralization and degradation destructive of the judicial department of the Federal Government. I say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no warfare to make upon the Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott decision. I have no complaints to make against that court because of that decision. My private opinions on some points of the case may have been one way ; and on other points of the case another ; in some things concurring with the court, and in others dis- senting ; but what have my private opinions in a question of law to do with the decision after it has been pronounced 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 question that comes before the court, and to appear before the tribunal and maintain them boldly and with tenacity until the final decision shall have been pronounced ; and then, sir, whether you are sustained or overruled, your duty as a lawyer and a citizen is to bow in deference to that decision. 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 remedy when you refuse obedience to the constituted authorities ? I will not stop to inquire whether I agree or disagree with all the opinions 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. But, my friends, Mr. Lincoln says that this Dred Scott decision destroys the doctrine of popular sovereignty, for the reason that the court has decided that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the Territories, and hence he infers that it would decide that the Territorial legislatures could not prohibit slavery there. I will not stop to inquire whether the court will carry the deci- sion that far or not. It would be interesting as a matter of theory, but of no importance in practice ; for this reason, tliat if the people of a Territory 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 AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 63 technical right to take slaves into the Territories. Said he, " I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, for it is of no particular consequence ; slavery cannot exist a day or an hour in any 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 new-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 Kepublicans have told you, during the whole history of that Territory, down to last winter, that the pro-slavery party in the Legislature had passed a pro-slavery code, establishing and sustaining slavery in Kansas, but that this pro-slavery Legislature did not truly represent the people, but was imposed upon them by an invasion from Missouri ; and hence the Legislature were one way, 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 ? Simply because slave-owners knew that if they took their slaves into Kansas, where a majority of the people were opposed to slavery, that it would soon be abolished, and they would lose their right of property in consequence of taking them there. For 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 profitable to take his slaves there, and consequently there are not as many slaves there to-day as on the day the Missouri Compromise was repealed. This shows clearly that if the people do not want slavery they will keep it out ; and if they do want it, they will protect it. You have a good illustration of this in the Territorial history of this State. You all remember that by the Ordinance of 1787 slavery was prohibited in Illinois ; yet you all know, particularly you old 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 heredi- tary 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 ques- tion 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. Consequently, this tlieoretical question raised upon the Dred Scott decision is worthy of no consideration whatsoever, for it is only brought into these political discussions and used as a hobby upon which to ride into office, or out of which to manu- facture political capital. 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 different States of the Union. Well, suppose it was, — and tliere is no doubt that that was its legal effect, — what is his objection to it ? Why, he thinks that a negro ought to be permitted to have the riglits of citizenship. He is in favor of negro citizen- ship, and opposed to the Dred Scott decision, because it declares that a negro is not a citizen, and hence is not entitled to vote. Here I have a direct issue 64 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN with Mr. Lincoln. I am not in favor of negro citizenship. I do not believe that a neoro is a citizen or ouyht to be a citizen. I believe that this govern- ment of ours was founded, and wisely founded, upon the white basis. It was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity, to be executed and managed by white men. I freely concede that humanity requires us to extend all the protection, all the privileges, all the immunities, to the Indian and the negro which they are capable of enjoying consistent with the safety of society. You may then ask me what are those rights, what is tlie nature and extent of the rights which a negro ought to have ? My answer is that this is a question for each State and each Territory to decide for itself. In Illinois we have decided that a negro is not a slave, but we have at the same time determined that he is not a citizen and shall not enjoy any political rights. I concur in the wisdom of that policy, and am content with it. I assert that the sovereignty of Illinois had a right to determine that question as we have decided it, and I deny that any other State has a right to interfere with us or call us to account for that decision. In the State of Maine they have decided by their Constitution that the negro shall exercise the elective franchise and hold office on an equality with the white man. Whilst I do not concur in the good sense or correct taste of that decision on the part of Maine, I have no disposition to quarrel with her. It is her business, and not ours. If the people of Maine desire to be put on an equality with the negro, I do not know that anybody in this State will attempt to prevent it. If the white people of Maine think a negro their equal, and that he has a right to come and kill their vote by a negro vote, they have a right to think so, I suppose, and I have no disposition to interfere with them. Then, again, passing over to New York, we find in that State they have provided that a negro may vote, provided he holds $250 worth of property, but that he shall not unless he does ; that is to say, they will allow a negro to vote if he is rich, but a poor fellow they will not allow to vote. In New York they think a rich negro is equal to a white man. Well, that is a matter of taste with them. If they think so in that State, and do not carry the doctrine outside of it, and propose to interfere with us, I have no quarrel to make with them. It is their business.- There is a great deal of philosophy and good sense in a saying of Fridley'of Kane. Fridley had a lawsuit before a justice of the peace, and the justice decided it against him. This he did not like; and standing up and looking at the justice for a moment, " Well, Square," said he, " if a man chooses to make a darnation fool of himself, I suppose there is no law against it." That is all I have to say about these negro regulations and this negro voting in other States where they have systems different from ours. If it is their wish to have it so, be it so. There is no cause to complain. Kentucky has decided that it is not consistent with her safety and her prosperity to allow a negro to have either political rights or his freedom, and hence she makes him a slave. That is her business, not mine. It is her right under the Constitution of the country. The sov- ereignty of Kentucky, and that alone, can decide that question ; and when she decides it, tliere is no power on earth to which you can appeal to reverse it. Therefore, leave Kentucky as the Constitution has left her, a sovereign, inde- pendent State, with the exclusive right to have slavery or not, as she chooses ; and so long as I hold power I will maintain and defend her rights against any assaults, from whatever quarter they may come. I will never stop to inquire whether I approve or disapprove of the domestic institutions of a State. I maintain her sovereign rights. I defend her sovereignty from all assault, in the hope that she will join in defending us AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 65 when we are assailed by any outside power. How are we to protect our sov- ereign rights, to keep slavery out, unless we protect the sovereign rights to every other State to decide 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 slavery, in order to make it uniform, according to Mr. Lincoln's proposition, throughout the Union ; let tliem come here and tell us that we must and shall have slavery, — and I will call on you to follow me, and shed the last drop of our heart's blood in repelling the invasion and chastising their insolence. And if we would fight for our reserved rights and sovereign power in our own limits, we must respect the sovereignty of each other State. Hence, you find that Mr. Lincoln and myself come to a direct issue on this whole doctrine of slavery. He is going to wage a war against it every- where, not only in Illinois, but in his native State of Kentucky. And why ? Because he says that the Declaration of Independence contains this language : " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; " and he asks whether that instrument does not declare that all men are created equal. Mr. Lincoln then goes on to say that that clause of the Declaration of Inde- pendence includes negroes. [" I say not."] Well, if you say not, I do not think you will vote for Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln goes on to argue that the language " all men " included the negroes, Indians, and all inferior races. In his Chicago speech he says, in so many words, that it includes the negroes, that they were endowed by the Almighty with the right of equality with tlie white man, and therefore that that right is divine, — a right under the higher law ; that the law of God makes them equal 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. He 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 believe that the Declaration of Independence, in the words, "all men are created equal," 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 equal, and hence that Great Britain had no riglit to deprive them of their political and -religious privileges ; but the signers of that paper 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 ? Ke- member, 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 constituents. Did those signers mean by that act to charge themselves and all their constituents with having vio- lated the law of God, in holding the negro in an inferior condition to the white man ? And yet, if they included negroes in that term, they were bound, as conscientious men, that day and that hour, not only to have abolished slavery throughout the land, but to have conferred political rights and privi- leges on the negro, and elevated him to an equality with the white man. ["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 used to include any but the white race. Did they mean to say that the Indian, on this continent, was created equal to the white man, and that he was endowed 9 66 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN 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 put him on an equality. I am not only opposed to negro equality, but I am opposed to Indian equality. I am opposed to putting the coolies, now importing into this country, on an equality with us, or put- ting the Chinese or any inferior race on an equality with us. I hold that the white race, the European race, I care not whether Irish, German, French, Scotch, English, or to what nation they belong, so they are the white race, to be our equals. And I am for placing them, as our fathers did, on an equality with us. Emigrants from Europe, and their descendants, constitute the people of the United States. The Declaration of Independence only included the white people of the United States. The Constitution of the United States was framed by the white people; it ought to be administered by them, leaving each State to make such regulations concerning the negro as it chooses, allow- ing him political rights or not, as it chooses, and allowing him 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 different States. But Mr. Lincoln's conscientious scruples on this point govern his actions, and I honor him for following them, although I abhor the doctrine which he preaches. His conscientious scruples lead him to believe that the negro is entitled by divine right to the civil and political privileges of citizenship on an equality with the white man. For that reason he says he wishes the Dred Scott decision reversed. 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 to strike out of the Constitution of Illinois that clause which prohibits free negroes and slaves from Kentucky or any other State coming into Illinois. When he blots out that clause, when he lets down the door or opens the gate for all the negro population to flow in and cover our prairies, until in midday they will look dark and black as night, — when he shall have done this, his mission will yet be unfulfilled. Then it will be that he wiU apply his principles of negro equality ; that is, if he can get the Dred Scott decision reversed in the mean time. He will then change the Constitution again, and allow negroes to vote and hold office, and will make them eligible to the Legislature, so that thereafter they can have the risht men for United States Senators. He will allow them to vote to elect the Legislature, the Judges, and the Governor, and wiU make them eligible to the office of Judge or Governor, or to the Legislature. He will put them on an equality with the white man. What then ? Of course, after making them eligible to the judiciary, when he gets Cuffee elevated to the bench, he cer- tainly will not refuse his judge the privilege of mai-rying any woman he may select ! I submit to you whether these are not the legitimate consequences of his doctrine ? If it be true, as he says, that by the Declaration of Independ- ence and by divine law, the negro is created the equal of the white man ; if it be true that the Dred Scott decision 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 utterly opposed to any political amalgamation or any other amalgamation AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 67 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 young 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 equality 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-government. 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 sovereignty of the States, and we must maintain the Federal Union by preserving the Federal Constitution inviolate. Let us do that, and oiir Union will not only be perpetual, but may extend until it shall spread over the entire continent. Fellow-citizens, I have already detained you too long. I have exhausted myself and wearied you, and owe you an apology for the desultory manner in which I have discussed these topics. I will have an opportunity of address- ing you again before the November election comes off. I come to you to appeal to your judgment as American citizens, to take your verdict of ap- proval or disapproval upon the discharge of 7uy public duty and my principles as compared with those of Mr. Lincoln. If you conscientiously believe that his principles are more in harmony with the feelings of the American people and the interests and honor of the Ilepublic, elect him. If, on the contrary, you believe that my principles are more consistent with those great principles upon which our fathers framed this government, then I shall ask you to so express your opinion at the polls. I 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 myself. You all know that I am an amiable, good-natured man, and I take great pleasure in bearing testimony to the fact that Mr. Lincoln is a kind-hearted, amiable, good-natured gentleman, with wliom no man has a right to pick a quarrel, even if he wanted one. He is a worthy gentleman. I have known him for twenty- five years, and there is no better citizen and no kinder-hearted man. He is a fine lawyer, possesses high ability, and there is no objection to him, except the monstrous revolutionary doctrines with which he is identified and which he conscientiously entertains, and is determined to carry out if he gets the power. He has one element of strength upon which he relies to accomplish 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 Demo- cratic nominees. He hopes he can secure the few men claiming to be friends of the Lecompton Constitution, and for that reason you will find he does not say a word against the Lecompton Constitution or its supporters. He is as silent as the grave upon that subject. Behold Mr. Lincoln courting Lecomp- ton votes, in order that he may go to the Senate as the representative of Eepublican principles ! You know that that alliance exists. I think you will find that it will ooze out before tlie contest is over. It must be a contest of principle. Either the radical Abolition principles of Mr. Lincoln must be maintained, or the strong, constitutional, national Democratic principles with which I am identified must be carried out. I shall be satisfied whatever way you decide. I have been sustained by the people of Illinois with a steadi- ness, a firmness, and an enthusiasm which makes my heart overflow with 68 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN gratitude. If I was now to be consigned to private life I would have nothing to complain of. I would even then owe you a debt of gratitude which the balance of my life could not repay. But, my friends, you have discharged every obligation you owe to me. I have been a thousand times paid by the welcome you have extended to me since I have entered the State on my return home this time. Your reception not only discharges all obligations, but it furnishes inducement to renewed efforts to serve you in the future. If you think Mr. Lincoln will do more to advance the interests and elevate the character of Illinois than myself, it is your duty to elect him ; if you tiiink he M-ould do more to preserve the peace of the country and perpetuate the Union than myself, then elect him. I leave the question in your hands, and again tender you my profound thanks for the cordial and heartfelt wel- come tendered to me this evening. SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Delivered in Springfield, Saturday Evening, July 17, 1858. (Mr. Douglas was not present.) Felloav-Citizens : Another election, which is deemed an important one, is approaching, and, as I suppose, the Eepublican party will, without much difficulty, elect their State ticket. But in regard to the Legislature, we, the Republicans, labor under some disadvantages. In the first place, we have a Legislature to elect upon an apportionment of the representation made several years ago, when the proportion of the population was far greater in the South (as compared with the North) than it now is ; and inasmuch as our opponents hold almost entire sway in the South, and we a correspondingly large majority in the North, the fact that we are now to be represented as we were years ago, when the population was different, is to us, a very great disadvantage. We had in the year 1855, according to law, a census, or enumeration of the inhabitants, taken for the purpose of a new apportionment of representation. We know what a fair apportionment of representation upon that census would give us. We know that it could not, if fairly made, fail to give the Bepubli- can party from six to ten more members of the Legislature than they can probably get as the law now stands. It so happened at the last session of the Legislature that our opponents, holding the control of botli branches of the Legislature, steadily refused to give us such an apportionment as we were rightly entitled to have upon the census already taken. The Legislature steadily refused to give us such an apportionment as we were rightfully en- titled to have upon the census taken of the population of the State. The Legislature would pass no bill upon that subject, except such as was at least as unfair to us as the old one, and in which, in some instances, two men in the Democratic regions were allowed to go as far toward sending a member to the Legislature as three were in the Eepublican regions. Comparison was made at the time as to representative and senatorial districts, which com- pletely demonstrated that such was the fact. Such a bill was passed and tendered to the Eepublican Governor for his signature ; but principally for the reasons I have stated, he withheld his approval, and the bill feU without becoming a law. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 69 Another disadvantage nnder which we labor is, that there are one or two Democratic Senators who will he members of the next Legislature, and will Yote for the election of Senator, who are holding over in districts in which we could, on all reasonable calculation, elect men of our own, if we only had the chance of an election. When w^e consider that there are but twenty-five Senators in the Senate, taking two from the side where they rightfully belong, and adding them to the other, is to us a disadvantage not to be lightly re- garded. Still, so it is ; we have this to contend with. Perhaps there is no ground of complaint on our part. In attending to the many things involved in the last general election for President, Governor, Auditor, Treasurer, Super- intendent of Public Instruction, Members of Congress, of the Legislature, County Officers, and so on, we allowed these things to happen by want of sufficient attention, and we have no cause to complain of our adversaries, so far as this matter is concerned. But we have some cause to complain of the refusal to give us a fair apportionment. There is still another disadvantage under which we labor, and to which I will ask your attention. It arises out of the relative positions of the two per- sons who stand before the State as candidates for the Senate. Senator Doug- las is of world-wide renown. All the anxious politicians of his party, or who have been of his party for years past, have been looking upon him as cer- tainly, at no distant day, to be the President of the United States. They have seen in his round, jolly, fruitful face post-offices, land-offices, marshalships, and cabinet appointments, chargesliips and foreign missions, bursting and sprouting out in wonderful exuberance, 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 distraction that has taken place in the party, bring themselves to give up the charming hope ; but with greedier anxiety they rush about him, sustain him, and give him marches, triumphal entries, and recep- tions beyond what even in the days of his highest prosperity they could have brought about in his favor. On the contrary, nobody has ever expected me to be President. In my poor, lean, lank face, nobody has ever seen that any cab- bages were sprouting out. These are disadvantages all, taken together, that the Eepublicans labor under. We have to fight this battle upon principle, and upon principle alone. I am, in a certain sense, made the standard-bearer in behalf of the Eepublicans. 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 Eepublican 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 whicli are brought to bear against us. So I hope those with whom I am sur- rounded have principle enough to nerve themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can be fairly done to bring about the right result. After Senator Douglas left Washington, as his movements were made known by the public prints, he tarried a considerable time in the city of New York ; and it was heralded that, like another Napoleon, he was lying by and framing the plan of his campaign. It was telegrai)hed 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 dis- union speech which Lincoln had made here on the 16th of June. Now, I do suppose that the Judge really spent some time in New York maturing the plan of the campaign, as his friends heralded for him. I have been able, by noting his movements since his arrival in Illinois, to discover evidences con- 70 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN firmatory of that allegation. I tliink I have been able to see what are the material points of that plan. I will, for a little while, ask your attention to some of them. What I shall point out, though not showing the whole plan, are, nevertheless, the main points, as I suppose. They are not very numerous. The first is Popular Sovereignty. The sec- ond and third are attacks upon my speech made on the 16th of June. Out of these three points — drawing within the range of popular sovereignty the question of the Lecompton Constitution — he makes his principal assault. Upon these his successive speeches are substantially one and the same. On this matter of popular sovereignty I wish to be a little careful. Auxiliary to these main points, to be sure, are their thunderings of cannon, their marching and music, their fizzle-gigs and fireworks ; but I will not waste time with them. They are but the little trappings of the campaign. Coming to the substance, — the first point, — " popular sovereignty." It is to be labelled upon the cars in which he travels ; put upon the hacks he rides in ; to be flaunted upon the arches he passes under, and the banners which wave over him. It is to be dished up in as many varieties as a French cook can produce soups from potatoes. Now, as this is so great a staple of the plan of the campaign, it is worth while to examine it carefully ; and if we examine only a very little, and do not allow ourselves to be misled, we shall be able to see that the whole thing is the most arrant Quixotism that was ever enacted before a community. What is the matter of popular sovereignty ? The first thing, in order to understand it, is to get a good definition of what it is, and after that to see how it is applied. I suppose almost every one knows that, in this controversy, whatever has been said has had reference to the question of negro slavery. We have not been in a controversy about the right of the people to govern themselves in the ordinary matters of domestic concern in the States and Territories. Mr. Buchanan, in one of his late messages (I think when he sent up the Lecomp- ton Constitution) urged that the main point to which the public attention had been directed was not in regard to the great variety of small domestic matters, but was directed to the question of negro slavery ; and he asserts that if the people had had a fair chance to vote on that question, there was no rea- sonable ground of objection in regard to minor questions. Now, while I think that the people had not had given, or offered them, a fair chance upon that slavery question, still, if there had been a fair submission to a vote upon that main question, the President's proposition would have been true to the utter- most. Hence, when hereafter I speak of popular sovereignty, I wish to be understood as applying what I say to the question of slavery only, not to other minor domestic matters of a Territory or a State. Does Judge Douglas, when he says that several of the past years of his life have been devoted to the question of " popular sovereignty," and that all the remainder of his life shall be devoted to it, does he mean to say that he has been devoting his life to securing to the people of the Territories the right to exclude slavery from the Territories ? If he means so to say he means to deceive ; because he and every one knows that the decision of the Supreme Court, which he approves and makes especial ground of attack upon me for disapproving, forbids the people of a Territory to exclude slavery. This covers the whole ground, from the settlement of a Territory till it reaches the degree of maturity entitling it to form a State Constitution. So far as all that ground is concerned, the Judge is not sustaining popular sovereignty, but abso- lutely opposing it. He sustains the decision which declares that the popular AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 71 will of the Territories has no constitutional power to exclude slavery during their territorial existence. This being so, the period of time from the first settlement of a Territory till it reaches the point of forming a State Constitu- tion is not the thing that the Judoe has fought for or is fighting for, but, on the contrary, he has fought for, and is fighting for, the thing tliat annihilates and crushes out that same popular sovereignty. Well, so much being disposed of, what is left ? Why, he is contending for the right of the people, when they come to make a State Constitution, to make it for themselves, and precisely as best suits themselves. I say again, that is Quixotic. I defy contradiction when I declare that the Judge can find no one to oppose him on that proposition. I repeat, there is nobody opposing that proposition on principle. Let me not be misunderstood. I know that, with reference to the Lecompton Constitution, I may be misunderstood ; but when you understand me correctly, my proposition will be true and accurate. Nobody is opposing, or has opposed, the right of the people, when they form a Constitution, to form it for themselves. Mr. Buchanan and his friends have not done it ; they, too, as well as the Eepublicans and the Anti-Lecompton Democrats, have not done it ; but on the contrary, they together have insisted on the right of the people to form a Constitution for themselves. The differ- ence between the Buchanan men on the one hand, and the Douglas men and the Eepublicans on the other, has not been on a question of principle, but on a question of fad. The dispute was upon the question of fact, whether the Lecompton Consti- tution had been fairly formed by the people or not. Mr. Buchanan and his friends have not contended for the contrary principle any more than the Douglas men or the Eepublicans. They have insisted that whatever of small irregularities existed in getting up the Lecompton Constitution were such as happen in the settlement of all new Territories. The question was, Was it a fair emanation of the people ? It was a question of fact, and not of principle. As to the principle, all were agreed. Judge Douglas voted with the Eepubli- cans upon that matter of fact. He and they, by their voices and votes, denied that it was a fair emanation of the people. The Administration affirmed that it was. With respect to the evidence bearing upon that question of fact, I readily agree that Judge Douglas and the Eepublicans had the right on their side, and that the Administration was wrong. But I state again that, as a matter of principle, there is no dispute upon the right of a people in a Territory, merging into a State, to form a Con- stitution for themselves without outside interference from any quarter. This being so, what is Judge Douglas going to spend his life for ? Is he going to spend his life in maintaining a principle that nobody on earth opposes ? Does he expect to stand up in majestic dignity, and go through his apotheosis and become a god, in the maintaining of a principle which neither man nor mouse in all God's creation is opposing ? Now something in regard to the Lecomp- ton Constitution more specially ; for I pass from this other question of popular sovereignty as the most arrant humbug that has ever been attempted on an intelligent community. As to the Lecompton Constitution, I have already said that on the question of fact as to whether it was a fair emanation of the people or not. Judge Doug- las, with the Eepublicans and some Americans, had gi'eatly the argument against the Administration ; and while I repeat this, I wish to know what there is in the opposition of Judge Douglas to the Lecompton Constitution that entitles him to be considered the only opponent to it, — as being par excellence 72 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN the very quintessence of that opposition. I agree to the rightfuhiess of his opposition. He in the Senate and his class of men there formed the number three, and no more. In the House of Eepresentatives his class of men — the Anti-Lecompton Democrats — formed a number of about twenty. It took one hundred and twenty to defeat the measure, against one hundred and twelve. Of the votes of that one hundred and twenty, Judge Douglas's friends furnished twenty, to add to which there were six Americans and ninety-four Eepubli- cans. I do not say that I am precisely accurate in their numbers, but I am sufficiently so for any use I am making of it. Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the credit of doing that work, and the hundred none of it ? Why, if, as Judge Douglas says, the honor is to be divided and due credit is to be given to other parties, "why is just so much given as is consonant with the wishes, the interests, and advancement of the twenty ? My understanding is, when a common job is done, or a common enterprise prosecuted, if I put in five dollars to your one, I have a right to take out five dollars to your one. But he does not so understand it. He de- clares the dividend of credit for defeating Lecompton upon a basis which seems unprecedented and incomprehensible. Let us see. Lecompton in the raw was defeated. It afterward took a sort of cooked-up shape, and was passed in the English bill. It is said by the Judge that the defeat was a good and proper thing. If it was a good thing, why is he entitled to more credit than others for the performance of that good act, unless there was something in the antecedents of the Eepublicans that might induce every one to expect them to join in that good work, and at the same time something leading them to doubt that he would ? Does he place his superior claim to credit on the ground that he performed a good act which was never expected of him ? He says I have a proneness for quoting Scripture. If I should do so now, it occurs that perhaps he places himself somewhat upon the ground of the parable of the lost sheep which went astray upon the moun- tains, and when the owner of the hundred sheep found tlie one that was lost, and threw it upon his shoulders and came home rejoicing, it was said that there was more rejoicing over the one sheep that was lost and had been found, than over the ninety and nine in the fold. The application is made by the Saviour in this parable, thus : " Verily, I say unto you, there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons that need no repentance." And now, if the Judge claims the benefit of this parable, let him repent. Let him not come up here and say : " I am the only just person ; and you are the ninety-nine sinners ! " Repentance before forgiveness is a provision of the Christian system, and on that condition alone will the Republicans grant his forgiveness. How will he prove that we have ever occupied a different position in regard to the Lecompton Constitution or any principle in it ? He says he did not make his opposition on the ground as to whether it was a free or slave consti- tution, and he would have you understand that the Eepublicans made their opposition because it ultimately became a slave constitution. To make proof in favor of himself on this point, he reminds us that he opposed Lecompton before the vote was taken declarinoj whether the State was to be free or slave. But he forgets to say that our Eepublican Senator, Trumbull, made a speech against Lecompton even before he did. Why did he oppose it ? Partly, as he declares, because the members of the Convention who framed it were not fairly elected by the people ; that the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 73 people were not allowed to vote unless they had been registered ; and that the people of whole counties, in some instances, were not registered. For these reasons he declares the Constitution was not an emanation, in any true sense, from the people. He also has an additional objection as to the mode of sub- mitting the Constitution back to the people. But bearing on the question of whether the delegates were fairly elected, a speech of his, made something more than twelve months ago, from this stand, becomes important. It was made a little while before the election of the delegates who made Lecompton. In that speech he declared there was every reason to hope and believe the election would be fair ; and if any one failed to vote, it would be his own culpable fault. I, a few days after, made a sort of answer to that speech. In that answer I made, substantially, the very argument with which he combated his Lecompton adversaries in the Senate last winter. I pointed to the facts that the people could not vote without being registered, and that the time for registering had gone by. I commented on it as wonderful that Judge Douglas could be ignorant of these facts, which every one else in the nation so well knew. I now pass from popular sovereignty and Lecompton. I may have occasion to refer to one or both. When he was preparing his plan of campaign, Napoleon-like, in New York, as appears by two speeches I have heard him deliver since his arrival in Illi- nois, he gave special attention to a speech of mine, delivered here on the IGtli of June last. He says that he carefully read that speech. He told us that at Chicago a week ago last night, and he repeated it at Bloomington last night. Doubtless, he repeated it again to-day, though I did not hear him. In the two first places — Chicago and Bloomington — I heard him ; to-day I did not. He said he had carefully examined that speech, — tvhen, he did not say ; but there is no reasonable doubt it was when he was in New York preparing his plan of campaign. I am glad he did read it carefully. He says it was evidently pre- pared with great care. I freely admit it was prepared with care. I claim not to be more free from errors than others, — perhaps scarcely so much; but I was very careful not to put anything in that speech as a matter of fact, or make any inferences which did not appear to me to be true and fully warrantable. If I had made any 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 war- ranted, I was fully prepared to modify it as soon as discovered. I planted my- self upon the truth and the truth only, so far as I knew it, or could be brought to know it. Having made that speech with the most kindly feelings toward Judge Doug- las, 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 quot- 10 74 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN ing is from a passage which I believe I can quote accurately from memory. I shall make the quotation now, with some comments upon it, as I have already said, in order that the Judge shall he left entirely without excuse for misrep- resenting me. I do so now, as I hope, for the last time. I do this in great caution, in order that if he repeats his misrepresentation it shall be plain to all that he does so wilfully. If, after all, he still persists, I shall be compelled to reconstruct the course I have marked out for myself, and draw upon such humble resources as I have, for a new course, better suited to the real exigen- cies of the case. I set out in this campaign with the intention of conducting it strictly as a gentleman, in substance at least, if not in the outside polish. The latter I shall never be ; but that which constitutes the inside of a gentle- man I hope I understand, and am not less inclined to practise than others. It was my purpose and expectation that this canvass would be conducted upon prin- ciple, and with fairness on both sides, and it shall not be my fault if this purpose and expectation shall be given up. He charges, in substance, that I invite a war of sections ; that I propose all the local institutions of the different States shall become consolidated and uniform. What is there in the language of that speech ^^•hich expresses such purpose or bears such construction ? I have again and again said that I would not enter into any of the States to disturb the institution of slavery. Judge Douglas said, at Bloomington, that I used language most able and ingenious for concealing what I really meant : and that while I had protested against entering into the Slave States, I nevertheless did mean to go on the banks of the Ohio and throw missiles into Kentucky, to disturb them in their domestic institutions. I said in that speech, and I meant no more, that the institution of slavery ought to be placed in the very attitude where the framers of this government placed it and left it. I do not understand that the framers of our Constitution left the people of the Free States in the attitude of firing bombs or shells into the Slave States. I was not using that passage for the purpose for which he infers I did use it. I said : — " We are now far advanced into the fifth year since a policy was created for the avowed object and with the confident promise of putting an end to slaveiy agita- tion. Under the operation of that policy that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease till a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe that this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free ; it will become all one thing or all the other. Either the 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 coui'se of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South." Now you all see, from that quotation, I did not express my wish on any- thing. In that passage I indicated no wish or purpose of my own ; I simply expressed my expectation. Cannot the Judge perceive a distinction between a pujyosc and an expectation ? I have often expressed an expectation to die, but I have never expressed a wish 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 expressed the opinion I did because I perceived — or thought I perceived — a new set of causes introduced. I did say at Chicago, in my speech there, that I do wish AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 75 to see the spread of slavery 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 slavery question. I have believed — and now believe — the public mind did rest on that belief up to the introduction of the Nebraska bill. Although I have ever been opposed to slavery, so far I rested in the hope and belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. For that reason it had been a minor question with me. I might have been mistaken ; but I had believed, and now believe, that the whole public mind, that is, the mind of the great majority, had rested in that belief up to the repeal of the Missouri Com- promise. But upon that event I became 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 purpose. So believing, I have since then considered that question a paramount one. So believing, I thought the public mind will never rest till the power of Congress to restrict the spread of it shall again be acknowledged and exercised on the one hand, or, on the other, all resistance be entirely crushed out. I have expressed that opinion, and I 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 pre- senting him canes, silver plate, gold pitchers, and the like, for assaulting Senator Sumner, distinctly affirmed his opinion that when this Constitution was formed, it was the belief of no man that slavery would last to the present day. He said, what I think, that the framers of our Constitution placed the institution of slavery where the public mind rested in the hope that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. But he went on to say that the men of the present age, by their experience, have become wiser than the framers of the Constitution, and the invention of cotton gin had made the perpetuity of slavery a necessity i:i this country. As another piece of evidence tending to this same point : Quite recently in Virginia, a man — the owner of slaves — made a will providing that after his death certain of his slaves should have their freedom if they should so choose, and go to Liberia, rather than remain in slavery. They chose to be liberated. But the persons to whom they would descend as property claimed them as slaves. A suit was instituted, which finally came to the Supreme Court of Virginia, and was therein decided against the slaves upon the ground that a negro cannot make a choice ; that they had no legal power to choose, — could not perform the condition upon which their freedom depended. I do not mention this with any purpose of criticising it, but to connect it with the arguments as affording additional evidence of the change of senti- ment upon this question of slavery in the direction of making it perpetual and national. I argue now as I did before, that there is such]a tendency ; and I am backed, not merely by the facts, but by the open confession in the Slave States. And now as to the Judge's inference that because I wish to see slavery placed in the course of ultimate extinction, — placed where our fathers origi- nally placed it, — I wish to annihilate the State Legislatures, to force cotton to grow upon the tops of the Green IMountains, to freeze ice in Florida, to cut lumber on the broad Illinois prairie, — that I am in favor of all these ridiculous and impossible things. 76 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN It seems to me it is a complete answer to all this to ask if, when Congress did have the fashion of restricting slavery from free territory ; when courts did have the fashion of deciding that taking a slave into a free country made him free, — I say it is a sufficient answer to ask if any of this ridiculous nonsense about consolidation and uniformity did actually follow. Who heard of any such thing because of the Ordinance of '87 ? because of the Missouri Restriction ? because of the numerous court decisions of that character ? Now, as to the Dred Scott decision ; for upon that he makes his last point at me. He boldly takes ground in favor of that decision. This is one half the onslaught, and one third of the entire plan of the cam- paign. I am opposed to that decision in a certain sense, but not in the sense which he puts on it. I say that in so far as it decided in favor of Dred Scott's master, and against Dred Scott and his family, I do not propose to disturb or resist the decision. I never have proposed to do any such thing. I think that in respect for judicial authority my humble history would not suffer in comparison with that of Judge Douglas. He would have the citizen conform his vote to that decision ; the member of Congress, his ; the President, his use of the veto power. He would make it a rule of political action for the people and all the departments of the government. I would not. By resisting it as a political rule, I disturb no right of property, create no disorder, excite no mobs. When he spoke at Chicago, on Friday evening of last week, he made this same point upon me. On Saturday evening I replied, and reminded him of a Supreme Court decision which he opposed for at least several years. Last night, at Bloomington, he took some notice of that reply, but entirely forgot to remember that part of it. He renews his onslaught upon me, forgetting to remember that I have turned the tables against himself on that very point. I renew the effort to draw his attention to it. I wish to stand erect before the country, as well as Judge Douglas, on this question of judicial authority ; and therefore I add something to the authority in favor of my own position. I wish to show that I am sustained by authority, in addition to that heretofore presented. I do not expect to convince the Judge. It is part of the plan of his campaign, and he will cling to it with a desperate grip. Even turn it upon him, — the sharp point against him, and gaff him through, — he will still cling to it till he can invent some new dodge to take the place of it. In public speaking it is tedious reading from documents ; but I must beg to indulge the practice to a limited extent. I shall read from a letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1820, and now to be found in the seventh volume of his correspondence, at page 177. It seems he had been presented by a gentle- man of the name of Jarvis with a book, or essay, or periodical, called the " Eepublicau," and he was writing in acknowledgment of the present, and noting some of its contents. After expressing the hope that the work will produce a favorable effect upon the minds of the young, he proceeds to say: — " That it will have this tendency may be expected, and for that reason I feel an urgency to note what I deem an error in it, the more requiring notice as your opinion is strengthened by that of many others. You seem, in page 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, — a very AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 77 dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, ■with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is, ' Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem ; ' and their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other func- tionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign with themselves." Thus we see the power claimed for the Supreme Court by Judge Douglas, Mr. Jefferson liolds, would reduce us to the despotism of an oligarchy. Now, I have said no more than this, — in fact, never quite so much as this ; at least I am sustained by Mr. Jefferson. Let us go a little further. You remember we once had a National Bank. Some one owed the bank a debt ; he was sued, and sought to avoid payment on the ground that the bank was unconstitutional. The case went to the Supreme Court, and therein it was decided that the bank was constitutional. The whole Democratic party revolted against that decision. General Jackson himself asserted that he, as President, would not be bound to hold a National Bank to be constitutional, even though the court had decided it to be so. He fell in precisely with the view of Mr. Jefferson, and acted upon it under his official oath, in vetoing a charter for a National Bank. The declaration that Congress does not possess this constitutional power to charter a bank has gone into the Democratic platform, at their National Conventions, and was brought forward and reaffirmed in their last Convention at Cincinnati. They have contended for that declaration, in the very teeth of the Supreme Court, for more than a quarter of a century. In fact, they have reduced the decision to an absolute nullity. That decision, I repeat, is repudiated in the Cincin- nati platform ; and still, as if to show that effrontery can go no farther, Judge Douglas vaunts in the very speeches in which he denounces me for opposing the Dred Scott decision that he stands on the Cincinnati platform. Now, I wish to know what the Judge can charge upon me, with respect to decisions of the Supreme Court, which does not lie in all its length, breadth, and proportions at his own door. The plain truth is simply this : Judge Douglas is for Supreme Court decisions when he likes ; and against them when he does not like them. He is for the Dred Scott decision because it tends to nationalize slavery; because it is part of the original combination for that object. It so happens, singularly enough, that I never stood opposed to a decision of the Supreme Court till this. On the contrary, I have no recol- lection that he was ever particularly in favor of one till this. He never was in favor of any, nor opposed to any, till the present one, which helps to nationalize slavery. Free men of Sangamon, free men of Illinois, free men everywhere, judge ye between him and me upon this issue. He says this Dred Scott case is a very small matter at most, — that it has no practical effect ; that at best, or rather, I suppose, at worst, it is but an abstraction. I submit that the proposition that the thing which determines whether a man is free or a slave is rather concrete than abstract. I think you would conclude that it was, if your liberty depended upon it, and so would Judge Douglas, if his liberty depended upon it. But suppose it was on the question of spreading slavery over the new Territories that he considers it as 78 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN being merely an abstract matter, and one of no practical importance. How- has the planting of slavery in new countries always been effected ? It has now been decided that slavery cannot be kept out of our new Territories by any legal means. In what do our new Territories now differ 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 proliibit it, and withholding 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 pre- cise condition our Nebraska politicians have at last succeeded in placing our own new Territories ; the government will not prohibit slavery within them, nor allow the people to prohibit it. I defy any man to find any difference between the policy wdiich originally planted slavery in these Colonies and that policy which now prevails in our new Territories. If it does not go into them, it is only because no individual washes it to go. The Judge indulged himself doubtless to-day wath the question as to what I am going to do wdth or about the Dred Scott decision. Well, Judge, will you please tell me what you did about the bank decision ? Will you not graciously allow us to do with the Dred Scott decision precisely as you did with the bank decision ? You succeeded in breaking down the moral effect of that decision : did you find it necessary to amend the Constitu- tion, or to set up a court of negroes in order to do it ? There is one other point. Judge Douglas has a very affectionate leaning toward the Americans and Old Whigs. Last evening, in a sort of weeping tone, he described to us a deathbed scene. He had been called to the side of Mr. Clay, in his last moments, in order that the genius of " popular sover- eignty " might duly descend from the dying man and settle upon him, the living and most worthy successor. He could do no less than jDromise that he would devote the remainder of his life to " popular sovereignty ; " and then the great statesman departs in peace. By this part of the " plan of the cam- paign " the Judge has evidently promised himself that tears shall be drawn down the cheeks of all Old Whigs, as large as half-grown apples. Mr. Webster, too, was mentioned ; but it did not quite come to a deathbed scene as to him. It would be amusing, if it were not disgusting, to see how quick these compromise-breakers administer on the political effects of their dead adversaries, trumping up claims never before heard of, and dividing the assets among themselves. If I should be found dead to-morrow morning, nothing but my insignificance could prevent a speech being made on my author- ity, before the end of next M'eek. It so happens that in that " popular sover- eignty" with which Mr. Clay was identified, the Missouri Compromise was expressly reserved ; and it was a little singular if Mr. Clay cast his mantle upon Judge Douglas on purpose to have that compromise repealed. Again, the Judge did not keep faith with Mr. Clay when he first brought in his Nebraska bill. He left the Missouri Compromise unrepealed, and in his report accompanying the bill he told the world he did it on purpose. The manes of Mr. Clay must have been in great agony till thirty days later, when " popular sovereignty " stood forth in all its glory. One more thing. Last night Judge Douglas tormented himself with hor- rors about my disposition to make negroes perfectly equal with white men in social and political relations. He did not stop to show that I have said any AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 79 such thing, or that it legitimately follows 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 tliem make it read that all men are created equal except negroes. Let us have it decided whether the Declaration of Inde- pendence, in this blessed year of 1858, shall be thus amended. In his con- struction of the Declaration last year, he said it only meant that Americans in America were equal to Englishmen in England. Then, when I pointed out to him that by that rule he excludes the Germans, the Irish, the Portuguese, and all the other people who have come amongst us since the Eevolution, he reconstructs his construction. In his last speech he tells us it meant Europeans. I press him a little further, and ask if it meant to include the Russians in Asia ; or does he mean to exclude that vast population from the 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 misrepresented, but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration to mean that all men were created equal in all respects. They are not our equal in color ; but I suppose that it does mean to declare that all men are equal in some respects ; they are equal in their right to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of haj)piness." Certainly the negro is not our equal in color, — perhaps not in many other respects ; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black. In pointing out that more has been given you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given him. All I ask for the negro is that if you do not like him, let him alone. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy. When our government was established we had the institution of slavery among us. We were in a certain sense compelled to tolerate its existence. It was a sort of necessity. We had gone through our struggle and secured our own independence. The framers of the Constitution found the institution of slavery amongst their other institutions at the time. They found that by an effort to eradicate it they might lose much of what they had already gained. They were obliged to bow to the necessity. They gave power to Congress to abolish the slave trade at the end of twenty years. They also prohibited it in the Territories where it did not exist. They did what they could, and yielded to the necessity for the rest. I also yield to all which follows from that necessity. Wliat I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races. One more point on this Springfield speech which Judge Douglas says he has read so carefully. I expressed my belief in the existence of a conspiracy to perpetuate and nationalize slavery. I did not profess to know it, nor do I now. I showed the part Judge Douglas had played in the string of facts constituting to my nnud the proof of that conspiracy. I showed the parts played by others. I cliarged that the people had been deceived into carrying the last Presi- dential election, by the impression that the people of the Territories might exclude slavery if they chose, when it was known in advance by the couspir- 80 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN ators that the court was to decide that neither Congress nor the people could so exclude slavery. These charges are more distinctly made than anything else in the speech. Judge Douglas has carefully read and re-read that speech. He has not, so far as I know, contradicted those charges. In the two speeches which I heard he certainly did not. On his own tacit admission, I renew that charge. I charge him with having been a party to that conspiracy and to that deception for the sole purpose of nationalizing slavery. The following is the correspondence between the two rival candidates for the United States Senate : — Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas. Chicago, III., July 24, 1858. Hon. S. A. Douglas : My dear Sir, — Will it be agreeable to you to make an arrangement for you and myself to divide time, and address the same audiences the present canvass ] Mr. Judd, who will hand you this, is authorized to receive your answer ; and, if agreeable to you, to enter into the terms of such arrangement. Your obedient servant, A. Lincoln. Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. Chicago, July 24, 1858. Hon. A. Lincoln : Dear Sir, — Your note of this date, in Avhicb you inquire if it would be agreeable to me to make an arrangement to divide the time and address the same audiences during the present canvass, was handed me by Mr. Judd. Recent events have interposed difficulties in the way of such an arrangement. I went to Springfield last week for the purpose of conferring wdth the Democratic State Central Committee upon the mode of conducting the canvass, and with them, and under their advice, made a list of appointments covering the entire period until late in October. The people of the several localities have been notified of the times and places of the meetings. Those appointments have all been made for Democratic meetings, and arrangements have been made by which the Democratic candidates for Congress, for the Legislature, and other offices, will be present and address the people. It is evident, therefore, that these various candidates, in connection with myself, will occupy the whole time of the day and evening, and leave no opportunity for other speeches. Besides, there is another consideration which should be kept in mind. It has been suggested recently that an arrangement had been made to bring out a third can- didate for the United States Senate, wdio, with yourself, should canvass the State in opposition to me, with no other purpose than to insure my defeat, by dividing the Democratic party for your benefit. If I should make this arrangement with you, it is more than probable that this other candidate, who has a common object with you, would desire to become a party to it, and claim the right to speak from the same stand ; so that he and you, in concert, might be able to take the opening and closing speech in every case. I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise, if it was your original intention to invite such an arrangement, that you should have waited until after I had made my AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 81 appointments, inasmuch as we were botli here in Chicago together for several days after my arrival, and again at Bloomington, Atlanta, Lincoln, and Springfield, where it was well known I went for the purpose of consulting with the State Central Com- mittee, and agreeing upon the plan of the campaign. While, under these circumstances, I do not feel at liberty to make any arrange- ments which would deprive the Democratic candidates for Congress, State offices, and the Legislature frohi participating in the discussion at the various meetings desig- nated by the Democratic State Central Committee, I will, in order to accommodate you as far as it is in my power to do so, take the responsibility of making an arrange- ment with you for a discussion between us at one prominent point in each Congres- sional District in the State, except the second and sixth districts, where we have both spoken, and in each of which cases you had the concluding speech. If agreeable to you, I will indicate the following places as those most suitable in the several Congres- sional Districts at which we shoulil speak, to wit : Freeport, Ottawa, Galesburg, Quincy, Alton, Jonesboro, and Charleston. I will confer with you at the earliest convenient opportunity in regard to the mode of conducting the debate, the times of meeting at the several places, subject to the condition that where appointments have already been made by the Democratic State Central Committee at any of those places, I must insist upon you meeting me at the times specified. Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, S. A. Douglas. Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas. Springfield, July 29, 1858. Hon. S. A. Douglas : Dear Sir, — Yours of the 24th in relation to an arrangement to divide time, and address the same audiences, is received ; and, in apology for not sooner replying, allow me to say, tliat when I sat by you at dinner yesterday, I was not aware that you had answered my note, nor, certainly, that my own note had been presented to you. An hour after, I saw a copy of your answer in the Chicago " Times," and reaching home, I found the original awaiting me. Protesting that your insinuations of attempted unfairness on my part are unjust, and with the hope that you did not very considerately make them, I proceed to reply. To your state- ment that '' It has been suggested, recently, that an arrangement had been made to bring out a third candidate for the United States Senate, who, with yourself, should canvass the State in opposition to me," etc., I can only say, that such suggestion must have been made by yourself, for certainly none such has been made by or to me, or otherwise, to my knowledge. Surely you did not deliberately conclude, as you insinuate, that I was expecting to draw you into an arrangement of terms, to be agreed on by yourself, by which a third candidate and myself, " in concert, might be able to take the opening and closing speech in every case." As to 3"our surprise that I did not sooner make the proposal to divide time with you, I can only say, I made it as soon as I resolved to make it. I did not know but that such proposal would come from you ; I waited, respectfully, to see. It may have been well known to you that you went to Springfield for the purpose of agree- ing on the plan of campaign; but it was not so known to me. When your appoint- ments were announced in the papers, extending only to the 21st of August, I, for the first time considered it certain that you would make no proposal to me, and then resolved that, if my friends concurred, I would make one to you. As soon thereafter as I could see and consult with friends satisfactorily, I did make the proposal. It did not occur to me that the proposed 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 9tli, you made a carefully prepared conclusion on my 11 82 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN speech of June 16th. Twenty-four hours after, I made a hasty conclusion on yours of the 9th. You had six days to jjrepare, 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 meat Springfield, which I 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 Spring^eld, 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 arrangement. As to the other details, I wish perfect reciprocity and no more. I wish as much time as you, and that con- clusions shall alternate. That is all. Your obedient servant, A. LiNCOLX. 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 wiU reach me at Springfield. A. L. Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. Bement, Piatt Co., III., July 30, 1858. Dear Sir, — Your letter dated yesterday, accepting my proposition for a joint dis- cussion at one prominent point in each Congressional District, as stated in my previ- ous letter, was received this morning. The times and places designated are as follows : — Ottawa, La Salle County . Freeport, Stephenson County Jonesboro, Union County . Charleston, Coles County . Galesburgh, Knox County Quincy, Adams County Alton, Madison County I agree to your suggestion that we shall alternately open and close the discussion. I will speak at Ottawa one hour, you can reply, occupying an hour and a half, and I wiU then follow for half an hour. At Freeport, you shall open the discussion and speak one hour ; I wiU follow for an hour and a half, and you can then reply for half an hour. We will alternate in like manner in each successive place. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. A. Douglas. Hon. A Lincoln, Springfield, lU. August 21st, 1858 " 27th, September 15th, " 18th, October Tth, 13th, " 15th, Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas. Springfield, July 31, 1858. Hon. S. A. Douglas : Dear Sir, — Yours of yesterday, naming places, times, and terms, for joint discussions between us, was received this morning. Although, by the terms, as you propose, you take four openings and closes, to my three, I accede, and thus close the arrangement. I direct this to you at Hillsboro, and shall try to have both your letter and this appear in the " Journal " and " Register " of Monday morning. Your obedient servant, A. Lincoln. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 83 FIRST JOINT DEBATE, AT OTTAWA, August 21, 1858. MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : I appear before you to-day for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind. By an arrangement between Mr. Lincoln and myself, we are present here to- day for the purpose of having a joint discussion, as the representatives of the two great political parties of the State and Union, upon the principles in issue between those parties ; and this vast concourse of people shows the deep feel- ing which pervades the public mind in regard to the questions dividing us. Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political parties, known as the Whig and Democratic parties. Both were national and patri- otic, advocating principles that were universal in their application. An old line Whig could proclaim his principles in Louisiana and Massachusetts alike. Whig principles had no boundary sectional line ; they were not limited by the Ohio River, nor by the Potomac, nor by the line of the Free and Slave States, but applied and were proclaimed wherever the Constitution ruled or the American flag waved over the American soil. So it was, and so it is with the great Democratic party, which, from the days of Jefferson until this period, has proven itself to be the historic party of this nation. While the Whig and Democratic parties differed in regard to a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, they agreed on the great slavery ^question which now agitates the Union. I say that the Whig party and the 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 by tlie patriots in the Whig and Democratic ranks who had devised and enacted the Compromise measures of 1850. In 1851 the Whig party and the Democratic party united in Illinois in adopting resolutions indorsing and approving the principles of the Compro- mise measures of 1850, as the proper adjustment of that question. In 1852, when the Whig party assembled in Convention at Baltimore for the purpose of nominating a candidate for the Presidency, the first thing it did was to declare the Compromise measures of 1850, in substance and in principle, a suitable adjustment of that question. [Here the speaker was interrupted by loud and long-continued applause.] My friends, silence will be more accept- able to me in the discussion of these questions than applause. I desire to address myself to your judgment, your understanding, and your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasm. When the Democratic Conven- tion 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. Thus 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 platform 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. 84 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN During the session of Congress of 1853-54,1 introduced into the Senate oi 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 by the Whig party and the Democratic party in Illinois in 1851, and indorsed by the Whig party and the Democratic party in National Con- vention in 1852. In order that there might be no misunderstanding in rela- tion to the p)rinciple involved in the Kansas and Nebraska bill, I put forth the true intent and meaning of the Act in these words : " It is the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Federal Constitution." Thus you see that up to 1854, when the Kansas and Nebraska bill was brought into Congress for the purpose of carrying out the principles which both parties had up to that time indorsed and approved, there had been no division in this country in regard to that principle except the opposition of the Abolitionists. In the House of Eepresentatives of the Illinois Legislature, upon a resolution asserting that principle, every Whig and every Democrat in the House voted in the affirmative, and only four men voted against it, and those four were old line Abolitionists. In 1854, Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull entered into an arranfje- ment, one with the other, and each with his respective friends, to dissolve the old Whig party on the one hand, and to dissolve the old Democratic party on the other, and to connect the members of both into an Abolition party, under the name and disguise of a Eepublican party. The terms of that arrangement between 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 States Senate, which was then about to become vacant, and that Trumbull should have my seat when my term exjjired. Lincoln went to work to Abolitionize tlie old Whig party all over the State, pretending that he was then as good a Whig as ever ; and Trumbull went to work in his part of the State preaching Abolitionism in its milder and lighter form, and trying to Abolitionize the 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 Abolition camp the old line Whigs, and transfer them over to Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Parson Lovejoy, who were ready to receive them and christen them in their new faith. They laid down on that occasion a platform for their new Eepublican party, 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 Eepublican 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 we believe this truth to be self-evident, that when parties become subversive of the ends for which they are established, or incapable of restor- ing the government to the true principles of the Constitution, it is the right and duty of the people to dissolve the political bands by which they may have been con- nected therewith, and to organize new parties, upon such principles and with such views as the circumstances and exigencies of the nation may demand. " 2. Resolved, That the times imperatively demand the reorganization of parties, and, repudiating all previous party attachments, names, and predilections, we unite AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 85 ourselves tegether in defence of the libert)^ and Constitution of the country, and will hereafter co-operate as the liepublican party, pledged to the accomplishment of the following purposes : To bring the administration of the government back to the control of first principles ; to restore Nebraska and Kansas to the position of free Ter- ritories ; that, as the Constitution of the United States vests in the States, and not in Congress, the power to legislate for the extradition of fugitives from labor, to repeal and entirely abrogate the Fugitive Slave law ; to restrict slavery to those States in which it exists ; to prohibit the admission of any more Slave States into the Union ; to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia ; to exclude slavery from all the Terri- tories over which the General Government has exclusive jurisdiction ; and to resist the acquirement of any more Territories, unless the practice of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited. " 3. Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles we will use such Constitu- tional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office, under the General or State Government, who is not positively and fully committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal character and conduct is not a guarantee that he is reliable, and who shall not have abjured old jjarty allegiance and ties." Now, gentlemen, your Black Eepublicans have cheered every one of those propositions, and yet I venture to say that you cannot get ]\Ir. Lincoln to come out and say that lie is now in favor of each one of them. That these propositions, one and all, constitute the platform of the Black Eepublican party of this day, I have no doubt ; and when you were not aware for what purpose I was reading them, your Black Republicans cheered them as good Black Republican doctrines. My object in reading these resolutions was to put the question to Abraham Lincoln this day, whether he now stands and will stand by each article in that creed and carry it out. I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the uncon- ditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more Slave States into the Union, even if the people want them. I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make. I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade between the different States. I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, North as w^ell as South of the Missouri Compromise line. I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any more territory, unless slavery is prohibited therein. I want his answer to these questions. Your affirmative cheers in favor of this Aboli- tion platform is not satisfactory. I ask Abraham Lincoln to answer these questions, in order that, when I trot him down to lower Egypt, I may put the same questions to him. My principles are the same everywhere. I can pro- claim them alike in the North, the South, the East, and the West. My prin- ciples will apply wherever the Constitution prevails, and the American flag waves. I desire to know -whether Air. Lincoln's principles will bear trans- planting from Ottawa to Jonesboro ? I put these questions to him to-day distinctly, and ask an answer. I have a right to an answer, for I quote from the platform of the Republican party, made by himself and others at the time that party was formed, and the bargain made by Lincoln to dissolve and kill the old Whig party, and transfer its members, bound hand and foot, to the 86 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Abolition party, under the direction of Giddings and Fred Douglass. In the remarks I have made on this platform, and the position of Mr. Lincoln upon it, I mean nothing personally disrespectful or unkind to that gentleman. I have known him for nearly twenty-five years. There were many points of sympathy between us when we first got acquainted. We were both compara- tively boys, and both struggling with poverty in a strange land. I was a school-teacher in the town of Winchester, and he a flourishing grocery-keeper in the town of Salem. He was more successful in his occupation than I was in mine, and hence more fortunate in this world's goods. Lincoln is one of those peculiar men who perform with admirable skill everything whicli they undertake. I made as good a school-teacher as I could, and when a cabinet- maker I made a good bedstead and tables, although my old boss said I suc- ceeded better with bureaus and secretaries than with anything else ; but I believe that Lincoln was always more successful in business than I, for his business enabled him to get into the Legislature. I met him there, however, and had a sympathy with him, because of the up-hill struggle we both had in life. He was then just as good at telling an anecdote as now. He could beat any of the boys wrestling, or running a foot-race, in pitching quoits or tossing a copper ; could ruin more liquor than all the boys of the town together ; and the dignity and impartiality with which he presided at a horse-race or fist- fight excited the admiration and won the praise of everybody that was present and participated. I sympathized with him because he was struggling with difficulties, and so was I. Mr. Lincoln served with me in the Legislature in 1836, when we both retired, and he subsided, or became submerged, and he was lost sight of as a public man for some years. In 1846, when Wilmot introduced his celebrated proviso, and the Abolition tornado swept over the country, Lincoln again turned up as a member of Congress from the Sanga- mon district. I was then in the Senate of the United States, and was glad to welcome my old friend and companion. Whilst in Congress, he distin- guished himself by his opposition to the Mexican war, taking the side of the common enemy against his own country ; and when he returned home he found that the indignation of the people followed him everywhere, and he was again submerged, or obliged to retire into private life, forgotten by his former friends. He came up again in 1854, just in time to make this Abolition or Black Republican platform, in company with Giddings, Lovejoy, Chase, and Fred Douglass, for the Eepublican party to stand upon. Trumbull, too, was one of our own contemporaries. He was born and raised in old Connecticut, was bred a Federalist, but, removing to Georgia, turned Nullifier when Nullification was popular, and as soon as he disposed of his clocks and wound up his business, migrated to Illinois, turned politician and lawyer here, and made his appear- ance in 1841 as a member of the Legislature. He became noted as the autlior of the scheme to repudiate a large portion of the State debt of Illinois, which, if successful, would have brought infamy and disgrace upon the fair escutcheon of our glorious State. The odium attached to that measure consigned him to oblivion for a time. I helped to do it. I walked into a public meeting in the hall of the House of Eepresentatives, and replied to his repudiating speeches, and resolutions were carried over his head denouncing repudiation, and asserting the moral and legal obligation of Illinois to pay every dollar of the debt she owed, and every bond that bore her seal. Trumbull's malignity has followed me since I thus defeated his infamous scheme. These two men having formed this combination to Abolitionize the old Whig party and the old Democratic party, and put themselves into the Senate of AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 87 the United States, in pursuance of their bargain, are now carrying out that arrangement. Matheny states that Trumbull broke faith ; that the bargain was that Lincoln should be the Senator in Shields's place, and Trumbull was to wait for mine ; and the story goes that Trumbull cheated Lincoln, having control of four or five Abolitionized Democrats who were holding over in the Senate ; he would not let them vote for Lincoln, and which obliged the rest of the Abolitionists to support him in order to secure an Abolition Senator. There are a number of authorities for the truth of this besides Matheny, and I suppose that even Mr. J^incoln will not deny 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 position for Lincoln, in order to quiet him. It was in consequence of this arrangement that the Eepublican Convention was empanelled to instruct for Lincoln and nobody else, and it was on this account that tliey passed resolutions that he was their first, their last, and their only choice. Archy Williams was nowhere. Browning was nobody, Wentworth was not to be considered ; they had no man in the Eepub- lican party for the place except Lincoln, for the reason that he demanded that they 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 I have read, Lincoln now takes his stand and proclaims his Abolition doctrines. Let me read a part of them. In his speech at Springfield to the Convention which nominated him for the Senate, he said : — " In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure 'permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, — I do not expect the house to fall ; hut I 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 place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike laivful in all the States, — old as well as new, North as well as South." [" Good," " good," and cheers.] I am delighted to hear you Black Eepublicans 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 con- dition in which it was made by its framers, — divided into Free and Slave States. He says that it has existed for about seventy years thus divided, and yet he tells you that it cannot endure permanently on the same principles and in the same relative condition in which our fathers made it. Why can it not exist divided into Free and Slave States ? Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and the great men of that day, made this govern- ment divided into Free States and Slave States, and left each State perfectly free to do as it pleased on the subject of slavery. Why can it not exist on the same principles on which our fathers made it ? They knew when they framed the Constitution that in a country as wide and broad as this, with such a variety of climate, production, and interest, the people necessarily required different laws and institutions in different localities. They knew 88 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN that the laws and regulations which would suit the granite hills of New Hampshire would be unsuited to the rice plantations of South Carolina, and they therefore provided that each State should retain its own Legislature and its own sovereignty, with the full and complete power to do as it pleased within its own limits, in all that was local and not national. One of the reserved rights of the States was the right to regulate the relations between master and servant, on the slavery question. At the time the Constitution was framed, there were thirteen States in the Union, twelve of which were slave- holding States and one a Free State, Suppose this doctrine of uniformity preached by Mv. Lincoln, that the States should all be free or all be slave had prevailed, and what would have been the result ? Of course, the twelve slaveholding States would have overruled the one Free State, and slavery would have been fastened by a Constitutional provision on every inch of the American Kepublic, instead of being left, as our fathers wisely left it, to each State to decide for itself. Here I assert that uniformity in the local laws and institutions of the different States is neither possible or desirable. If uniformity had been adopted when the government was established, it must inevitably have been the uniformity of slavery everywhere, or else the uni- formity of negro citizenship and negro equality everywhere. We are told by Lincoln that he is utterly opposed to the Dred Scott decision, and will not submit to it, for the reason that he says it deprives the negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship. That is the first and main reason which he assigns for his warfare on the Supreme Court of the United States and its decision. I ask you, are you in favor of conferring upon the negro the rights and privileges of citizenship ? Do you desire to strike out of our State Constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the State, and allow the free negroes to flow in, and cover your prairies with black settlements ? Do you desire to turn this beautiful State into a free negro colony, in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens and voters, on an equality with yourselves ? 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 Eepublican party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the negro. For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the little Abolition orators, who go around and lecture in the basements of schools and churches, reads from the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal, and then asks. How can you deprive a negro of that equality which God and the Declaration of Independence awards 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 AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 89 Parson Lovejoy's catechism. He can repeat it as well as Farnsworth, and he is worthy of a medal from Father Giddings and Fred Douglass for his Aboli- tionism. He holds that the negro was born his equal and yours, and that he was endowed with equality by the Almighty, and that no human law can deprive him of these rights, which were guaranteed to him by the Supreme Euler of the Universe. Now I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man. If he did, he has been a long time demonstrating the fact. For thousands of years the negro has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the race wliich he has there met. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position. 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 con- clusion be drawn from what I have said. On the contrary, I hold that humanity and Christianity both require that the negro shall have and enjoy every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety of the society in which he lives. On that point, I presume, there can be no diversity of opinion. You and I are bound to extend to our inferior and dependent beings every right, every privilege, every facility and immunity consistent with the public good. The question then arises. What rights and privileges are consistent with the public good ? This is a question which each State and each Territory must decide for itself : Illinois has decided it for herself. We have pro- vided that the negro shall not be a slave, and we have also provided that he shall not be a citizen, but protect him in his civil rights, in his life, his person and his property, only depriving him of all political rights whatso- ever, and refusing to put him on an equality with the white man. That policy of Illinois is satisfactory to the Democratic party and to me ; and if it were to the Eepublicans, there would then be no question upon the subject. But the Eepublicans say that he ought to be made a citizen, and when he becomes a citizen he becomes your equal, with all your rights and privileges. They assert the Dred Scott decision to be monstrous because it denies that the negro is or can be a citizen under the Constitution. Now, I hold that Illinois had a right to abolish and prohibit slavery as she did, and I hold tliat Ken- tucky has the same right to continue and protect slavery that Illinois had to abolish it. I hold that New York had as much right to abolish slavery as Virginia has to continue it, and that each and every State of this Union is a sovereign power, with the right to do as it pleases upon this question of slavery, and upon all its domestic institutions. Slavery is not the only ques- tion which comes up in this controversy. There is a far more important one to you, and that is. What shall be done with the free negro ? We have settled the slavery question as far as we are concerned ; we have prohibited it in Illinois forever ; and in doing so, I think we have done wisely, and there is no man in the State who would be more strenuous in his opposition to the introduction of slavery than I would. But when we settled it for ourselves, we exhausted all our power over that subject. We have done our whole duty, and can do no more. We must leave, each and every other State to decide for itself the same question. In relation to the policy to be pursued toward the free negroes, we have said that they shall not vote ; whilst Maine, on the other hand, has said that they shall vote. Maine is a sovereign State, and has the power to regulate the qualifications of voters within her limits. I would never consent to confer the right of voting and of citizenship upon a negro ; 12 90 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN but still I am not going to quarrel withMaine 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 prop- erty, but not otherwise. While I would not make any distinction whatever between a negro who held property and one who did not, yet if the sovereign State of New York chooses to make that distinction, it is her business and not mine, and I will not quarrel with her for it. She can do as she pleases on this question if she minds her own business, and we will do the same thing. Now, my friends, if we will only act conscientiously and rigidly upon this great principle of popular sovereignty, which guarantees to each State and Territory the right to do as it pleases on all things, local and domestic, instead of Congress interfering, we will continue at peace one with another. Why should Illinois be at war witli ]\Iissouri, or Kentucky with Ohio, or Virginia with New York, merely because their institutions differ ? Our fathers in- tended that our institutions should differ. They knew that tlie North and the South, having different climates, productions, and interests, required dif- ferent 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 franiers 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 years under the principle of popular sovereignty, recognizing the right of each State to do as it pleased. Under that principle, we have grown from a nation of three or four millions to a nation of about thirty millions of people ; we have crossed the Alleghany mountains and filled up the whole Northwest, turning the prairie into a gar- den, and building up churches and schools, thus spreading civilization and Christianity where before there was nothing but savage barbarism. Under that principle we have become, from a feeble nation, the most powerful on the face of the earth ; and if we only adhere to that principle, we can go forward increasing in territory, in power, in strength, and in glory until the Republic of America shall be the North Star that shall guide the friends of freedom throughout the civilized world. And why can we not adhere to the great principle of self-government, upon which 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. They are trying to array aU the Northern States in one body against the South, to excite a sectional \var between the Free States and the Slave States, in order that the one or the other may be driven to the wall. I am told that my time is out. Mr. Lincoln will now address you for an hour and a half, and I will then occupy an half hour in replying to him. MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY. My Fellow-Citizens : When a man hears himself somewhat misrepre- sented, it provokes him, — at least, I find it so with myself ; but when mis- representation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him. The first thing I see fit to notice is the fact that Judge Douglas alleges, after running through the history of the old Democratic and the old Whig parties, AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 91 that Judge Trumbull and myself made an arrangement in 1854, by which I was to have the place of General Shields in the United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull was to have the place of Judge Douglas. Now, all I have to say upon that subject is that I think no man — not even J udge Douglas — can prove it, because it is not true. I have no doubt he is " conscientious " in saying it. As to those resolutions that he took such a length of time to read, as being the platform of the Eepublican party in 1854, I say I never had anything to do with them, and I think Trumbull never had. Judge Douglas cannot show that either of us ever did have anything to do with them. I believe this is true about those resolutions : There was a call for a Convention to form a Eepublican party at Springfield, and I think that my 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, thongh without authority, upon the committee, and afterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the committee ; but I refused to do so, and I never had anything to do with that organization. This is the plain truth about all that matter of the resolutions. Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells of Trumbull bargaining to sell out the old Democratic party, and Lincoln agreeing to sell out the old Whig party, I have the means of knowing about that : Judge Douglas cannot have ; and I know there is no substance to it whatever. Yet I have no doubt he is " conscientioits " 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 district that the old Whig party was good enough for them, and some of them voted against him because I told them so. Now, I have no means of totally 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 what he says. I certainly cannot introduce testimony to show tlie negative about things, but I have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then he must show lioiv he knows it. I always have a right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be " conscientious " on the subject. Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on such things ; but in regard to that general Al)olition tilt that Judge Douglas makes, when he says that I was engaged at that time in selling out and Abolitionizing the old Whig party, I hope you will permit me to read a part of a printed speech that I made then at Peoria, which will show altogether a different view of the position I took in that contest of 1854. Voice : " Put on your specs." Mr. Lincoln : Yes, sir, I am obliged to do so ; I am no longer a young man. " Tliis is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.-' The foregoing history may not be precisely accurate in every particular, but I am sure it is sufficiently so for all the uses I shall attempt to make of it, and in it we have before us the chief materials enabling us to correctly judge whether the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is right or wrong. ^ This extract from Mr. Lincoln's Peoria speech of 1854 was read by him in the Ottawa debate, but was not reported fully or accurately in either the " Times " or " Press and Tribune." It is in- serted now as necessary to a complete report of the debate. 92 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN " I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong, — Avrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where men can be found inclined to take it. " This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world, — enables the enemies of free institutions, witli plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites ; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty, — criticising the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self- interest. " Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we Avould be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances ; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tip-top Abolitionists ; while some Northern ones go South and become most cruel slave-masters. " When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, — to their own native land. But a moment's reflec- tion would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days ; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then 1 Free them all and keep them among us as underlings 1 Is it quite certain that this betters their condition % I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate ; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next 1 Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals X My own feelings will not admit of this ; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We, cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual eman- cipation might be adopted ; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South. " When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingl}^, but fully and fairly ; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one. " But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid 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." AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 98 I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I think he has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechise me unless he pays back for it in kind. 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 my answer on the Fugitive Slave law. Now, gentlemen, I don't 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 black race. This is the whole of it ; and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say liere, while upon this subject, that 1 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 introduce 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 necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, — the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects, — certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of 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 pass on to consider one or two more of these little follies. The Judge is wofully at fault about his early friend Lincoln being a "grocery- keeper." I don't know as it would be a great sin, if I had been ; but he is mistaken. Lincoln never kept a grocery anywhere in the world. It is true that Lincoln did work the latter part of one winter in a little still-house, up at the head of a hollow. And so I think my friend the Judge is equally at fault when he charges me at the time when I was in Congress 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, by referring to the record. You remember I was an old Whig, and whenever the Demo- cratic party tried to get me to vote that the war had been righteously begun by the President, I would not do it. But whenever they asked for any money, or land-warrants, or anything to pay the soldiers there, during all that time, I gave the same vote that Judge Douglas did. You can think as you please as to whether that was consistent. Such is the truth ; and the Judge has the right to make all he can out of it. But when he, by a general charge, conveys the idea that I withheld supplies from the soldiers who were fighting in the Mexi- can war, or did anything else to hinder the soldiers, he is, to say the least, grossly and altogether mistaken, as a consultation of the records will prove to him. As I have not used up so much of my time as I had supposed, I will dwell a little longer upon one or two of these minor topics upon which the Judge has spoken. He has read from my speech in Springfield, in which I say that " a house divided against itself cannot stand." Does the Judge say it can stand ? 94 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN I don't know whether he does or not. The Judge does not seem to be attend- ing to me just now, but I would like to know if it is his opinion that a house divided against itself can stand. If he does, then there is a question of veracity, not between him and me, but between the Judge and an authority of a somewhat higher character. Now, my friends, I ask your attention to this matter for the purpose of say- ing something seriously. I know that the Judge may readily enough agree with me that the maxim which was put forth by the Saviour is true, but he may allege that I misapply it ; and the Judge has a right to urge that, in my application, I do misapply it, and then I have a right to show that I do not 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 uniformity in the various States, in all their institutions, he argues erroneously. The great variety of the local institutions in the States, springing from differences in the soil, 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 one section of the country what is called for by the wants of another section, and this other section can supply the wants of the first, they are not matters of discord, but bonds of union, true bonds of union. But can this question of slavery be considered as among these varieties in the institutions of the country ? I leave it to you to say whether, in the history of our govern- ment, this institution of slavery has not always failed to be a bond of union, and, on the contrary, been an apple of discord and an element of division in the house. I ask you to consider whether, so long as the moral constitution of men's minds shall continue to be the same, after this generation and assem- blage shall sink into the grave, and another race shall arise, with the same moral and intellectual development we have, — whether, if that institution is standing in the same irritating position in which it now is, it will not continue an element of division ? If so, then I have a right to say that, in regard to this question, the Union is a house divided against itself; and when the Judge reminds me that I have often said to him that the institution of slavery has existed for eighty years in some States, and yet it does not exist in some others, I agree to the fact, and I account for it by looking at the position in which our fathers originally placed it, — restricting it from the new Territories where it had not gone, and legislating to cut off its source by the abrogation of the slave-trade, thus putting the seal of legislation against its sjpread. The public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinc- tion. But lately, I think — and in this I charge nothing on the Judge's motives — lately, I think, that he, and those acting with him, have placed that institution on a new basis, which looks to the 'perpetuity and nationalization of slavery. And while it is placed upon this new basis, I say, and I have said, that I believe we shall not have peace upon the question until the opponents of slavery arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public miud shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction ; or, on the other hand, that its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new. North as well as South. Now, I believe if we could arrest the spread, and place it where Washington and Jef- ferson and Madison placed it, it would he in the course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind would, as for eighty years past, believe that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. The crisis would be past, and the institution might be let alone for a hundred years, if it should live so long, in the States AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 95 where it exists ; yet it would be going out of existence in the way best for both the black and the white races. A Voice : " Then do you repudiate Popular Sovereignty ? " Mr. Lincoln : Well, then, let us talk about Popular Sovereignty ! What is Popular Sovereignty ? Is it the right of the people to have slavery or not have it, as they see fit, in the Territories ? I will state — and I have an able man to watch me — my understanding is that Popular Sovereignty, as now applied to the question of slavery, does allow the people of a Territory to have slavery if they want to, but does not allow them not to have it if they do not want it. I do not mean tliat if this vast concourse of people were in a Terri- tory of the United States, any one of them would be obliged to have a slave if he did not want one ; but I do say that, as I understand the Dred Scott decision, if any one man wants slaves, all the rest have no way of keeping that one man from holding them. When I made my speech at Springfield, of which the Judge complains, and from which he quotes, I really was not thinking of the things which he ascribes to me at all. I had no thought in the world that I was doing anything to bring about a war between the Free and Slave States. I had no thought in the world that I was doing anything to bring about a political and social equality of the black and white races. It never occurred to me that I was doing anything or favoring anything to reduce to a dead uniformity all the local institutions of the various States. But I must say, in all fairness to him, if he thinks I am doing something which leads to these bad results, it is none the better that I did not mean it. It is just as fatal to the country, if I have any influence in producing it, whether I intend it or not. But can it be true that placing this institution upon the original basis — the basis upon which our fathers placed it ■ — can have any tendency to set the Northern and the Southern States at war with one another, or that it can have any ten- dency to make the people of Vermont raise sugar-cane, because they raise it in Louisiana, or that it can compel the people of Illinois to cut pine logs on the Grand Prairie, where they will not grow, because they cut pine logs in Maine, where they do grow ? The Judge says this is a new principle started in regard to this question. Does the Judge claim that he is working on the plan of the founders of government ? I think he says in some of his siDceches — indeed, I have one here now — that he saw evidence of a policy to allow slavery to be south of a certain line, while north of it it should be excluded, and he saw an indisposition on the part of the country to stand upon that policy, and therefore he set about studying the subject upon original 'princi- ples, and upon original principles he got up the Nebraska bill! I am fighting it upon these " original principles," — fighting it in the Jefi'ersonian, Washing- tonian, and Madisonian fashion. Now, my friends, I wish you to attend for a little while to one or two other things in that Springfield speech. My main object was to show, so far as my humble ability was capable of showing, to the people of this country what I believed was the truth, — that there was a tendency, if not a conspiracy, among those who have engineered this slavery question for the last four or five years, to make slavery perpetual and universal in this nation. Having made that speech principally for that object, after arranging the evidences that I thought tended to prove my proposition, I concluded with this bit of comment : — " We cannot absolutely know that these exact adaptations are the result of pre- concert ; but when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we 96 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen, — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance, — and when we see these tim- bers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mil], all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, — not omitting even the scaffolding, — or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in, — in such a case we feel it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn before the first blow was struck." When my friend Judg) Douglas came to Chicago on the 9th of July, this speech having been delivered on the 16th of June, he made an harangue there, in which he took hold of this speech of mine, showing that he had carefully read it ; and while he paid no attention to this matter at all, but complimented me as being a " kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman," notwithstanding I had said this, he goes on and eliminates, or draws out, from my speech this tendency of mine to set the States at war with one another, to make all the institutions uniform, and set the niggers and white people to marrying together. Then, as the Judge had complimented me with these pleasant titles (I must confess to my weakness), I was a little " taken," for it came from a great man. I was not very much accustomed to flattery, and it came the sweeter to me. I was rather like the Hoosier, with the gingerbread, when he said he reckoned he loved it better than any other man, and got less of it. As the Judge had so flattered me, I could not make up my mind that he meant to deal unfairly with me ; so I went to work to show him that he misunder- stood the whole scope of my speech, and that 1 really never intended to set the people at war with one another. As an illustration, the next time I met him, which was at Springfield, I used this expression, that I claimed no right under the Constitution, nor had 1 any inclination, to enter into the Slave States and interfere with the institutions of slavery. He says upon that : Lincoln will not enter into the Slave States, but will go to the banks, of the Ohio, on this side, and shoot over ! He runs on, step by step, in the horse- chestnut style of argument, until in the Springfield speech he says : " Unless he shall be successful in firing his batteries, until he shall have extinguished slavery in all the States, the Union shall be dissolved." Now, I don't think that was exactly the way to treat "a kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman." I know if I had asked the Judge to show when or where it was I had said that, if I did n't succeed in firing into the Slave States until slavery should be extinguished, the Union should be dissolved, he could not have shown it. I understand what he would do. He would say, " I don't mean to quote from you, but this was the result of what you say." But I have the right to ask, and I do ask now. Did you not put it in such a form that an ordinary reader or listener would take it as an expression from me ? In a speech at Springfield, on the night of the 17th, I thought I might as well attend to my own business a little, and I recalled his attention as well as I could to this charge of conspiracy to nationalize slavery. I called his attention to the fact that he had acknowledged, in my hearing twice, that he had carefully read the speech, and, in the language of the lawyers, as he had twice read the speech, and still had put in no plea or answer, I took a default on him. I insisted that I had a right then to renew that charge of conspiracy. Ten days afterward I met the Judge at Clinton, — that is to say, I was on the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 97 ground, but not in the discussion, — and heard him make a speech. Then he comes in with his plea to this charge, for the lirst time ; and his plea when put in, as well as I can recollect it, amounted to this : that he never liad any talk with Judge Taney or the President of the United States with regard to the Dred Scott decision before it was made. I (Lincoln) ought to know that the man who makes a cliarge without knowing it to be true, falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood ; and, lastly, that he would pronounce the whole thing a falsehood ; but he would make no personal application of the charge of falsehood, not because of any regard for the " kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman," but because of his own personal self-respect ! I have understood since then (but [turning to Judge Douglas] will not hold the Judge to it if he is not willing) that he has broken through the " self-respect," and has got to saying the thing out. The Judge nods to me that it is so. It is fortunate for me that I can keep as good-humored as I do, when the Judge acknowledges that he has been trying to make a question of veracity with me. I know the Judge is a great man, while I am only a small man, but I feel that I have got him. I demur to that plea. I waive all objections that it was not filed till after default was taken, and demur to it upon the merits. What if Judge Douglas never did talk with Chief Justice Taney and the President before the Dred Scott decision was made, does it follow that he could not have had as perfect an understanding without talking as with it ? I am not dis- posed to stand upon my legal advantage. I am disposed to take his denial as being like an answer in chancery, that he neither had any knowledge, informa- tion, or belief in the existence of such a conspiracy. I am disposed to take his answer as being as broad as though he had put it in these words. And now, I ask, even if he had done so, have not I a right to prove it on him, and to offer the evidence of more than two witnesses, by whom to prove it ; and if the evidence proves the existence of the conspiracy, does his broad answer denying all knowledge, information, or belief, disturb the fact ? It can only show that he was used by conspirators, and was not a leader of them. Now, in regard to his reminding me of the moral rule that persons who tell what they do not know to be true, falsify as much as those who knowingly tell falsehoods. I remember the rule, and it must be borne in mind that in what I have read to you, I do not say that I know such a conspiracy to exist. To that I reply, / bdieve it. If the Judge says that I do not believe it, then he says what he does not know, and falls within his own rule, that he who asserts a thing which he does not know to be true, falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood. I want to call your attention to a little discus- sion on that branch of the case, and the evidence which brought my mind to the conclusion which I expressed as my belief. If, in arraying that evidence, I had stated anything which was false or erroneous, it needed but that Judge Douglas should point it out, and I would have taken it back, with all the kindness in the world. I do not deal in that way. If I have brought for- ward anything not a fact, if he will point it out, it will not even ruffle me to take it back. But if he will not point out anything erroneous in the evi- dence, is it not rather for him to show, by a comparison of the evidence, that I have reasoned falsely, than to call . the " kind, amiable, intelligent gentle- man " a liar ? If I have reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vocation of an able debater to show by argument that I have w^andered to an erroneous conclusion. I want to ask your attention to a portion of the Nebraska bill, which Judge Douglas has quoted : " It being the true intent and meaning of this Act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it 13 98 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN therefrom, but to leave tbe people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Thereupon Judge Douglas and others began to argue in favor of " Popular Sovereignty," — the right of the people to have slaves if they wanted them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want them. " But," said, in substance, a Senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase, I believe), " we more than suspect that you do not mean to allow the people to exclude slavery if they wish to ; and if you do mean it, accept an amendment which I propose, expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery." I believe I have tl^e amendment here before me, which was offered, and under which the people of the Territory, through their proper representatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein. And now I state it as a fad, to be taken back if there is any mistake about it, that Judge Douglas and those acting with him voted that amcndincnt dotvn. I now think that those men who voted it down had a 7'cal reason for doing so. They know what that reason was. It looks to us, since we have seen the Dred Scott decision pro- nounced, 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 amend- ment. 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 that other reason was "for voting the amendnient 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 State." I have always been puzzled to know wdiat business the w^ord "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 provisions for States. What was it placed there for ? After seeing the Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people cannot exclude slavery from a Territory, 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 wdiich was to come in due time, we shall see that it was the other half of something. I now say again, if there is any different reason for putting it there, Judge Douglas, in a good-humored way, without calling anybody a liar, can tell what the reason was. When the Judge spoke at Clinton, he came very near making a charge of falsehood against me. He used, as I found it printed in a newspaper, which, I remember, was very nearly like the real speech, the following language : " I did not answer the charge [of conspiracy] befoi-e, for the reason that I did not suppose there was a man in America with a heart so corrupt as to beUeve such a charge could be true. I have too much respect for Mr. Lincoln to suppose he is serious in making the charge." I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of respect for me he should consider I was making what I deemed rather a grave charge in fun. I con- fess it strikes me rather strangely. But I let it pass. As the Judge did not for a moment believe that there was a man in America whose heart w^as so " corrupt " as to make such a charge, and as he places me among the " men in AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 99 America " who have hearts base enough to make such a charge, I hope he will excuse me if I hunt out another charge very like this ; and if it should turn out that in hunting I should find that other, and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas himself who made it, I hope he will reconsider this question of the deep corruption of heart he has thought fit to ascribe to me. In Judge Douglas's speech of March 22, 1858, which I hold in my hand he says: — " lu this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of newspapers, or notice the articles which they publish in regard to myself; but the course of the Washington ' Union ' has been so exti'aordinary, for the last two or three months, that I think it well enough to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of the Democratic party every other day, at least for two or three mouths, and keeps reading me out, and, as if it had not succeeded, still con- tinues to read me out, using such tei-ms as 'traitor,' 'renegade,' 'deserter,' and other kind and polite epithets of that nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my Democracy against the Washington ' Union,' or any other newspapers. I am wilhug to allow my history and action for the last twenty years to speak for them- selves as to my political principles and my fidelity to political obligations. The Washington ' Union ' has a personal grievance. When its editor was nominated for public printer, I declined to vote for him, and stated that at some time I might give my reasons for doing so Since I declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive aud constant attacks have been repeated almost daily on me. Will my friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude'? " This is a part of the speech. You must excuse me from reading the entire article of the Washington " Union," as Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. Douglas. The Judge goes on and sums up, as I think, correctly : — " Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly by the Washington 'Union' editorially, and Si\)])a,rentlj authoritativeli/ ; and any man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primaiy 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 aud immunities of citizens in the several States ; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and especially declar- ing it forfeited, are direct viohxtions 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 gi*oss outrage of the rights of pi'operty, 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 adhesion 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 nearly of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incoi'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 inviolable as the right of the owner of any property Avhatever.' " Then in the schedule is a provision that the Coustitution may be amended after 1864 by a two-thirds vote. 100 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN " ' But no alteration shall be made to aflfect the right of property in the ownership of slaves.' " It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecomptou Constitution that they are identical in spirit with the authoritative article in the Washington ' Union ' of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution." I pass over some portions of the speech, and I hope that any one who feels interested in this matter will read the entire section of the speech, and see whether I do the Judge injustice. He proceeds : — "When I saw that article in the ' Union ' of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the 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 thei'e was a fatal blow being struck at the sov- ereignty of the States of this Union." I stop the quotation there, again requesting that it may all be read. I have read all of the portion I desire to comment upon. What is this charge tliat the Judge thinks I must have a very corrupt heart to make ? It was a pur- pose on the part of certain high functionaries to make it impossible for the people of one State to prohibit the people of any other State from entering it with their " property," so called, and making it a Slave State. In other words, it was a charge implying a design to make the institution of slavery national. And now I ask your attention to what Judge Douglas has himself done here. I know he made that part of the speech as a reason why he had refused to vote for a certain man for 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 uttering. Now, whom does he make that charge against ? Does he make it against that newspaper editor merely ? No ; he says it is identical in spirit with the Lecompton Constitution, and so the framers of that Constitution a^e brought in with the editor of the newspaper in that " fatal blow being struck." He did not call it a " conspiracy." In his language, it is a " fatal blow being struck." And if the words carry the meaning better when changed . from a " conspiracy " into a "fatal blow being struck," I will change iiitj expression, and call it " fatal blow being struck." We see the charge made not merely against the editor of the " Union," but all the framers of the Lecompton Con- stitution ; and not only so, but the article was an mifhoritative article. By whose authority ? Is there any question but he means it was by the authority of the President and his Cabinet, — the Administration ? Is there any sort of question but he means to make that charge ? Then there are the editors of the " Union," the framers of the Lecompton Constitu- tion, the President of the United States and his Cabinet, and all the supporters of the Lecompton Constitution, in Congress and out of Congress, who are all involved in this " fatal blow being struck." I commend to Judge Douglas's consideration the question of how corrupt a maris heart tmist he to make such a charge ! Now, my friends, I have but one branch of the subject, in the little time I have left, to which to call your attention ; and as I shall come to a close at the end of that branch, it is probable that I shall not occupy quite all the time allotted to me. Although on these questions I would like to talk twice as long as I have, I could not enter upon another head and discuss it properly without running over my time. I ask the attention of the people here assembled and elsewhere to the course that Judge Douglas is pursuing every day as bearing AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 101 upon this question of making slavery national. Not going back to the records, but taking the speeches he makes, the speeches he made yesterday and day before, and makes constantly all over the country, — I ask your attention to them. In the first place, what is necessary to make the institution national ? Not war. There is no danger that the people of Kentucky will shoulder their muskets, and, with a young nigger stuck on every bayonet, march into Illinois and force them upon us. There is no danger of our going over there and making war upon them. Then what is necessary for the nationalization of slavery ? It is simply the next Dred Scott decision. It is merely for the Supreme Court to decide that no State under the Constitution can exclude it, just as they have already decided that under the Constitution neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature can do it. When that is decided and acquiesced in, the whole thing is done. This being true, and this being the way, as I think, that slavery is to be made national, let us consider what Judge Douglas is doing every day to that end. In the first place, let us see what influence he is exerting on public sentiment. In this and like communities, public senti- ment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail ; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed. This must be borne in mind, as also the additional fact that Judge Douglas is a man of vast influence, so great that it is enough for many men to profess to believe anything, when they once find out that Judge Douglas professes to believe it. Consider also the attitude he occupies at the head of a large party, — a party which he claims has a majority of all the voters in the country. This man sticks to a decision which forbids the people of a Territory from excluding slavery, and he does so, not because he says it is right in itself, — he does not give any opinion on that, — but because it has been decided hy the court ; and being decided by the court, he is, and you are, bound to take it in your political action as laiv, not that he judges at all of its merits, but because a decision of the court is to him a " Thus saith the Lord." He places it on that ground alone ; and you will bear in mind that thus committing himself unreservedly to this decision commits him to the next one just as firmly as to this. He did not commit himself on account of the merit or demerit of the decision, but it is a " Thus saith the Lord." The next decision, as much as this, will be a " Thus saith the Lord." There is nothing that can divert or turn him away from this decision. It is nothing that I point out to him that his great proto- type. General Jackson, did not believe in the binding force of decisions. It is nothing to him that Jefferson did not so believe. I have said that I have often heard him approve of Jackson's course in disregarding the decision of the Supreme Court pronouncing a National Bank constitutional. He says, I did not hear him say so. He denies the accuracy of my recollection. I say he ought to know better than I, but I will make no question about this thing, though it still seems to me that I heard him say it twenty times. I will tell him, though, that he now claims to stand on the Cincinnati platform, which affirms that Congress ccmnot charter a National Bank, in the teeth of that old standing decision that Congress can charter a bank. And I remind him of another piece of history on the question of respect for judicial decisions, and it is a piece of Illinois history belonging to a time when the large party to which Judge Douglas belonged were displeased with a decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois, because they had decided that a Governor could not remove a Secretary of State. You will find the whole story in Ford's History of 102 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Illinois, aud I know that Judge Douglas will not deny that he was then in favor of overslaughing that decision by the mode of adding five new judges, so as to vote down the four old ones. Not only so, but it ended in the Judge's sitting down on that very bench as one of the five new judges to break dotun the four old ones. It was in this way precisely that he got his title of judge. Now, when the Judge tells me that men appointed conditionally to sit as members of a court will have to be catechised beforehand upon some subject, I say, " You know, Judge ; you have tried it." When he says a court of this kind will lose the confidence of all men, will be prostituted and disgraced by such a proceeding, I say, " You know best, Judge ; you have been through the mill." But I cannot shake Judge Douglas's teeth loose from the Dred Scott decision. Like some obstinate animal (I mean no disrespect) that will hang on when he has once got his teeth fixed, you may cut off a leg, or you may tear away an arm, still he will not relax his hold. And so I may point out to the Judge, and say that he is 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 the 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 adheres to this decision, and for which he will adhere to all other decisions of the same court. A Hibernian : " Give us something besides Drid Scott." Mr. Lincoln : Yes ; no doubt you want to hear something that don't hurt. Now, having spoken of the Dred Scott decision, one more word, and I am done. Henry Clay, my beau-ideal of a 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 and ultimate emancipation that they must, if they would do this, go back to the era of our Independence, and muzzle the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return ; they must blow out the moral lights around us ; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate there the love of liberty ; and then, and not till then, could they perpetuate slavery in this country ! To my thinking, Judge Douglas is, by his example and vast influence, doing that very thing in this community, when he says that the negro has nothing in the Declaration of Independence. Henry Clay plainly understood the contrary. Judge Douglas is going back to the era of our Eevolution, 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, — lie is, in my judgment, pene- trating 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 tliese means aud appliances, Judge Douglas shall succeed in bringing public sentiment to an exact accordance with his own views ; when these vast assem- blages shall echo back all these sentiments ; when they shall come to repeat his views and to avow his principles, and to say all that he says on these mighty questions, — then it needs only the formality of the second Dred Scott decision, which he indorses in advance, to make slavery alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new. North as well as South. My friends, that ends the chapter. The Judge can take his half-hour. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 103 MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. Fellow-Citizens: I will now occupy the half-hour allotted to me in reply- ing to Mr. Lincoln. The first point to which I will call your attention is, as to what I said about the organization of the Eepublican party in 1854, and the platform that was formed on the 5th 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, I did not charge him with being a member of the committee which reported that platform. I charged that that platform was the platform of the Eepublican party adopted by them. The fact that it was the platform of the Eepublican party is not denied ; but Mr. Lincoln now says that although his name was on the com- mittee which reported it, that he does not think he was there, but thinks he was in Tazewell, holding court. Now, I want to remind Mr. Lincoln that he was at Springfield w^hen that Convention was held and those resolutions adopted. The point I am going to remind Mr. Lincoln of is this : that after I had made my speech in 1854, during the fair, he gave me notice that he was going to reply to me the next day. I was sick at the time, but I stayed over in Springfield to hear his reply and to reply to him. On that da}^ this very Con- vention, the resolutions adopted by which I have read, was to meet in the Senate chamber. He spoke in the hall of the House ; and when he got through his speech — my recollection is distinct, and 1 shall never forget it — Mr. Codding walked in as I took the stand to rej^ly, and gave notice that the Eepublican State Convention would meet instantly in the Senate chamber, and called upon the Eepublicans to retire there and go into this very Con- vention, instead of remaining and listening to me. In the first place, Mr. Lincoln was selected by the very men who made the Eepublican organization, on that day, to reply to me. He spoke for them and for that party, and he was the leader of the party ; and on the very day he made his speech in reply to me, preaching up this same doctrine of negro equality under the Declaration of Independence, this Eepublican 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 leading men, marched in the moment Lincoln got through, and gave notice that they did not want to hear me, and would proceed with the business of the Convention. Still another fact. I have here a newspaper printed at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's own town, in October, 1854, a few days afterward, publishing these resolutions, charging Mr. Lincoln with entertaining these sentiments, and try- ing to prove that they w^ere also the sentiments of Mr. Yates, then candidate for Congress. This has been published on Mr. Lincoln over and over again, and never before has he denied it. But, my friends, this denial of his that he did not act on the committee, is a miserable quibble to avoid the main issue, which is, that this Eepublican 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 w ould 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 restrict slavery in 104 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN those States in which it exists, and asked him whether he indorsed it. Does he answer yes, or no ? He says in reply, " I was not on the committee at the time ; I was up in TazewelL" The next question I put to him was, whether he was in favor of prohibiting the admission of any more Slave States into the Union. I put the question to him distinctly, whether, if the people of the Territory, when they had sufficient population to make a State, should form their Constitution recognizing slavery, he would vote for or against its admis- sion. 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, vmder the cover that he was not on the committee at the time, that he was not present when the platform was made. I want to know if he should happen to be in the Senate when a State applied for admission, with a Constitution acceptable to her own people, he would vote to admit that State, if slavery was one of its institutions. He avoids the answer. It is true he gives the Abolitionists to understand by a hint that he would not vote to admit such a State. And why ? He goes on to say that the man who would talk about giving each State the right to have slavery or not, as it pleased, was akin to the man who would muzzle the guns which thundered forth the annual joyous return of the day of our Independence. He says that that kind of talk is casting a blight on the glory of this country. What is the meaninfj of that ? That he is not in favor of each State to have the ri^ht of doing as it pleases on the slavery question ? I will put the question to him aerain and acrain, and I intend to force it out of him. Then, again, this platform, which was made at Springfield by his own party when he was its acknowledged head, provides that Eepublicans will insist on the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and I asked Lincoln speci- fically whether he agreed with them in that ? [" Did you get an answer ? "] He is afraid to answer it. He knows I will trot him down to Egypt. I intend to make him answer there, or I will show the people of Illinois that he does not intend to answer these questions. The Convention to which I have been alluding goes a little further, and pledges itself to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the General Government has exclusive jurisdiction north of 36 deg. 30 min., as well as south. Now, I want to know whether he approves that provision. I want him to answer, and when he does, I want to know his opinion on another point, which is, whether he will redeem the pledge of this platform, and resist the acquirement of any more territory unless slavery therein shall be forever prohibited. I want him to answer this last question. Each of the questions I have put to him are practical questions, — questions based upon the fundamental principles of the Black Eepublican party ; and I want to know whether he is the first, last, and only choice of a party with whom he does not agree in principle. He does not deny but that that principle was unanimously adopted by the Eepublican party; he does not deny that the whole Eepublican party is pledged to it ; he does not deny that a man who is not faithful to it is faithless to the Eepublican party ; and now I want to know whether that party is unanimously in favor of a man who does not adopt that creed and agree with them in their principles ; I want to know whether the man who does not a^ree with them, and who is afraid to avow his differences, and who dodges the issue, is the first, last, and only choice of the Eepublican party. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 105 A voice : How about the conspiracy ? Mr. Douglas : Never mind, I will come to that soon enough. But the platform which I have read to you not only lays down these principles, but it adds : — " Resolved, That, in furtherance of these principles, we will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office, under the General or State Government, who is not positively and fully committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal character and conduct is not a guarantee that he is reliable, and who shall not have abjured old party allegiance and ties." The Black Eepublican party stands pledged that they will never support Lincoln until he has pledged himself to that platform ; but he cannot devise his answer, he has not made up his mind whether he will or not. He talked about everything else he could think of to occupy his hour and a half, and when he could not think of anything more to say, without an excuse for refusing to answer these questions, he sat down long before his time was out. In relation to Mr. Lincoln's charge of conspiracy against me, I have a word to say. In his speech to-day he quotes a playful part of his speech at Spring- field, about Stephen, and James, and Franklin, and Roger, and says that I did not take exception to it. I did not answer it, and he repeats it again. I did not /take exception to this figure of his. He has a right to be as playful as he pleases in throwing his arguments together, and I will not object ; but I did take objection to his second Springfield speech, in which he stated that he intended his first speech as a charge of corruption or conspiracy against the Supreme Court of the United States, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself. That gave the offensive character to the charge. He then said that vvhen he made it he did not know whether it was true or not ; but inasmuch as Judo-e Douglas had not denied it, although he had replied to the other parts of his speech three times, he repeated it as a charge of conspiracy against me, thus charging me with moral turpitude. When he put it in that form, I did say that, inasmuch as he repeated the charge simply because I had not denied it, I would deprive him of the opportunity of ever repeating it again, by declaring that it was, in all its bearings, an infamous lie. He says he will repeat it until I answer his folly and nonsense about Stephen, and Franklin, and Roger, and Bob, and James. He studied that out, prepared that one sentence with the greatest care, committed it to memory, and put it in his first Springfield speech ; and now he carries that speech around, and reads that sentence to show how pretty it is. His vanity is wounded because I will not go into that beautiful figure of his about the building of a house. All I have to say is, that I am not green enough to let him make a charge which he acknowledges he does not know to be true, and then take up my time in answering it, when I know it to be false, and nobody else knows it to be true. I have not brought a charge of moral turpitude against him. When he, or any other man, brings one against me, instead of disproving it, I will say that it is a lie, and let him prove it if he can. I have lived twenty-five years in Illinois, I have served you with all the fidelity and ability which I possess, and Mr. Lincoln is at liberty to attack my public action, my votes, and my conduct ; but when he dares to attack my moral integrity by a charge of conspiracy between myself. Chief Justice Taney and the Supreme Court, and two Presidents of the United States, I will repel it. 14 106 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Mr. Lincoln lias not character enough for integrity and truth, merely on his own ipse dixit, to arraign President Buchanan, President Pierce, and nine Judges of the Supreme Court, not 'one of whom would be complimented by being put on an equality with him. There is an unpardonable presumption in a man putting himself up before thousands of people, and pretending that his ipse dixit, without proof, without fact, and without truth, is enough to bring down and destroy the purest and best of living men. 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 Congress had, by giving the people the whole power over the subject. Chase offered a proviso that they might abolish slavery, which by implication would convey the idea that they could prohibit by not introducing that institution. General Cass asked him to modify his amendment so as to provide that the people might either prohibit or introduce slavery, and thus make it fair and equal. Chase refused to so modify his proviso, and then General Cass and all the rest of us voted it clown. Tliose facts appear on the journals and debates of Congress, where Mr. Lincoln found the charge ; and if he had told the whole truth, there would have been no necessity for me to occupy your time in explaining the matter. Mr. Lincoln wants to know why the word " State," as well as " Territory," was put into the Nebraska bill. I will tell him. It was put there to meet just such false arguments as he has been adducing. That first, not only the people of the Territories should do as they pleased, but that when they come to be admitted as States, they should come into the Union with or without slavery, as the people determined. I meant to knock in the head this Aboli- tion 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 Eepublican to say, that there is nobody in favor of the doctrine of no more Slave States, and that nobody wants to interfere with the right of the people to do as they please. What was the origin of the Missouri difficulty and the Missouri Compromise ? The people of IMissouri formed a Constitu- tion 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 because she had slavery as one of her iustitutions. 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 Aboli- tion 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 Piepub- lican platform of 1854 ; it has never been repealed ; and every Black Eepubli- lican 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, not- withstanding. The Springfield platform says tliat they, the Eepublican party, will not allow a State to come in under such circumstances. He is an ignorant man. Now you see that upon these very points I am as far from bringing Mr. Lincoln up to the line as I ever was before. He does not want to avow his principles. I do want to avow mine, as clear as sunlight in midday. Democ- racy is founded upon the eternal principle of right. The plainer these princi- ples 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 AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 107 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 opposition to Mr. Lincoln's doctrine of uniformity between the different States, and I would declare instead the sovereign right of each State to decide the slavery question as well as all other domestic questions for themselves, without interference from any other State or power whatsoever. When that principle is recognized, you will have peace and harmony and fraternal feeling between all the States of this Union ; until you do recognize that doctrine, there will be sectional warfare agitating and distracting the country. What does Mr. Lincoln propose ? He says that the Union cannot exist divided into Free and Slave States. If it cannot endure thus divided, then he must strive to make them all free or all slave, wliich will inevitably bring about a dissolution of the Union. Gentlemen, I am told that my time is out, and I am obliged to stop. SECOND JOINT DEBATE, AT FREEPORT, August 27, 1858. MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen: On Saturday last, Judge Douglas and myself first met in public discussion. He spoke one hour, I an hour and a half, and he replied for half an hour. The order is now reversed. I am to speak an hour, he an hour and a half, and then I am to reply for half an hour. I pro- pose to devote myself during the first hour to the scope of what was brought within the range of his half-hour speech at Ottawa. Of course there was brought within the scope in that half-hour's speech something of his own open- ing speech. In the course of that opening argument Judge Douglas proposed to me seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech of an hour and a half, I attended to some other parts of his speech, and incidentally, as I thought, answered one of the interrogatories then. I then distinctly intimated to him that I would answer the rest of his interrogatories, on condition only that he should agree to answer as many for me. He made no intimation at the time of the proposition, nor did he in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of mine. I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing with me as though I had refused to answer his interrogatories. I now propose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will answer questions from me not exceeding the same number. I give him an opportunity to respond. The Judge remains silent. I now say that I will answer his interrogatories, whether he answers mine or not ; and that after I have done so, I shall propound mine to him. I have supposed myself, since the organization of the Republican party at Bloomington, in May, 1856, bound as a party man by the platforms of the party, then and since. If in any interrogatories which I shall answer I go beyond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will be perceived that no one is responsible but myself Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge's interrogatories as I find them printed in the Chicago " Times," and answer them seriatim: In order 108 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN that there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them. The first one of these interrogatories is in tliese words : — Question 1. — "I desire to know whether Lincohi to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law ? " Answer. — I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. Q. 2. " I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more Slave States into the Union, even if the people want them ? " A. I do not now, or ever did, stand pledged against the admission of any more Slave States into the Union. Q. 3. " I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make ? " A. I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union, with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make. Q. 4. " I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia ? " A. I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the Dis- trict of Columbia. Q. 5. " I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibi- tion of the slave-trade between the different States ? " A. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different States. Q. 6. '■' I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, north as well as south of the Mis- souri Compromise line ? " A. I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the rigJit and duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the United States Territories. Q. 7. " I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein ? " A. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory ; and, in any given case, I Nvould or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly as I might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the slavery question among ourselves. Now, my friends, it will be perceived, upon an examination of these ques- tions and answers, that so far I have only answered that I was not |:>/ef/^frf to this, that, or the other. The Judge has not framed his interrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and I have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and have answered truly, that I am not j^^cdged at all upon any of the points to which I have answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his interrogatory. I am rather disposed to take up at least some of these questions, and state what I really think upon them. As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive Slave law, I have never hesi- tated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Consti- tution of the United States, the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the existing Fugitive Slave law, further than that I think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 109 pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modification of that law, I would not be the man to introduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of slavery. In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more Slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another Slave State admitted into the Union ; but I must add that if slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adopt the constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union. The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second, it being, as I conceive, the same as the second. The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to that, I have my mind very distinctly made up. I should be exceedingly glad to see slavery abolished in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. Yet as a member of Congress, I should not, with my present views, be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless it would be upon these conditions : First, that the abolition should be gradual ; second, that it should be on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in the District; and third, that compensation should be made to unwilling owners. With these three conditions, I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see Congress abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and, in the language of Henry Clay, " sweep from our capital that foul blot upon our nation." In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say here, that as to the question of the abolition of the slave-trade between the different States, I can truly answer, as I have, that I am pledged to nothing about it. It is a subject to which I have not given that mature consideration that would make me feel authorized to state a position so as to hold myself entirely bound by it. In other words, that question has never been prominently enougli before me to induce me to investigate whether we really have the constitutional power to do it. I could investigate it if I had sufficient time to bring myself to a con- clusion upon that subject ; but I have not done so, and I say so frankly to you here, and to Judge Douglas. I must say, however, that if I should be of opinion that Congress does possess the constitutional power to abolish the slave-trade among the different States, I should still not be in favor of the exercise of that power, unless upon some conservative principle as I conceive it, akin to what I have said in relation to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. My answer as to whether I desire that slavery should be prohibited in all the Territories of the United States, is full and explicit within itself, and can- not be made clearer by any comments of mine. So I suppose in regard to the question whether I am opposed to the acquisition of any more territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein, ray answer is such that I could add nothing by way of illlustration, or making myself better understood, than the answer which I have placed in writing. Now in all this the Judge has me, and he has me on the record. I suppose 110 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN he had flattered himself that I was really entertaining one set of opinions for one place, and another set for another place ; that I was afraid to say at one place what I uttered at another. What I am saying here I suppose I say to a vast audience as strongly tending to Abolitionism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I believe I am saying that which, if it would be offensive to any persons and render them enemies to myself, would be offensive to persons in this audience. I now proceed to propound to the Judge the interrogatories, so far as I have framed them. I will bring forward a new instalment when I get tliem ready. I will bring them forward now, only reaching to number four. The first one is : — Question 1. — If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjection- able in all other respects, adopt a State constitution, and ask admission into the Union under it, Icfore they have the requisite number of inhabitants accord- ing to the English bill, — some ninety-three thousand, — will you vote to admit them ? Q. 2. Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State constitution ? Q. 3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adopting, and following such decision as a nile of political action ? Q. 4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question ? As introductory to these interrogatories which Judge Douglas propounded to me at Ottawa, he read a set of resolutions which he said Judge Trumbull and myself had participated in adopting, in the first Eepublican State Conven- tion, held at Springfield in October, 1854. He insisted that I and Judge Trumbull, and perhaps the entire Eepublican party, were responsible for the doctrines contained in the set of resolutions which he read, and I understand that it was from that set of resolutions that he deduced the interrogatories which he propounded to me, using these resolutions as a sort of 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 answered them because Judge Douglas thought fit to ask them. I do not now, nor never did, recognize any responsibility upon myself in that set of resolutions. When I replied to him on that occa- sion, 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 I had any part in. I believe it turns out, in addition to all this, that tliere was not, in the fall of 1854, any convention holding a session in Springfield, calling itself a Eepublican State Convention ; yet it is true there was a convention, or assemblage of men call- ing themselves a convention, at Springfield, that did pass some resolutions. But so little did I really know of the proceedings of that convention, or what set of resolutions they had passed, though having a general knowledge that there had been such an assembLage of men there, that when Judge Douglas read the 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 AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Ill he did upon this subject without Tcnowing that it was true. I contented my- self, on that occasion, with denyin,!^, as I truly could, all connection with them, not denying or affirming whether they were passed at Springfield. Now, it turns out that he had got hold of some resolutions passed at some convention or public meeting in Kane County. I wish to say here, that I don't conceive that in any fair and just mind this discovery relieves me at all. I had just as much to do with the convention in Kane County as that at Springfield. I am just as much responsible for the resolutions at Kane County as those at Springfield, — the amount of the responsibility being exactly nothing in either case; no more than there would be in regard to a set of resolutions passed in the moon. I allude to this extraordinary matter in this canvass for some further purpose than anything yet advanced. Judge Douglas did not make his statement upon that occasion as matters that he believed to be true, but he stated them roundly as hcing true, in such form as to pledge his veracity for their truth. When the whole matter turns out as it does, and when we consider who Judge Douglas is, — that he is a distinguished Senator of the United States ; that he has served nearly twelve years as such ; that his character is not at all limited as an ordinary Senator of the United States, but that his name has become of world-wide renown, — it is Jiiost extraordinary tliat he should so far forget all the suggestions of justice to an adversary, or of prudence to himself, as to venture upon the assertion of that which the slightest investigation would have shown him to be wholly false. I can only account for his having done so upon the supposition that that evil genius which has attended him through his life, giving to him an apparent astonishing prosperity, such as to lead very many good men to doubt there being any advantage in virtue over vice, — I say I can only account for it on the supposition that that evil genius has at last made up its mind to forsake him. And I may add that another extraordinary feature of the Judge's conduct in this canvass — made more extraordinary by this incident — is, that he is in the habit, in almost all the speeches he makes, of charging falsehood upon his adversaries, myself and others. I now ask whether he is able to find in any- thing that Judge Trumbull, for instance, has said, or in anything that I have said, a justification at all compared with what we have, in this instance, for that sort of vulgarity. I have been in the habit of charging as a matter of belief on my part that, in the introduction of the Nebraska bill into Congress, there was a conspiracy to make slavery perpetual and national. I have arranged from time to time the evidence w^hich establishes and pi-oves the truth of this charge. I recurred to this charge at Ottawa. 1 shall not now have time to dwell upon it at very great length ; but inasmuch as Judge Douglas, in his reply of half an hour, made some points upon me in relation to it, I propose noticing a few of them. The Judge insists that, in the first speech I made, in which I very distinctly made that charge, he thought for a good while I was in fun ! that I was play- ful ; that I was not sincere about it ; and that he only grew angry and some- what excited when he found that I insisted upon it as a matter of earnestness. He says he characterized it as a falsehood as far as I implicated his moral character in that transaction. Well, I did not know, till he presented that view, that I had implicated his moral character. He is very much in the habit, when he argues me up into a position I never thought of occupying, of very cosily saying he has no doubt Lincoln is " conscientious " in saying so. 112 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN He should remember that I did not know but what he was altogether " con- scientious " in that matter. I can conceive it possible for men to conspire to do a good thing, and I really find nothing in Judge Douglas's course or argu- ments that is contrary to or inconsistent with his belief of a conspiracy to nationalize and spread slavery as being a good and blessed thing ; and so I hope he will understand that I do not at all question but that in all this matter he is entirely " conscientious." But to draw your attention to one of the points I made in this case, begin- ning at the beginning. When the Nebraska bill was introduced, or a short time afterward, by an amendment, I believe, it was provided that it must be considered " the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." I have called his attention to the fact that when he and some others began aro;uing that they were giving an increased degree of liberty to the people in the Ter- ritories over and above what they formerly had on the question of slavery, a question was raised whether the law was enacted to give such unconditional liberty to the people ; and to test the sincerity of this mode of argument, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, introduced an amendment, in which he made the law — if the amendment were adopted — expressly declare that the people of the Territory should have the power to exclude slavery if they saw fit. I have asked atten- tion also to the fact that Judge Douglas and those who acted with him voted that amendment down, notwithstanding it expressed exactly the thing they said was the true intent and meaning of the law. I have called attention to the fact that in subsequent times a decision of the Supreme Court has been made, in which it has been declared that a Territorial Legislature has no con- stitutional right to exclude slavery. And I have argued and said that for men wlio did intend that the people of the Territory should have the right to exclude slavery absolutely and unconditionally, the voting down of Chase's amend- ment is wholly inexplicable. It is a puzzle, a riddle. But I have said that with men who did look forward to such a decision, or w^ho had it in contem- plation that such a decision of the Supreme Court would or might be made, the voting down of that amendment would be perfectly rational and intelligi- ble. It would keep Congress from coming in collision with the decision when it was made. Anybody can conceive that if there was an intention or expec- tation that such a decision was to follow, it would not be a very desirable party attitude to get into for the Supreme Court — all or nearly all its members belonging to the same party — to decide one way, when the party in Congress had decided the other way. Hence it would be very rational for men expect- ing such a decision to keep the niche in that law clear for it. After pointing this out, I tell Judrje Douglas that it looks to me as though here was the reason why Chase's amendment was voted down. I tell him that, as he did it, and knows why he did it, if it was done for a reason different from this, he knows what that reason was, and can tell us ichat it was. I tell him, also, it will be vastly more satisfactory to the country for him to give some other plausible, intelligible reason wh?/ it was voted down than to stand upon his dignity and call people liars. Well, on Saturday he did make his answer ; and what do you think it was ? He says if I had only taken upon myself to tell the whole truth about that amendment of Chase's, no explanation would have been necessary on his part, — or words to that effect. Now, I say here that I am quite unconscious of having suppressed anything material to the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 113 case, and I am very frank to admit if there is any sound reason other than that which appeared to me material, it is quite fair for him to present it. What reason does he propose ? That when Chase came forward with his amendment expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery from the limits of every Territory, General Cass proposed to Chase, if he (Chase), would add to his amendment that the people should have the power to introduce or exclude, they would let it go. This is substantially all of his reply. And because Chase would not do that, they voted his amendment down. Well, it turns out, I believe, upon examination, that General Cass took some part in the little running debate upon that amendment, and then ran away and did not vote 071 it at all. Is not that the fact ? So confident, as I think, was General Cass that there was a snake somewhere about, he chose to run away from the whole thing. This is an inference I draw from the fact that, though he took part in the debate, his name does not appear in the ayes and noes. But does Judge Douglas's reply amount to a satisfactory answer ? [Cries of " Yes," " Yes," and " No," " No."] There is some little difference of opinion here. But I ask attention to a few more views bearing on the question of whetlier it amounts to a satisfactory answer. The men who were determined that that amendment should not get into the bill and spoil the place where the Dred Scott decision was to come in, sought an excuse to get rid of it somewhere. One of these ways — one of these excuses — was to ask Chase to add to his proposed amendment a provision that the people might introduce slavery if they wanted to. They very well knew Chase would do no such thing, that Mr. Chase was one of the men differing from them on the broad principle of his insisting that freedom was hotter than slavery, — a man who would not consent to enact a law, penned with his own hand, by which he was made to recognize slavery on the one hand, and liberty on the other, as jprecisely equal ; and when they insisted on his doing this, they very well knew^they insisted on that which he would not for a moment think of doing, and that they were only bluffing him. I believe (I have not, since he made his answer, had a chance to examine the journals or " Congressional Globe " and therefore speak from memory) — I believe the state of the bill at that time, according to par- liamentary rules, was such that no member could propose an additional amend- ment to Chase's amendment. I rather think this is the truth, — the Judge sliakes his head. Very well. I would like to know, then, if they wanted Chase's amendment fixed over, why somebody else could not have offered to do it ? If they wanted it amended, why did they not offer the amendment ? Why did they stand there taunting and quibbling at Chase ? Why did tliey not 2mt it in themselves ? But to put it on the other ground : suppose tliat there was such an amendment offered, and Chase's was an amendment to an amend- ment ; until one is disposed of by parliamentary law, you cannot pile another on. Then all these gentlemen had to do was to vote Chase's on, and then, in the amended form in which the whole stood, add their own amendment to it, if they wanted to put it in that shape. This was all they were obliged to do, and the ayes and noes show that there were thirty-six who voted it down, against ten who voted in favor of it. The tliirty-six held entire sway and control. They could in some form or other have put that bill in the exact shape they wanted. If there was a rule preventing their amending it at the time, they could pass that, and then. Chase's amendment being merged, put it in the shape they wanted. They did not choose to do so, but they went into a quibble with Chase to get him to add what they knew he would not add, and because he would not, they stand upon that flimsy pretext for voting down 15 114 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN what they argued was tlie meaning and intent of their own Lill. They left room tliereby for tliis Dred Scott decision, which goes very far to make slavery national throughout the United States. I pass one or two points I have, because my time will very soon expire ; but I must be allowed to say that Judge Douglas recurs again, as he did upon one or two other occasions, to the enormity of Lincoln, — an insignificant individual like Lincoln, — upon his ipse dixit charging a conspiracy upon a large number of members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and two Presidents, to nationalize slavery. I want to say that, in the first place, I have made no charge of this sort upon my ijjse elicit. I have only arrayed the evidence tending to prove it, and presented it to tlie understanding of others, saying what I thiid< it proves, but giving you the means of judging whether it proves it or not. This is precisely what I have done. I have not placed it upon my ipse dixit at all. On this occasion, I wish to recall his attention to a piece of evidence which I brought forward at Ottawa on Saturday, showing that he had made substantially the sajne charge against substantially the same persons, excluding his dear self from the category. I ask him to give some attention to the evidence which I brought forward that he himself had dis- covered a " fatal blow being struck " against the right of the people to exclude slavery from their limits, which fatal blow he assumed as in evidence in an article in the Washington " Union," published " by authority." I ask by whose authority ? He discovers a similar or identical provision in the Lecompton Constitution. ]\Iade by whom ? The framers of that Constitu- tion. Advocated by whom ? By all the members of the party in the nation, who advocated the introduction of Kansas into the Union under the Lecomp- ton 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 identical with the one which he thinks so villanous in me. He pointed it, not at a newspaper editor merely, but at the President and his Cabinet and the members of Congress advocating the Lecompton Constitution and those framing that instrument. I must. again be permitted to remind him that although my ipse dixit may not be as great as his, yet it somewhat reduces the force of his calling my attention to the enormity of my making a like charge against him. Go on. Judge Douglas. MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : The silence with which you have listened to Mr. Lincoln during his hour is creditable to this vast audience, composed of men of various political parties. Nothing is more honorable to any large mass of people assembled for the purpose of a fair discussion than that kind and respectful attention that is yielded, not only to your political friends, but to those who are opposed to you in politics. I am glad that at last I have brought ]\Ir. Lincoln to the conclusion 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 inclina- tion, to answer them. I did not present idle questions for him to answer, merely for my gratification. I laid the foundation for those interrogatories by showing that they constituted the platform of tlie party whose nominee he is AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 115 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 tlie phitform and were in favor of the propositions upon which my questions were Ijased. I desired simply to know, inasmuch as lie 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 interrogatories ; but, in order to relieve his anxiety, I will first respond to these which he has presented to me. JVIark you, he has not presented interrogatories which have ever received the sanction of the party with which I am acting, and hence he has no otlier foundation for them than his own curiosity. First, he desires to know if the people of Kansas shall form a constitution by means entirely proper and unobjectionable, and ask admission into the Union as a State, before they have the requisite population for a member of Congress, whether I will vote for that admission. Well, now, I regret exceed- ino-ly that he did not answer that interrogatory himself before he put it to me, in order that we might understand, and not be left to infer, on which side he is. Mv. Trumbull, during the last session of Congress, voted from the begin- ning to the end against the admission of Oregon, although a Free State, because she had not the requisite population for a member of Congress. Mr. Trumbull would not consent, under any circumstances, to let a State, free or slave, come into the Union until it had the requisite population. As Mr. Trumbull is in the field, fighting for Mr. Lincoln, I would like to have Mr. Lincoln answer his own question, and tell me whether he is fighting Trum- bull on that issue or not. But I will answer his question. In reference to Kansas, it is my opinion that as she has population enough to constitute a Slave State, she has people enough for a Free State. I will not make Kansas an exceptional case to the other States of the Union. I hold it to be a sound rule, of universal application, to require a Territory to contain the requisite population for a member of Congress before it is admitted as a State into the Union. I made that proposition in the Senate in 1856, and I renewed it dur- ing the last session, in a bill providing that no Territory of the United States should form a constitution and apply for admission until it had the requisite population. On another occasion I proposed that neither Kansas or any other Territory should be admitted until it had the requisite population. Congress did not adopt any of my propositions containing this general rule, but did make an exception of Kansas. I will stand by that exception. Either Kansas must come in as a Free State, with whatever population she may have, or the rule must be applied to all the other Territories alike. I there- fore answer at once, that, itjiaving been decided that Kansas has people enough for a Slave State, I liold that she has enough for a Free State. I hope Mr. Lincoln is satisfied with my answer ; and now I would like to get his answer to his own interrogatory, — whether or not he will vote to admit Kansas before she has the requisite population. I want to know whether he will vote to admit Oregon before that Territory has the requisite population. Mr. Trumbull will not, and the same reason that commits Mr, Trumbull against the admission of Oregon, commits him against Kansas, even if she should apply for admission as a Free State. If there is any sincerity, any truth, in the argument of Mr. Trumbull in the Senate, against the admission of Oregon because she had not 93,420 people, although her population was larger than that of Kansas, he stands pledged against the admission of both Oregon and Kansas until they have 93,420 inhabitants. I would like Mr. 116 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Liucoln to answer this question. I would like liim to take liis own medicine. If lie differs with Mr. Trumbull, let him answer his argument against the admission of Oregon, instead of poking questions at me. The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, Can the people of a Territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State con- stitution ? I answer emphatically, as ISIr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature ; and if the people are opposed to slavery, they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a Slave Territory or a Free Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point. In this connection, I will notice the charge which he has introduced in rela- tion to Mr. Chase's amendment. I thought that I had chased that amendment out of Mr. Lincoln's brain at Ottawa ; but it seems that it still haunts his ima- gination, and he is not yet satisfied. I had supposed that he would be ashamed to press that question furtlier. He is a lawyer, and has been a member of Con- gress, and has occupied his time and amused you by telling you about par- liamentary proceedings. He ought to have known better than to try to palm off his miserable impositions upon this intelligent audience. The Nebraska bill provided that the legislative power and autliority 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 possible for Congress to give, without violating the Constitution, to the Territorial legislature, with no excep- tion or limitation on the subject of slavery at all. The language of that bill which I have quoted gave the full power and the full authority over the sub- ject of slavery, affirmatively and negatively, to introduce it or exclude it, so far as the Constitution of the United States would permit. What more could ]Mr. Chase give by his amendment ? Nothing. He offered his amendment for the identical purpose for which j\Ir. Lincoln is using it, — to enable demagogues in the country to try and deceive the people. His amendment was to this effect. It provided that the legislature should have the power to exclude slavery ; and General Cass suggested, " Why not give the power to introduce as well as exclude ? " The answer was. They Imve tlie power already in tlie bill to do both. Chase was afraid his amendment would be adopted if he put the alternative proposition, and so make it fair both ways, but would not yield. He offered it for the purpose of having it rejected. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 117 He offered it, as he has himself avowed over and over again, simply to make capital out of it for the stump. He expected tliat it would be capital for small politicians in the country, and that they would make an effort to deceive the people with it ; and he was not mistaken, for Lincoln is carrying out the plan admirably. Lincoln knows that the Nebraska bill, without Chase's amendment, gave all the power which the Constitution would permit. Could Congress confer any more ? Could Congress go beyond the Constitution of the country ? We gave all a full grant, with no exception in regard to slav- ery one way or the othei". We left that question as we left all others, to be decided by the people for themselves, just as they pleased. I will not occupy my time on this question. I have argued it before, all over Illinois. I have argued it in this beautiful city of Freeport ; I have argued it in the JSTorth, the South, the East, and the West, avowing the same sentiments and the same prin- ciples. I have not been afraid to avow my sentiments up here for fear I would be trotted down into Egypt. The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented is, If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide tliat a State of this Union cannot exclude slavery from its own limits, will I submit to it ? I am amazed tliat Lincoln should ask such a question. [ " A schoolboy knows better."] Yes, a school- boy 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 pre- tended such a thing. It is true that the Washington " Union," in an article pub- lished 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 pre- tends was against the President. The " Union " had claimed that slavery had a right to go into the Free States, and that any provision in the Constitution or laws of the Free States to the contrary 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 liepublican side of the Senate, were silent. Tliey 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 chihl south of the Potomac, in any Slave State, who did not repudiate any such pretension. Mr. Lincoln knows that that reply was made on the spot, and yet now he asks this ques- tion. He might as well ask me. Suppose Mr. Lincoln should steal a horse, would I sanction it ; and it would be as genteel in me to ask him, in the event he stole a horse, what ought to be done with him. He casts an imputation upon the Supreme Court of the United States, by supposing that they would violate the Constitution of the United States. I tell him that such a thing is not possible. It would be an act of moral treason that no man on the bench could ever descend to, Mr. Lincoln himself would never in his partisan feelings so far forget what was right as to be guilty of such an act. Tlie fourth question of Mr. Lincoln is. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard as to how such acquisition may affect the Union on the Slavery questions ? This question is very ingeniously and cun- ningly put. The Black Eepublican creed lays it down expressly that under no circum- stances sliall we acquire any more territory, unless slavery is first prohibited in the country. I ask Mr. Liucolu whether he is in favor of that proposition. 118 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Are you [addressing Mr. Lincoln] opposed to the acquisition of any more ter- ritory, under any circumstances, unless slavery is prohibited in it ? That he does not like to answer. When I ask him whether he stands up to that article in the platform of his party, he turns, Yankee-fashion, and without answering it, asks me whether I am in favor of acquiring territory without regard to how it may affect the Union on the slavery question. I answer that whenever it becomes necessary, in our growth and progress, to acquire more territory, that I am in favor of it, without reference to the question of slavery ; and when we have acquired it, I will leave the people free to do as they please, either to make it slave or free territory, as they prefer. It is idle to tell me or you that we have territory enough. Our fathers supposed that we liad enough when our territory extended to the Mississippi Eiver ; but a few years' growth and expansion satisfied them that we needed more, and the Louisiana ter- ritory, from the West brancli of the Mississippi to the British possessions, was acquired. Then we acquired Oregon, then California and New Mexico. We have enough now for the present ; but this is a young and a growing nation. It swarms as often as a hive of bees ; and as new swarms are turned out each year, there must be hives in which they can gather and make their honey. In less than fifteen years, if the same progress that has distinguished this country for the last fifteen years continues, every foot of vacant land between this and the Pacific Ocean, owned by the United States, will be occupied. Will you not continue to increase at the end of fifteen years as well as now ? I tell you, increase, and multiply, and expand, is the law of this nation's existence. You cannot limit this great Eepublic by mere boundary lines, say- ing, " Thus far shalt thou go, and no further." Any one of you gentlemen might as well say to a son twelve years old that he is big enough, and must not grow any larger ; and in order to prevent liis growth, put a hoop around him to keep him to his present size. What would be the result ? Either the hoop must burst and be rent asunder, or the child must die. So it would be with this great nation. With our natural increase, growing with a rapidity unknown in any other part of the globe, with the tide of emigration that is fleeing from despotism in the old world to seek refuge in our ow.n, there is a constant torrent pouring into this country that requires more land, more territory upon which to settle ; and just as fast as our interests and our destiny require additional territory in the North, in the South, or on the islands of the ocean, I am for it ; and when we acquire it, will leave the people, according to the Nebraska bill, free to do as they please on the subject of slavery and every other question. I trust now that Mr. Lincoln will deem himself 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, Lovejoy, Farnsworth, and Fred Douglass, he will frame and propound others. [" Good, good."] You Black Eepublicans who say good, I have no doubt think that they are all good men. I have 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 magnificent one it was — diive up and take a position on the outside of the crowd ; a beautiful young lady was sit- ting on the box-seat, whilst Fred Douglass and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage acted as driver. I saw this in your own town. [" What of it ? "] All I have to say of it is this, that if you. Black Republi- AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 119 cans, think that the negro ought to he on a social equality with your wives and daughters, and ride in a carriage with your wife, whilst you drive the team, you have perfect right to do so. I am told that one of Fred Douglass's kinsmen, another rich black negro, is now travelling in tliis part of the State, making speeches for his friend Lincoln as the champion of black men. [" What have you to say against it ? "] All I have to say on that subject is, that those of you who believe that the negro is your equal and ought to be on an equality with you socially, politically, and legally, have a right to enter- tain those opinions, and of course will vote for Mr. Lincoln. I have a word to say on Mr. Lincoln's answer to the interrogatories con- tained in my speech at Ottawa, and which he has pretended to reply to here to-day. Mr. Lincoln makes a great parade of the fact that I quoted a plat- form as having been adopted by the Black Eepublican party at Springfield in 1854, which, it turns out, was adopted at another place. Mr. Lincoln loses sight of the thing itself in his ecstasies over the mistake I made in stating the place where it was done. He thinks that that platform was not adopted on the right " spot." When I put the direct questions to Mr. Lincoln to ascertain whether he now stands pledged to that creed, — to the unconditional repeal of the Fugi- tive Slave law, a refusal to admit any more Slave States into the Union, even if the people want them, a determination to apply the Wilmot Proviso, not only to all the territory we now have, but all that we may hereafter acquire, — he refused to answer ; and his followers say, in excuse, that the resolutions upon which I based my 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 be unjust and infamous, and would not support it, or acknowledge his own country to be rioht in the contest, because he said that American blood was not shed on American soil in the " right spot." And now he cannot answer the questions I put to him at Ottawa because the resolutions I read were not adopted at the " right spot." It may be possible that I was led into an error as to the spot on which the resolutions I tlien read were proclaimed, but I was not, and am not, in error as to the fact of their forming the basis of the creed of the Republican party when that party was first organized. I Vv'ill state to you the evidence I had, and upon which I relied for my statement that the resolu- tions in question were adopted at Springfield on the oth of October, 1854. Although I was aware that such resolutions had been passed in this district, and nearly all the Northern Congressional Districts and County Conventions, I had not noticed whether or not they had been adopted by any State Conven- tion. In 1856, a debate arose in Congress between Major Thomas L. Harris, of the Springfield District, and Mr. Norton, of the Joliet District, on political matters connected witli our State, in the course of which. Major Harris quoted those resolutions as having been passed by the first Ke publican State Conven- tion that ever assembled in Illinois. I knew that Major Harris was remark- able for his accuracy, that he was a very conscientious and sincere man, and I also noticed that Norton did not question the accuracy of this statement. I therefore took it for granted that it was so ; and the other day when I con- cluded to use the resolutions at Ottawa, I wrote to Charles II. Lanpliier, editor of the "State Register," at Springfield, calling his attention to them, telling liim that I liad been informed that Major Harris was lying sick at Springfield, and desiring him to call upon him and ascertain all the facts con- cerning the resolutions, the time and tlie place where they were adopted. In reply, Mr. Lanphier sent me two copies of his paper, which I have here. The 120 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN first is a copy of the " State Eegister," published at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's own town, on the 16th of October, 1854, only eleven days after the adjourn- ment of the Convention, from which I desire to read the following : — " During the late discussions in this city, Lincoln made a speech, to which Judge Douglas replied. In Lincoln's speech he took the broad ground that, according to the Declaration of Independence, the whites and blacks are equal. P'roni this he drew the conclusion, which he several times repeated, that the white man had no right to pass laws for the government of the black man without the nigger's consent. This speech of Lincoln's was heard and applauded by all the Abolitionists assembled in Springfield. So soon as Mr. Lincoln was done speaking, Mr. Codding arose, and requested all the delegates to the Black liepublicau Convention to withdraw into the Senate chamber. They did so ; and after long deliberation, they laid down tlie fol- lowing Abolition platform as the platform on which they stood. We call the parti- cular attention of all our readers to it." Then follows the identical platform, word for word, which I read at Ottawa. Now, that was published in Mr. Lincoln's own town, eleven days after the Convention was held, and it has remained on record up to this day never contradicted. When I quoted the resolutions at Ottawa and questioned j\Ir. Lincoln in relation to them, he said that his name was on the committee that reported them, but he did not serve, nor did he think he served, because he was, or thought he was, in Tazewell County at the time the Convention was in ses- sion. He did not deny that the resolutions were passed by the Springfield Convention. He did not know better, and evidently thought that they were; but afterward his friends cleclared that they had discovered that they varied in some respects from the resolutions passed by that Convention. I have shown you that I had good evidence for believing that the resolutions had been passed at Springfield. Mr. Lincoln ought to have known better ; but not a word is said about his ignorance on the subject, whilst I, notwithstanding the circumstances, am accused of forgery. Now, I will show you that if I have made a mistake as to the place where these resolutions w^ere adopted, — and when I get down to Springfield I will investigate the matter, and see whether or not I have, — that the principles they enunciate were adopted as the Black Eepublican platform [" white, white "], in the various counties and Congressional Districts throughout the north end of the State in 1854 This platform was adopted in nearly every county that gave a Black Eepublican majority for the Legislature in that year, and here is a man [pointing to Mr. Denio, who sat on the stand near Deacon Bross] who knows as well as any living man that it was the creed of the Black Eepublican party at that time. I would be willing to call Denio as a witness, or any other honest man belonging to that party. I will now read the resolutions adopted at the Rockford Convention on the 30th of August, 1854, which nominated Washburne for Congress. You elected him on the following platform : — " Resolved, That the continued and increasing aggressions of slavery in our coun- try are destructive of the best rights of a free people, and that such aggressions cannot be successfully resisted without the united political action of all good men. " Resolved, That the citizens of the United States hold in their hands peaceful, constitutional, and efficient remedy against the encroachments of the slave power, — the ballot-box ; and if that remedy is boldlj^ and wisely applied, the principles of liberty and eternal justice will be established. ^'Resolved, That we accept this issue forced upon us by the slave power, and, in AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 121 defence of freedom, will co-operate and be known as Eepublicans, pledged to the accomplishment of the following purposes : — " To bring the Administration of the Government back to the control of first principles ; to restore Kansas and Nebraska to the position of Free Territories ; to repeal and entirely abrogate the Fugitive Slave law ; to restrict slavery to those States in which it exists ; to prohibit the admission of any more Slave States into the Union ; to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the General Govern- ment has exclusive jurisdiction ; and to resist the acquisition of any more Territories, unless the introduction of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited. " Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles we will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office under the General or State Government who is not positively committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal character and con- duct 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 parties what- ever, in favor of the object expressed in the above resolutions, to unite with us in carrying them into effect." Well, you think that is a very good platform, do you not ? If you do, if you approve it now, and think it is all right, you will not join with those men who say that I libel you by calling these your principles, will you ? Now, Mr. Lincoln complains ; Mr. Lincoln charges that I did you and him injustice by saying that this was the platform of your party. I am told that Wash- burne made a speech in Galena last night, in which he abused me awfully for bringing to light this platform, on which he was elected to Congress. He thought that you had forgotten it, as he and Mr. Lincoln desires to. He did not deny but that you had adopted it, and that he had subscribed to and was pledged by it, but he did not think it was fair to call it up and remind the people that it was their platform. But I am glad to find that you are more honest in your Abolitionism than your leaders, by avowing that it is your platform, and right in your opinion. In the adoption of that platform, you not only declared that you would resist the admission of any more Slave States, and work for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law, but you pledged yourselves not to vote for any man for State or Federal offices who was not committed to these principles. You were thus committed. Similar resolutions to those were adopted in your county Convention here, and now with your admissions that they are your platform and embody your sentiments now as they did then, what do you think, of Mr, Lincoln, your candidate for the United States Senate, who is attempting to 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 Eockford, and in the various counties which comprise this Congressional District. When I get into the next district, I will show that the same platform was adopted there, and so on through the State, until I nail the responsibility of it upon the back of the Black Kepub- lican party throughout the State. A voice : Couldn't you modify, and call it brown ? Mr. Douglas : Not a bit, I thought that you were becoming a little brown when your members in Congress voted for the Crittenden-Montgomery bill; but since you have backed out from that position and gone back to Abolition- ism you are black, and not brown. Gentlemen, I have shown you what your platform was in 1854. You still adhere to it. The same platform was adopted by nearly all the counties 16 122 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN where the Black RepuLlican party had a majority in 1854. I wisli now to call your attention to the action of your representatives in the Legislature when they assembled together at Springfield. In the first place, you nmst remember that this was the organization of a new party. It is so declared in the resolutions themselves, which say that you are going to dissolve all old party ties and call the new party Eei)ublican. The old Whig party was to have its throat cut from ear to ear, and the Democratic party was to be anni- hilated and blotted out of existence, whilst in lieu of these parties the Black Eepublican party was to be organized on this Abolition platform. You know who the chief leaders were in breaking up and destroying these two great parties. Lincoln on the one hand, and Trumbull on the other, being disap- pointed politicians, and having retired or been driven to obscurity by an outraged constituency because of their political sins, formed a scheme to Abo- litionize the two parties, and lead the old line Whigs and old line Democrats captive, bound hand and foot, into the Abolition camp. Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Lovejoy were here to christen them whenever they were brought in. Lincoln went to work to dissolve the old line Whig party. Clay was dead ; and although the sod was not yet green on his grave, this man under- took to bring into disrepute those great Compromise measures of 1850, with which Clay and Webster were identified. Up to 1854 the old Whig party and the Democratic party had stood on a common platform so far as this slavery question was concerned. You Whigs and we Democrats differed about the bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, but we agreed on this slavery question, and the true mode of preserving the peace and harmony of the Union. The Compromise measures of 1850 were introduced by Clay, were defended by Webster, and supported by Cass, and were approved by Fillmore, and sanctioned by the National men of both parties. They constituted a common plank upon which both Whigs and Democrats stood. In 1852 the Whig party, in its last National Convention at Baltimore, indorsed and approved these measures of Clay, and so did the National Convention of the Democratic party held that same year. Thus the old line Whigs and the old line Democrats stood pledged to the great princi- ple of self-government, which guarantees to the people of each Territory the right to decide the slavery question for themselves. In 1854, after the death of Clay and Webster, Mr. Lincoln, on the part of the Whigs, undertook to Abolitionize the Whig party, by dissolving it, transferring the members into the Abolition camp, and making them train under Giddings, Fred Douglass, Lovejoy, Chase, Farnsworth, and other Abolition leaders. Trumbull undertook to dissolve the Democratic party by taking old Democrats into the Abolition camp. Mr. Lincoln was aided in his efforts by many leading Whigs through- out the State, your member of Congress, Mr. Washburue, being one of the most active. Trumbull was aided by many renegades from the Democratic party, among whom were John Wentworth, Tom Turner, and others, with whom you are familiar. [Mr. Turner, who was one of the moderators, here interposed, and said that he had drawn the resolutions which Senator Douglas had read.] Mr. Douglas : Yes, and Turner says that he drew these resolutions. [ " Hurrah for Turner," '• Hurrah for Douglas." ] That is right ; give Turner cheers for drawing the resolutions if you approve them. If he drew those resolutions, he will not deny that they are the creed of the Black Republican party. Mr. Turner: They are our creed exactly. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 123 Mr. Douglas : And yet Lincoln denies that he stands on them. Mt. Turner says that the creed of the Black Kepiiblican party is tlie admission of no more Slave States, and yet Mr. Lincoln declares that he would not like to be placed in a position where he would have to vote for them. All I have to say to friend Lincoln is, that I do not think there is much danger of his being placed in such a position. As Mr. Lincoln would be very sorry to be placed in such an embarrassing position as to be obliged to vote on the admission of any more Slave States, I propose, out of mere kindness, to relieve him from any such necessity. When the bargain between Lincoln and Trumbull was completed for Aboli- tionizing the Whig and Democratic parties, they " spread " over the State, Lincoln still pretending to be an old line Whig, in order to " rope in " the Whigs, and Trumbull pretending to be as good a Democrat as he ever was, in order to coax the Democrats over into the Abolition ranks. They played the part that " decoy ducks " play down on the Potomac Kiver. In that part of the country they make artificial ducks, and put them on the water in places where the wild ducks are to be fouiid, for the purpose of decoying them. Well, Lincoln and Trumbull played the part of these " decoy ducks," and deceived enough old line Whigs and old line Democrats to elect a Black Republican Legislature. When that Legislature met, the first thing it did was to elect as Speaker of the House the very man who is now boasting that he wrote the Abolition platform on which Lincoln will not stand. I want to know of Mr. Turner whether or not, when he was elected, he was a good embodiment of Eepublican principles ? Mr. Turner: I hope I was then, and am now. Mr. Douglas : He swears that he hopes he was then, and is now. He wrote that Black Eepublican platform, and is satisfied with it now. I admire and acknowledge Turner's honesty. Every man of you know that what he says about these resolutions being the platform of the Black Eepublican party is true, and you also know that each one of these men who are shuffling and trying to deny it are only trying to cheat the people out of their votes for the purpose of deceiving them still more after the election. I propose to trace this thing a little further, in order that you can see what additional evidence there is to fasten this revolutionary platform upon the Black Eepublican party. When the Legislature assembled, there was a United States Senator to elect in the place of General Shields, and before they proceeded to ballot, Lovejoy insisted on laying down certain principles by which to govern the party. It has been published to the world and satisfactorily proven that there was, at the time the alliance was made between Trumbull and Lincoln to Abolitionize the two parties, an agreement that Lincoln should take Shields's place in the United States Senate, and Trumbidl should have mine so soon as they could conveniently get rid of me. When Lincoln was beaten for Shields's place, in a manner I will refer to in a few minutes, he felt very sore and restive ; his friends grumbled, and some of them came out and charged that the most infamous treachery had been practised against him ; that the bargain was that Lincoln was to have had Shields's place, and Trum- bull was to have waited fur mine, but that Trumbull, having the control of a few Abolitionized Democrats, he prevented them from voting for Lincoln, thus keeping him within a few votes of an election until he succeeded in forcing the party to drop him and elect Trumbull. Well, Trumbull having cheated Lincoln, his friends made a fuss, and in order to keep them and Lincoln quiet, the party were obliged to come forward, in advance, at the last State election, 124 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN and make a pledge that tbey would go for Lincoln and nobody else. Lincoln could not be silenced in any other way. Now, there are a great many Black Eepublicans of you who do not know this thing was done. ["White, white," and great clamor.] I wish to remind you tlmt while Mr. Lincoln was speaking there was not a Democrat vulgar and blackguard enough to interrupt him. But I know that the shoe is pinch- ing you. I am clinching Lincoln now, and you are scared to death for the result. I have seen this thing before. I have seen men make appointments for joint discussions, and the moment their man has been heard, try to inter- rupt and prevent a fair hearing of the other side. I have seen your mobs before, and defy your wrath. [Tremendous applause.] IVIy friends, do not cheer, for I need my whole time. The object of the opposition is to occupy my attention in order to prevent me from giving the whole evidence and nail- ing this double dealing on the Black Eepublican party. As I have before said, Lovejoy demanded a declaration of principles on the part of the Black Eepublicans of the Legislature before going into an election for L^nited States Senator. He offered the following preamble and resolutions which I hold in my hand : " Whereas, Human slavery is a violation of the principles of natural and revealed rights ; and whereas the fathers of the Revohition, fully imbued with the spirit of these principles, declared freedom to he the inalienable birthright of all men ; and whereas the preamble to the Constitution of the United States avers that that instru- ment was ordained to establish justice, and secure the blessings of libertj' to ourselves and our posterity ; and whereas, in furtherance of the above principles, slavery was forever prohibited in the old Northwest Territory, and more recently in all that Ter- ritory lying west and north of the State of Missouri, by the act of the Federal Govern- ment ; and whereas the repeal of the prohibition last referred to was contrary to the wishes of the people of Illinois, a violation of an implied compact long deemed sacred by the citizens of the United States, and a wide departure from the uniform action of the General Government in relation to the extension of slavery ; therefore, ^'Resolved, by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein. That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested to introduce, if not otherwise introduced, and to vote for a bill to restore such prohibition to the aforesaid Territories, and also to extend a similar prohibition to all territory Avhich now belongs to the United States, or Avhich may hereafter come under their jurisdiction. " Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Eepresentativcs requested, to vote against the admission of any State into the Union, the Constitu- tion of which does not prohibit slavery, Aviiether the territory out of which such State may have been formed shall have been acquired by conquest, treaty, purchase, or from original territory of the United States. '• Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to introduce and vote for a bill to repeal an Act entitled ' an Act respect- ing fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters ; ' and, failing in that, for such a modification of it as shall secure the right of habeas corpus and trial by jury before the regularly constituted authorities of the State, to all persons claimed as owing service or labor." Those resolutions were introduced by Mr. Lovejoy immediately preceding the election of Senator. They declared, first, that the Wilmot Proviso must be applied to all territory north of 36 deg. 30 min. Secondly, that it must be applied to all territory south of 36 deg. 30 min. Thirdly, that it must be applied to all the territory now owned by the United States ; and finally, that it must AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 125 be applied to all territory hereafter to be acquired by the United States. The next resolution declares that no more Slave Slaves shall be admitted into this Union under any circumstances whatever, no matter whether they are formed out of territory now owned by us or that we may hereafter acquire, by treaty, by Congress, or in any manner whatever. The next resolution demands the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law, although its unconditional repeal would leave no provision for carrying out tliat clause of the Constitu- tion of the United States which guarantees the surrender of fugitives. If they could not get an unconditional repeal, they demanded that that law should be so modified as to make it as nearly useless as possible. Now, I want to show you who voted for these resolutions. When the vote was taken on the first resolution it was decided in the affirmative, — yeas 41, nays 32. You will find that this is a strict party vote, between the l)emocrats on the one hand, and the Black Republicans on the other. [Cries of " White, white," and clamor.] I know your name, and always call tilings by their right name. The point 1 wish to call your attention to is this : tlnit these 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 exceptions, voted for Lincoln for the United States Senate. [" Give us their names."] I will read the names over to you if you want them, but I believe your object is to occupy my time. On the next resolution the vote stood — yeas 33, nays 40; and on the third resolution, — yeas 35, nays 47. I wish to impress it upon you that every man who voted for those resolutious, with but two exceptions, voted on the next day for Lincoln for United States Senator. Bear in mind that the members who thus voted for Lincoln were elected to the Legislature pledged to vote for no man for office under the State or Federal Government who was not committed to this Black Eepublican platform. They were all so pledged. Mr. Turner, who stands by me, and who then represented you, and who says that he wrote those resolutions, voted for Lincoln, when he was pledged not to do so unless Lincoln was in favor of those resolutions. I now ask ^Ir. Turner [turning to Mr. Turner], did you violate your pledge in voting for l\Ir. Lincoln, or did he commit himself to your platform before you cast your vote for him ? I could go through the whole list of names here, and show you that all the Black Eepublicans 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 Stephen- son, Lawrence of Boone and McHenry, Swan of Lake, Pinckney of Ogle County, and Lyman of Winnebago. Thus you see every member from your Congres- sional 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 pro- hibition 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. Eitlier INIr. Lincoln was then committed to those propositions, or Mr. Turner violated his pledges to you when he voted for him. Either Lincoln was pledged to each one of those propositions, or else every Black Republican 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 platform of his party, or will you accuse every Representative you had in the Legislature of violating his pledge of honor to his constituents ? There is no escape for you. Either 126 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Mr. Lincolu was committed to those propositions, or your members violated their faith. Take either horn of the dilemma you choose. There is no dodg- ing the question ; I want Lincoln's answer. He says he was not pledged to repeal the Fugitive Slave law, that he does not quite like to do it; he will not introduce a law to repeal it, but thinks there ought to be some law ; he does not tell what it ought to be ; upon the whole, he is altogether undecided, and don't know what to think or do. That is the substance of his answer upon the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. I put the question to him distinctly, whether he indorsed that part of the Black Republican platform wliich calls for the entire abrogation and repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. He answers. No ! that he does not indorse that ; but he does not tell what he is for, or what he will vote for. His answer is, in fact, no answer at all. Why cannot he speak out, and say what he is for, and what he will do ? In regard to there being no more Slave States, he is not pledged to that. He would not like, he says, to be put in a position where he would have to vote one way or another upon that question. I pray you, do not put him in a position that would embarrass him so much. Gentlemen, if he goes to the Senate, he may be put in that position, and then which way will he vote ? A Voice : How will you vote ? Mr. Douglas : I will vote for the admission of just such a State as by the form of their constitution the people show they want : if they want slavery, they shall have it ; if they prohibit slavery, it shall be prohibited. They can form their institutions to please themselves, subject only to the Constitution ; and I, for one, stand ready to receive them into the Union. Why cannot your Black Eepublican candidates talk out as plain as that when they are questioned ? I do not want to cheat any man out of his vote. No man is deceived in regard to my principles if I have the power to express myself in terms explicit enough to convey my ideas. Mr. Lincoln made a speech when he was nominated for the United States Senate which covers all these Abolition platforms. He there lays down a proposition so broad in its Abolitionism as to cover the whole ground. ■ " In my opiuiou it [the slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to f\xll, hut I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the fui-- ther spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, — old as well as new, North as well as South." There you find that Mr. Lincoln lays down the doctrine that this Union cannot endure divided as our fathers made it, with Free and Slave States. He says they must all become one thing, or all the other ; that they must all be free or all slave, or else the Union cannot continue to exist ; it being his opin- ion that to admit any more Slave States, to continue to divide tlie 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 tliat tlie Union may exist ; and yet he AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 127 will not say that he will not vote against another Slave State, knowing that the Union must be dissolved if he votes for it. I ask you if that is fair deal- ino; ? The true intent and inevitable conclusion to be drawn from his first Springfield speech is, that he is opposed to the admission of any more Slave States under any circumstance. 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 hon- est man to vote against any more Slave States. If he believes it, he is bound to do it. Show me that it is my duty, in order to save the Union, to do a particular act, and I will do it if the Constitution does not prohibit it. I am not for the dissolution of the Union under any circumstances. I will pursue no course of conduct that will give just cause for the dissolution of the Union. The hope of the friends of freedom throughout the world rests upon the per- petuity of this Union. The down-trodden and oppressed people who are suffering under European despotism all look with hope and anxiety to the American Union as the only resting place and permanent home of freedom and self-government. Mr. Lincoln says that he believes that this Union cannot continue to endure with Slave States in it, and yet he will not tell you distinctly whether he will vote for or against the admission of any more Slave States, but says he would not like to be put to tlie test. I do not think he will be put to the test. I do not think that the people of Illinois desire a man to represent them who would not like to be put to the test on the performance of a high constitutional duty. I will retire in shame from the Senate of the United States when I am not willing to be put to the test in the performance of my duty. I have been put to severe tests. I have stood by my principles in fair weather and in foul, in the sunshine and in the rain. I have defended the great principles of self-government here among you when Northern senti- ment ran in a torrent against me, and I have defended that same great prin- ciple when Southern sentiment came down like an avalanche upon me. I was not afraid of any test they put to me. I knew I was right ; I knew my principles were sound ; I knew that the people would see in the end that I had done right, and I knew that the God of heaven would smile upon me if I was faithful in the performance of my duty. Mr. Lincoln makes a charge of corruption against the Supreme Court of the United States, and two Presidents of the United States, and attempts to bolster it up by saying that I did the same against the Washington " Union." Suppose I did make that charge of corruption against the Washington "Union," when it was true, does that justify him in making a false charge against me and others ? That is the question I would put. He says that at the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, and before it was passed, there was a conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself, by that bill and the decision of the court to break down the barrier and establish slavery all over the Union. Does he not know that that charge is historically false as against President P)uchanan ? He knows tliat Mr. Buclianan was at that time in England, representing this country with distinguished ability at the Court of St. James, that he was there for a long time before, and did not return for a year or more after. He knows that to be true, and that fact proves his charge to be false as against Mr. Buchanan. Then, again, I wish to call his attention to the fact that at the time the Nebraska bill was passed, the Dred Scott case was not before the Supreme Court at all ; it was not upon the docket of the Supreme Court ; it 128 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN had not been brought tliere ; and the Judges in all probability knew nothing of it. Thus the history of the country proves the charge to be false as against them. As to President Pierce, his high character as a man of integrity and honor is enough to vindicate him from such a charge ; and as to myself, I pronounce the charge an infamous lie, whenever and wherever made, and by whomsoever made. I am willing that Mr. Lincoln should go and rake up every public act of mine, every measure I have introduced, report I have made, speech delivered, and criticise them ; but when he charges upon me a corrupt conspiracy for the purpose of perverting the institutions of the coun- try, I brand it as it deserves. I say the history of the country proves it to be false, and that it could not have been possible at the time. But now he tries to protect himself in this charge, because I made a charge against the Washington " Union." My speech in the Senate against the Washington " Union " was made because it advocated a revolutionary doctrine, by declar- ing that the Free States had not the right to prohibit slavery within their own limits. Becaiise I made that charge against the Washington " Union," Mr. Lincoln says it was a charge against ]\Ir. Buchanan. Suppose it was: is Mr. Lincoln the peculiar defender of Mr. Buchanan ? Is he so interested in the Federal Administration, and so bound to it, that he must jump to the rescue and defend it from every attack that I may make against it ? I understand the whole thing. The Washington " Union," under tliat most corrupt of all men, Cornelius Wendell, is advocating Mr. Lincoln's claim to the Senate. Wendell was the printer of the last Black Eepublican House of Eepresenta- tives ; he was a candidate before the present Democratic House, but was iguominiously kicked out; and then he took the money which he had made out of the public printing by means of the Black Eepublicans, bought the Washington " Union," and is now publishing it in the name of the Demo- cratic party, and advocating Mr. Lincoln's election to the Senate. Mr. Lincoln therefore considers an attack upon Wendell and his corrupt gang as a personal attack upon him. This only proves what I have charged, — that there is an alliance between Lincoln and his supporters, and the Federal office-holders of this State, and Presidential aspirants out of it, to break me down at home. Mr. Lincoln feels bound to come in to the rescue of the Washington " Uuion." In that speech whicli I delivered in answer to the Washington " Union," I made it distinctly against the " Union," and against the " Union " alone. I did not choose to go beyond that. If I have occasion to attack the President's conduct, I will do it in language that will not be misunderstood. When I differed with the President, I spoke out so that you all heard me. That question passed away ; it resulted in the triumph of my principle, by allowing the people to do as they please ; and there is an end of the contro- versy. Whenever the great principle of self-government, — the right of the people to make their own Constitution, and come into the Union with slavery or without it, as they see proper, — shall again arise, you will find me stand- ing firm in defence of that principle, and fighting whoever fights it. If Mr. Buchanan stands, as I doubt not he will, by the recommendation contained in his Message, that hereafter all State constitutions ought to be submitted to the people before the admission of the State into the Union, he will find me standing by him firmly, shoulder to shoulder, in carrying it out. I know Mr. Lincoln's object : he wants to divide the Democratic party, in onler that he may defeat me and get to the Senate. Mr. DouGL.\s's time here expired, and he stopped on the moment. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 129 MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. My Friends : It will readily occur to you that I cannot, in half an hour, notice all the things that so able a man as Judge Douglas can say in an hour and a half; and I hope, therefore, if there be anything that he has said upon which you would like to hear something from me, but which I omit to com- ment upon, you will bear in mind that it would be expecting an impossibility for me to go over his whole ground. I can but take up some of the points that he has dwelt upon, and employ my half-hour specially on them. The first thing I have to say to you is a word in regard to Judge Douglas's declaration about the " vulgarity and blackguardism " in the audience, — that no such thing, as he says, was shown by any Democrat while I was speaking. Now, I only wish, by way of reply on this subject, to say that while / was speaking, / used no " vulgarity or blackguardism " toward any Democrat. Now, my friends, I come to all this long portion of the Judge's speech, — perhaps half of it, — which he has devoted to the various resolutions and platforms that have been adopted in the different counties in the different Congressional Districts, and in the Illinois Legislature, which he supposes are at variance with the positions I have assumed before you to-day. It is true that many of these resolutions are at variance with the positions I have here assumed. All I have to ask is that we talk reasonably and rationally about it. I happen to know, the Judge's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, that I have never tried to conceal my opinions, nor tried to deceive any one in reference to them. He may go and examine all the members who voted for me for United States Senator in 1855, after the election of 1854. They were pledged to certain things here at home, and were determined to have pledges from me ; and if he will find any of these persons who will tell him anything inconsistent with what I say now, I will resign, or rather retire from the race, and give him no more trouble. The plain truth is this : At the introduction of the Nebraska policy, we believed there was a new era being introduced in the history of the Republic, which tended to the spread and perpetuation of slavery. But in our opposition to that measure we did not agree with one another in everything. The people in the north end of the State were for stronger measures of opposition than we of the central and southern portions of the State, but we were all opposed to the Nebraska doctrine. We had that one feeling and that one sentiment in common. You at the north end met in your Conventions and passed your resolutions. We in the middle of the State and further south did not hold such Conventions and pass the same 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 pur- poses. We agreed then upon a platform for the party throughout the entire State of Illinois, and now we are all bound, as a party, to that platform. And I say here to you, if any one expects of me — in the case of my election — that I will do anything not signified by our Eepublican platform and my answers here to-day, I tell you very frankly that person will be deceived. 17 130 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN I do not ask for tlie vote of any one who supposes that I have secret purposes or pledges that T dare not speak out. Cannot the Judge be satisfied ? If he fears, in the unfortunate case of my election, that my going to Washington will enable me to advocate sentiments contrary to those which I expressed when you voted for and elected me, I assure him that his fears are wholly needless and groundless. Is the Judge really afraid of an}'- such thing ? I '11 tell you what he is afraid of. He is afraid we 'II all pull together. This is what alarms him more than anything else. For my part, I do hope that all of us, entertaining a common sentiment in opposition to what appears to us a design to nationalize and perpetuate slavery, will waive minor differences on questions which either belong to the dead past or the distant future, and all pull together in this struggle. What are your sentiments ? If it be true that on the ground which I occupy, — ground which I occupy as frankly and boldly as Judge Douglas does his, — my views, though partly coinciding with yours, are not as perfectly in accordance with your feelings as his are, I do say to you in all candor, go for him, and not for me. I hope to deal in all things fairly with Judge Douglas, and with the people of the State, in this contest. And if I should never be elected to any office, I trust I may go down with no stain of falsehood upon my reputation, notwithstanding the hard opinions Judge Douglas chooses to entertain of me. The Judge has again addressed himself to the Abolition tendencies of a speech of mine made at Springfield in June last. I have so often tried to answer what he is always saying on that melancholy theme that I almost turn with disgust from the discussion, — ■ from the repetition of an answer to it. I trust that nearly all of this intelligent audience have read that speech. If you have, I may venture to leave it to you to inspect it closely, and see whether it contains any of those " bugaboos " which frighten Judge Douglas. The Judge complains that I did not fully answer his questions. If I have the sense to comprehend and answer those questions, I have done so fairly. If it can be pointed out to me how I can more fully and fairly answer him, I aver I have not the sense to see how it is to be done. He says I do not declare I would in any event vote for the admission of a Slave State into the Union. If I have been fairly reported, he will see that I did give an explicit answer to his interrogatories ; I did not merely say that I would dislike to be put to the test, but I said clearly, if I were put to the test, and a Territory from which slavery had been excluded should present herself with a State constitu- tion sanctioning slavery, — a most extraordinary thing, and wholly unlikely to happen, — I did not see how I could avoid voting for her admission. But he refuses to understand that I said so, and he wants this audience to understand that I did not say so. Yet it will be so reported in the printed speech that he cannot help seeing it. He says if I should vote for the admission of a Slave State I would be voting for a dissolution of the Union, because I hold that the Union cannot permanently exist half slave and half free. I repeat that I do not believe this government can endure permanently half slave and half free ; yet I do not admit, nor does it at all follow, that the admission of a single Slave State will permanently fix the character and establish this as a universal slave nation. The Judge is very happy indeed at working up these quibbles. Before leav- ing the subject of answering questions, I aver as my confident belief, when you come to see our speeches in print, that you will find every question which he has asked me more fairly and boldly and fully answered than he has answered those which I put to him. Is not that so ? The two speeches AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 131 may be placed side by side, and I will venture to leave it to impartial judges whether his questions have not been more directly and circumstantially answered than mine. Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon the editor of the Washington " Union," alone, of entertaining a purpose to rob the States of their power to exclude slavery from their limits. I undertake to say, and I make the direct issue, that he did not make his charge against the editor of the " Union " alone. I will undertake to prove by the record here that he made that charge against more and higher dignitaries than the editor of the Washington " Union." I am quite aware that he was shirking and dodging around the form in which he put it, but I can make it manifest that he levelled his " fatal blow " against more persons than this Washington editor. Will he dodge it now by alleging that I am trying to defend Mr. Buchanan against the charge ? Not at all. Am I not making the same cliarge myself ? I am trying to show that you, Judge Douglas, are a witness on my side. I am not defending Buchanan, and I will tell Judge Douglas that in my opinion, when he made that charge, he had an eye farther north than he was to-day. He was then fighting against people who called him a Black Eepublican and an Abolitionist. It is mixed all through his speech, and it is tolerably manifest that his eye was a great deal farther north than it is to-day. The Judge says that though he made this charge, Toombs got up and declared there was not a man in the United States, except the editor of the " Union," who was in favor of the doctrines put forth in that article. And thereupon I understand that the Judge with- drew the cliarge. Although he had taken extracts from the newspaper, and then from the Lecompton Constitution, to show the existence of a conspiracy to bring about a " fatal blow," by which the States were to be deprived of the right of excluding slavery, it all went to pot as soon as Toombs got up and told him it was not true. It reminds me of the story that John Phoenix, the California railroad surveyor, tells. He says they started out from the Plaza to the Mission of Dolores. They had two ways of determining distances. One was by a chain and pins taken over the ground. The other was by a " go-it-ometer," — an invention of his own, — a three-legged instrument, with which he computed a series of triangles between the points. At night he turned to the chain-man to ascertain what distance they had come, and found that by some mistake he had merely dragged the chain over the ground, with- out keeping any record. By the "go-it-ometer" he found he had made ten miles. Being sceptical about this, he asked a drayman who was passing how far it was to the Plaza. The drayman replied it was just half a mile ; and the surveyor put it down in his book, — just as Judge Douglas says, after he had made his calculations and computations, he took Toombs's statement. I have no doubt that after Judge Douglas had made his charge, he was as easily satisfied about its truth as the surveyor was of the drayman's statement of the distance to the Plaza. Yet it is a fact that the man who put forth all that matter which Douglas deemed a " fatal blow " at State sovereignty, was elected by the Democrats as public printer. Now, gentlemen, you may take Judge Douglas's speech of March 22d, 1858, beginning about the middle of page 21, and reading to the bottom of page 24, and you will find the evidence on wliich I say tliat he did not make his charge against the editor of the " Union " alone. I cannot stop to read it, but I will give it to tlie reporters. Judge Douglas said : — "Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly by the Washington ' Union ' editorially, and apparently authoritatively, and every man who 132 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN 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 insti- tution is the protection of persons and property ; second, tliat the Constitution of the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States ; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of the Government and Constitution of the United States ; and, fourth, that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner. " Remember that this article was published in the ' Union' on the 17th of Nov- ember, and on the 18th appeared the first article, giving the adhesion of the ' Union' to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words : — "'Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed question is settled. The prob- lem is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone — ' " And a column, nearly, of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put forth editorially in the 'Union.' What is it] " ' Article 7, Section 1. The right of property is 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 1864 by a two-thirds vote. " ' But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the ownership of slaves.' " It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that they are identical in spirit with this authoritative article in the Washington ' Union ' of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution. " When I saw that article in the ' Union ' of the 1 7th of November, followed 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 pro- hibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was di fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union." Here he says, " Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly, and apparently aufJioritatively" 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 authori- tative article." Bi/ ivhosc authority ? Who do you mean to say authorized the publication of these articles ? He knows that the Washington " Union " is considered the organ of the Administration. / demand of Judge Douglas by whose authority be meant to say those articles were published, if not by the authority of the President of the United States and his Cabinet ? I defy him to show whom he referred to, if not to these high functionaries in the Fed- eral Government. More than this, he says the articles in that paper and the provisions of the Lecompton Constitution are " identical," and, being identical, he argues that the authors are co-operating and conspiring together. He does not use the word " conspiring," but what other construction can you put upon it ? He winds up with this : — " When I saw that article in the ' Union ' of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this AND STErHEN A. DOUGLAS. 133 clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to pro- hibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was ^ fatal hloiu being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union." I ask him if all this fuss was made over the editor of this newspaper. It would be a terribly "fatal blow " indeed which a single man could strike, when no President, no Cabinet officer, no member of Congress, was giving strength and efficiency to the moment. Out of respect to Judge Donglas's good sense I must believe he did n't manufacture his idea of the " fatal " char- acter of that blow out of such a miserable scapegrace as he represents that editor to be. But the Judge's eye is farther south now. Then, it was very peculiarly and decidedly north. His hope rested on the idea of visiting the great " Black Eepublican " party, and making it the tail of his new kite. He knows he was then expecting from day to day to turn Eepublican, and place himself at the head of our organization. He has found that these despised " Black Ilepublicans " estimate him by a standard which he has taught them none too well. Hence he is crawling back into his old camp, and you will find him eventually installed in full fellowship among those whom he was then battling, and with whom he now pretends to be at such fearful variance. [Loud applause, and cries of " Go on, go on."] I cannot, gentlemen ; my time has expired. THIRD JOINT DEBATE, AT JONESBORO. September 15, 1858. MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : I appear before you to-day in pursuance of a previous notice, and have made arrangements with Mr. Lincoln to divide time, and discuss with him the leading political topics that now agitate the country. Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political parties known as Whig and Democratic. These parties differed from each other on certain questions which were then deemed to be important to the best interests of the Ptepublic. Whig and Democrats differed about a bank, the tariff, dis- tribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury. On those issues we went before the country and discussed the principles, objects, and measures of the two great parties. Each of the parties could proclaim its principles in Loui- siana as well as in Massachusetts, in Kentucky as well as in Hlinois. Since that period, a great revolution has taken place in the formation of parties, by which they now seem to be divided by a geographical line, a large party in the North being arrayed under the Abolition or Eepublican banner, in hos- tility to the Southern States, Southern people, and Southern institutions. It becomes important for us to inquire how this transformation of parties has occurred, made from those of national principles to geographical factions. You remember that in 1850 — this country was agitated from its centre to its circumference about this slavery question — it became necessary for the leaders of the great Whig party and the leaders of the great Democratic party to post- 134 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN pone, for the time being, their particular disputes, and unite first to save the Union before they should quarrel as to the mode in which it was to be gov- erned. During the Congress of 1849-50, Henry Clay was the leader of the Union men, supported by Cass and Webster, and the leaders of the Democracy and the leaders of the Whigs, in opposition to Northern Abolitionists or Southern Disunionists. That great contest of 1850 resulted in the establish- ment of the Compromise measures of that year, which measures rested on the great principle that the people of each State and each Territory of this Union ought to be permitted to regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject to no other limitation than that which the Federal Constitution imposes. I now wish to ask you whether that principle was right or wrong which guaranteed to every State and every community the right to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves. These measures were adopted, as I have previously said, by the joint action of the Union Whigs and Union Democrats in opposition to Northern Abolitionists and Southern Disunionists. In 1858, when the Whig party assembled, at Baltimore, in National Conven- tion for the last time, they adopted the principle of the Compromise Measures of 1850 as their rule of party action in the future. One month thereafter the Democrats assembled at the same place to nominate a candidate for the Presi- dency, and declared the same great principle as tlie rule of action by which the Democracy would be governed. The Presidential election of 1852 was fought on that basis. It is true that the Whigs claimed special merit for the adoption of those measures, because they asserted that their great Clay ori- ginated them, their god-like Webster defended them, and their Fillmore signed the bill making them the law of the land ; but, on the other hand, the Democrats claimed special credit for the Democracy, upon the ground that we gave twice as many votes in both Houses of Congress for the passage of these measures as the Whig party. Thus you see that in the Presidential election of 1852, the Whigs were pledged by their platform and their candidate to the principle of the Compro- mise Measures of 1850, and the Democracy were likewise pledged by our principles, our platform, and our candidate to the same line of policy, to pre- serve peace and quiet between the different sections of this Union. Since that period the Whig party has been transformed into a sectional party, under the name of the liepublican party, whilst the Democratic party continues the same national party it was at that day. All sectional men, all men of Aboli- tion sentiments and principles, no matter whether they were old Abolitionists or had been Whigs or Democrats, rally under the sectional Eepublican banner, and consequently all National men, all Union-loving men, whether Whigs, Democrats, or by whatever name they have been known, ought to rally under the Stars and Stripes in defence of the Constitution as our fathers made it, aud of the Union as it has existed under the Constitution. How has this departure from the faith of the Democracy aud the faith of the Whig party been accomplished ? In 1854, certain restless, ambitious, and disappointed politicians throughout the land took advantage of the tem- porary excitement created by the Nebraska bill to try and dissolve the old Whig party and the old Democratic party, to Abolitionize their members, and lead them, bound hand and foot, captives into the Abolition camp. In the State of New York a convention was held by some of these men, and a plat- form adopted, every plank of which was as black as night, each one relating to the negro, and not one referrino- to the interests of the white man. That AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 135 example was followed throughout the Northern States, the effect being made to combine all the Free States in hostile array against the Slave States. The men who thus thought that they could build up a great sectional party, and through its organization control the political destinies of this country, based all their hopes on the single fact that the North was the stronger division of the nation, and hence, if the North could be combined against the South, a sure victory awaited their efforts, I am doing no more than justice to the truth of history when I say that in this State, Abraham Lincoln, on behalf of the Whigs, and Lyman Trumbull, on behalf of the Democrats, were the leaders who undertook to perform this grand scheme of Abolitionizing the two parties to which they belonged. They liad a private arrangement as to what should be the political destiny of each of the contracting parties before they went into the operation. The arrangement was that Mr. Lincoln was to take the old line Whigs with him, claiming that he was still as good a Whig as ever, over to the Abolitionists, and Mr. Trumbull was to run for Congress in the Belleville District, and, claiming to be a good Democrat, coax the old Democrats into the Abolition camp, and when, by the joint efforts of the Abolitionized Whios, the Abolitionized Democrats, and the old line Abolition and Free-soil party of this State, they should secure a majority in the Legisla- ture. Lincoln was tlien to be made United States Senator in Shields's place, Trumbull remaining in Congress until I should be accommodating enough to die or resign, and give him a chance to follow Lincoln. That was a very nice little bargain so far as Lincoln and Trumbull were concerned, if it had been carried out in good faith, and friend Lincoln had attained to senatorial dignity according to the contract. They went into the contest in every part of the State, calling upon all disappointed politicians to join in the crusade against the Democracy, and appealed to the prevailing sentiments and prejudices in all the northern counties of the State. In three Congressional Districts in the north end of the State they adopted, as the platform of this new party thus formed by Lincoln and Trumbull in connection with the Abolitionists, all of those principles which aimed at a warfare on the part of the North against the South. They declared in that platform that the Wilmot Proviso was to be applied to all the Territories of the United States, north as well as south of 36 deg. 30 min., and not only to all the territory we then had, but all that we might hereafter acquire ; that hereafter no more Slave States should be admitted into this Union, even if the people of such State desired slavery ; that the Fugitive Slave law should be absolutely and unconditionally repealed ; that slavery should be abolished in the District of Columbia ; that the slave- trade should be abolished between the different States ; and, in fact, every article in their creed related to this slavery question, and pointed to a Northern geographical party in hostility to the Southern States of this Union. Such were their principles in Northern Illinois. A little further south they became bleached, and grew paler just in proportion as public sentiment mod- erated and changed in this direction. They were Eepublicans or Abolitionists in the North, anti-Nebraska men down about Springfield, and in this neigh- borhood they contented themselves with talking about the inexpediency of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. In the extreme northern counties they brought out men to canvass the State whose complexion suited their political creed ; and hence Fred Douglass, the negro, was to be found there, following General Cass, and attempting to speak on behalf of Lincoln, Trum- bull, and Abolitionism, against that illustrious senator. Why, they brought Fred Douglass to Freeport, when I was addressing a meeting there, in a car- 136 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN riage driven by the white owner, the negro sitting inside with the white lady and her daughter. When I got through canvassing the northern counties that year, and progressed as far south as Springfield, I was met and opposed in discussion by Lincoln, Lovejoy, Trumbull, and Sidney Breese, who were on one side. Father Giddings, the high-priest of Abolitionism, had just been there, and Chase came about the time I left. ["Why didn't you shoot him ? "] I did take a running shot at them ; but as I was single-handed against the white, black, and mixed drove, I had to use a shot-gun and fire into the crowd, instead of taking them off singly with a rifle. Trumbull had for his lieutenants, in aiding him to Abolitionize the Democracy, such men as John Wentworth of Chicago, Governor Eeynolds of Belleville, Sidney Breese of Carlisle, and John Dougherty of Union, each of whom modified his opinions to suit the locality he was in. Dougherty, for instance, would not go much further than to talk about the inexpediency of the Nebraska bill, whilst his allies at Chicago advocated negro citizenship and negro equality, putting the white man and the negro on the same basis under the law. Now, these men, four years ago, were engaged in a conspiracy to break down the Democracy ; to-day they are again acting together for the same purpose ! They do not hoist the same flag, they do not own the same principles or profess the same faith, but conceartheir union for the sake of policy. In the northern counties, you find that all the conventions are called in the name of the Black Eepubli- can party ; at Springfield, they dare not call a Eepublican Convention, but invite all the enemies of the Democracy to unite ; and when they get down into Egypt, Trumbull issues notices calling upon the " Free Democracy " to assemble and hear him speak. I have one of the handbills calling a Trumbull meeting at Waterloo the other day, which I received there, which is in the following language : — A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place in Waterloo, on Monday, Sept. 13th inst., whereat Hon. Lyman Trumbull, Hon. John Baker and others will address the people upon the different political topics of the day. Members of all parties are cordially invited to be present, and hear and determine for themselves. The Monroe Free Democracy. What is that name of " Free Democrats " put forth for, unless to deceive the people, and make them believe that Trumbull and his followers are not the same party as that which raises the black flag of Abolitionism in the northern part of this State, and makes war upon the Democratic party throughout the State ? When I put that question to them at Waterloo on Saturday last, one of them rose and stated that they had changed their name for political effect, in order to get votes. There was a candid admission. Their object in changing their party organization and principles in different localities was avowed to be an attempt to cheat and deceive some portion of the people until after the election. Why cannot a political party that is con- scious of the rectitude of its purposes and the soundness of its principles declare them everywhere alike ? I w^ould disdain to hold any political prin- ciples that I could not avow in the same terms in Kentucky that I declared in Illinois, in Charleston as well as in Chicago, in New Orleans as well as in New York. So loncj as we live under a Constitution common to all the States, our political faith ought to be as broad, as liberal, and just as that Constitution itself, and should be proclaimed alike in every portion of the Union. But it is apparent that our opponents find it necessary, for partisan effect, to change their colors in different counties in order to catch the popular AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 137 breeze, and hope with these discordant materials combined together to secure a majority in the Legishiture for the purpose of putting down the Democratic party. This combination did succeed in 1854 so far as to elect a majority of their confederates to the Legislature, and the first important act which they performed was to elect a Senator in the place of the eminent and gallant Senator Shields. His term expired in the United States Senate at that time, and he had to be crushed by the Abolition coalition for the simple reason that he would not join in their conspiracy to wage war against one-half of the Union. That was the only objection to General Shields. He had served the people of the State with ability in the Legislature, he had served you with fidelity and ability as Auditor, he had performed his duties to the satisfaction of the whole country at the head of the Land Department at Washington, he had covered the State and the Union with immortal glory on the bloody fields of Mexico in defence of the honor of our flag, and yet he had to be stricken down by this unholy combination. And for what cause ? Merely because he would not join a combination of one half of the States to make war upon the other half, after having poured out his heart's blood for all the States in the Union. Trumbull was put in his place by Abolitionism. How did Trumbull get there ? Before the Abolitionists would consent to go into an election for United States Senator they required all the members of this new combination to show their hands upon this question of Abolitionism. Lovejoy, one of their high-priests, brought in resolutions defining the Abolition creed, and required them to commit themselves on it by their votes, — yea or nay. In that creed, as laid down by Lovejoy, they declared, first, that the Wilmot Proviso must be put on all the Territories of the United States, north as well as south of 36 deg. 30 min., and that no more territory should ever be acquired unless slavery was at first prohibited therein ; second, that no more States should ever be received into the Union unless slavery was first prohibited, by Constitutional provision, in such States ; third, that the Fugitive Slave law must be immediately repealed, or, failing in that, then such amendments were to be made to it as would render it useless and inefficient for the objects for which it was passed, etc. The next day after these resolutions were offered they were voted upon, part of them carried, and the others defeated, the same men who voted for them, with only two exceptions, voting soon after for Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the United States Senate, He came within one or two votes of being elected, but he could not quite get the num- ber required, for the simple reason that his friend Trumbull, who was a party to tlie l^argain by which Lincoln was to take Shields's place, controlled a few Abolitionized Democrats in the Legislature, and would not allow them all to vote for him, thus wronging Lincoln by permitting him on each ballot to be almost elected, but not quite, until he forced them to drop Lincoln and elect him (Trumbull), in order to unite the party. Thus you find that although the Legislature was carried that year by the bargain between Trumbull, Lincoln, and the Abolitionists, and the union of these discordant elements in one harmonious party, yet Trumbull violated his pledge, and played a Yankee trick on Lincoln when they came to divide tiie spoils. Perhaps you would like a little evidence on this point. If you would, I will call Colonel James H. Matheny, of Springfield, to the stand, Mr. Lincoln's especial confidential friend for the last twenty years, and see what he will say upon the subject of this bargain. Matheny is now tlie Black Eepublican, or Abolition, candidate for Congress in the Springfield District against the gallant Colonel Harris, and is making speeches all over that part of the State against me and in favor of 18 138 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Lincoln, in concert with Trumbull. He ought to be a good witness, and I will read an extract from a speech which he made in 1856, when he was mad because his friend 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. Matheny then said : — " The "Whigs, xYbolitionists, Know-Nothings, and renegade Democrats made a solemn compact for the purpose of carrying this State against the Democracy, on this plan : 1st. That they would all combine and elect Mr. Trumbull to Congress, and thereby cany his district for the Legislature, in order to throw all the strength that could be obtained into that body against the Democrats. 2d. Tliat when the Legislature sliould meet, the officers of that body, such as Speaker, clerks, door- keepers, etc., would be given to the Abolitionists ; and 3d. That the Whigs were to have the United States Senator. That, accordingly, in good faith, Trumbull was elected to Congress, and his district carried for the Legislature, and, when it con- vened, the Abolitionists got all the officers of that body ; and, thus far, the ' bond ' was fairly executed. The Whigs, on their part, demanded the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that the bond might be fulfilled, the other parties to the contract having already secured to themselves all that was called for. But, in the most perfidious manner, they refused to elect Mr. Lincoln, and the mean, lowdived, sneaking Trumbull succeeded, by pledging all that was required by any party, in thrusting Lincoln aside, and foisting himself, an excrescence from the rotten bowels of the Democracy, into the United States Senate : and thus it has ever been, that an honest man makes a bad bargain when be conspires or contracts with rogues." Matheny thought that his friend Lincoln made a bad bargain when he conspired and contracted with such rogues as Trumbull and his Abolition associates in that campaign. Lincoln was shoved off the track, and he and his friends all at once began to mope, became sour and mad, and disposed to tell, but dare not ; and thus they stood for a long time, until the Abolitionists coaxed and flattered him back by their assurances that he should certainly be a senator in Douglas's place. In that way the Abolitionists have been enabled to hold Lincoln to the alliance up to this time, and now they have brought him into a fight against me, and he is to see if he is again to be cheated by them. Lincoln this time, though, required more of them than a promise, and holds their bond, if not security, that Lovejoy shall not cheat him as Trumbull did. When the Kepublican Convention assembled at Springfield, in June last, for the purpose of nominating State officers only, the Abolitionists could not get Lincoln and his friends into it until they would pledge themselves that Lincoln should be their candidate for the Senate ; and you will find, in proof of this, that that Convention passed a resolution unanimously declaring that Abraham Lincoln was the "first, last, and only choice" of the Eepublicans for United States Senator. He was not willing to have it understood that he was merely their first choice, or their last choice, but their only choice. The Black Kepublican party had nobody else. Browning was nowhere ; Governor Bissell was of no account ; Archie Williams was not to be taken into con- sideration; John Wentworth was not worth mentioning; John M. Palmer was degraded ; and their party presented the extraordinary spectacle of hav- ing but one, — the first, the last, and only choice for the Senate. Suppose that Lincoln should die, what a horrible condition the Eepublican party would be in ! They would have nobody left. They have no other choice, and it was necessary for them to put themselves before the wcndd in this ludicrous, ridiculous attitude of having no other choice, in order to quiet Lincoln's sus- AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 139 picions, aud assure him that he was not to be cheated by Lovejoy, and the trickery by which Trumbull outgeueralled him. Well, gentlemen, I think they will have a nice time of it before they get through. I do not intend to give them any chance to cheat Lincoln at all this time. I intend to relieve him of all anxiety upon that subject, and spare them the mortification of more exposures of contracts violated, and the pledged honor of rogues forfeited. But I wish to invite your attention to the chief points at issue between Mr, Lincoln and myself in this discussion. Mr. Lincoln, knowing that he was to be candidate of his party, on account of the arrangement of which I have already spoken, knowing that he was to receive the nomination of the Con- vention for the United States Senate, had his speech, accepting that nomina- tion, all written and committed to memory, ready to be delivered the moment the nomination was announced. Accordingly, when it was made, he was in readiness, and delivered his speech, a portion of which I will read in order that I may state his political principles fairly, by repeating them in his own language : — " We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed object, and with the confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation ; under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly auaftnented. I believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endm-e permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, I do not expect the house to fiiU ; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, North as well as South." There you have Mr. Lincoln's first and main proposition, upon which he bases his claims, stated in his own language. He tells you that this Eepublic cannot endure permanently divided into Slave and Free States, as our fathers made it. He says that they must all become free or all become slave, that they must all be one thing or all be the other, or this government cannot last. Why can it not last, if we will execute the government in the same spirit and upon the same principles upon which it is founded ? Lincoln, by his proposition, says to the South : " If you desire to maintain your institutions as they are now, you must not be satisfied with minding your own business, but you must invade Illinois and all the other Northern States, establish slavery in them, and make it universal ; " and in the same language he says to the North : " Yon must not be content with regulating your own affairs and minding your own business, but if you desire to maintain your freedom, you must invade the Southern States, abolish slavery there and everywhere, in order to have the States all one thing or all the other." I say that this is the inevitable aud irresistible result of Mr, Lincoln's argument, inviting a warfare between the North and the South, to be carried on with ruthless vengeance until the one section or the other shall be driven to the wall, and become the victim of the rapacity of the other. What good would follow such a system of warfare ? Suppose the North should succeed in conquering the South, how much would she be the gainer ? or suppose the South should conquer the North, could the Union be preserved in that way ? Is this sectional warfare to be waged between the Northern States and Southern States until they all shall become uniform in 140 DEBATES BETWEEN ABKAHAM LINCOLN tlieir local and domestic institutions, merely because Mr. Lincoln says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and pretends that this scriptural quotation, this language of our Lord and Master, is applicable to the American Union and the American Constitution ? Washington and his compeers, in the Convention that framed the Constitution, made this government divided into Free and Slave States. It was composed then of thirteen sovereign and independent States, each having sovereign authority over its local and domestic institutions, and all bound together by the Federal Constitution. Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the Federal Constitution, joining Free and Slave States together, to a house divided against itself, and says that it is contrary to the law of God, and cannot stand. When did he learn, and by what authority does he proclaim, that this government is contrary to the law of God and cannot stand ? It has stood thus divided into Free and Slave States from its oruan- ization up to this day. During that period we have increased from four mil- lions to thirty millions of people ; we have extended our territory from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean ; we have acquired the Floridas and Texas, and other territory sufficient to double our geographical extent; we have increased in population, in wealth, and in power beyond any example on earth ; we have risen from a weak and feeble power to become the terror and admiration of the civilized world ; and all this has been done under a Consti- tution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says is in violation of the law of God, and under a Union divided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincoln thinks, because of such division, cannot stand. Surely Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those who framed the government. Washington did not believe, nor did his compatriots, that the local laws and domestic institutions that were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Vermont were suited to the rice plantations of South Carolina ; they did not believe at that day that in a Eepublic 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 believed then, as our experience has proved to us now, that each locality, having different interests, a different cli- mate, and different surroundings, required different local laws, local policy, and local institutions, adapted to the wants of that locality. Thus our government was formed on the principle of diversity in the local institutions and laws, and not on that of uniformity. As my time flies, I can only glance at these points, and not present them as fully as I would wish, because I desire to bring all the points in controversy between the two parties before you, in order to have Mr. Lincoln's reply. He makes war on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case known as the Dred Scott case. I wish to say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no war to make on that decision, or any other ever rendered by the Supreme Court. I am content to take that decision as it stands delivered by the high- est judicial tribunal on earth, — a tribunal established by the Constitution of the United States for that purpose ; and hence that decision becomes the law of the land, binding on you, on me, and on every other good citizen, whether we like it or not. Hence I do not choose to go into an argument to prove, before this audience, whether or not Chief Justice Taney understood the law better than Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln objects to that decision, first and mainly because it deprives the negro of the rights of citizenship. I am as much opposed to his reason for that objection as I am to the objection itself. I hold that a negro is not and never ought to be a citizen of the United States. I hold that this government AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 141 was made on the white basis, by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others. I do not believe that the Almi,L,dity made the negro capable of self- government. I am aware that all the Abolition lecturers that you find travel- ling about througli tlie country are in the habit of reading the Declaration of Independence to prove that all men were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Mr. Lincoln is very much in the habit of following in the track of Lovejoy in this particular, by reading that part of the Declaration of Independence to prove that the negro was endowed by the Almighty with the inalienable right of equality with white men. Now, I say to you, my fellow-citizens, that in my opinion the signers of the Declaration had no refer- ence to tlie negro whatever when they declared all men to be created equal. They desired to express by that phrase white men, men of European birth and European descent, and had no reference either to the negro, the savage Indians, the Fejee, the Malay, or any other inferior and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality of men. One great evidence that such was their under- standing is to be found in the fact that at that time every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding colony, every signer of the Declaration represented a slaveholding constituency, and we know that no one of them emaucipated his slaves, much less offered citizeusliip to them, when they signed the Declara- tion ; and yet, if they intended to declare that the negro was the equal of the white man, and entitled by divine right to an equality with him, they were bound, as honest men, that day and hour to have put their negroes on an equal- ity with themselves. Instead of doing so, with uplifted eyes to Heaven they implored the divine blessing upon them, during tlie seven years' bloody war they had to fight to maintain that Declaration, never dreaming that they were violating divine law by still holding the negroes in bondage and depriving them of equality. My friends, I am in favor of preserving this government as our fathers made it. It does not follow by any means that because a negro is not your equal or mine, that hence he must necessarily be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow that we ought to extend to the negro every right, every privilege, every immunity, which he is capable of enjoying, consistent with the good of society. When you ask me what these rights are, what their nature and extent is, I tell you that that is a question which each State of this Union must decide for itself Illinois has already decided the question. We have decided that the negro must not be a slave within our limits, but we have also decided that the negro shall not be a citizen within our limits ; that he shall not vote, hold office, or exercise any political rights. I maintain that Illinois, as a sovereign State, has a right thus to fix her policy with reference to the relation between the white man and the negro ; but while we had that right to decide the question for ourselves, we must recognize the same right in Kentucky and in every other State to make the same decision, or a differ- ent one. Having decided our own policy with reference to the black race, we must leave Kentucky and Missouri and every other State perfectly free to make just such a decision as they see proper on that question. Kentucky has decided that question for herself She has said that within her limits a negro shall not exercise any political rights, and she has also said that a portion of the negroes under the laws of that State shall be slaves. She had as much right to adopt that as her policy as we had to adopt the con- trary for our policy. New York has decided that in that State a negro may 142 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN vote if he has $250 worth of property, and if lie owns that much he may vote upon an equality with the white man. I, for one, am utterly opposed to negro suffrage anywhere and under any circumstances ; yet, inasmuch as the Supreme Court have decided in the celebrated Dred Scott case that a State has a right to confer the privilege of voting upon free negroes, I am not going to make war upon New York because she has adopted a pohcy repugnant to my feel- ings. But New York must mind her own business, and keep her negro suffrage to herself, and not attempt to force it upon us. In the State of Maine they have decided that a negro may vote and hold office on an equality with a white man. I had occasion to say to the sen- ators from Maine, in a discussion last session, that if they thought that the white people within the limits of their State were no better than negroes, I would not quarrel with them for it, but they must not say that my white constituents of Illinois were no better than negroes, or we would be sure to quarrel The Dred Scott decision covers the whole question, and declares that each State has the right to settle this question of suffrage for itself, and all ques- tions as to the relations between the white man and the negro. Judge Taney expressly lays down the doctrine. I receive it as law, and I say that while those States are adopting regulations on that subject disgusting and abhorrent, according to my views, I will not make war on them if they will mind their own business and let us alone. I now come back to the question. Why cannot this Union exist forever, divided into Free and Slave States, as our fathers made it ? It can thus exist if each State will carry out the principles upon which our institutions were founded ; to wit, the right of each State to do as it pleases, without meddling with its neighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and this Union will not only live forever, but it will extend and expand until it covers the whole continent, and makes this confederacy one grand, ocean-bound Eepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet a young nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled in the history of the world, that our national increase is great, and that the emigration from the Old World is increasing, requiring us to. expand and acquire new territory from time to time, in order to give our people land to live upon. If we live upon the principle of State rights and State sov- ereignty, each State regulating its own affairs and minding its own business, we can go on and extend indefinitely, just as fast and as far as we need the territory. The time may come, indeed has now come, when our interests would be advanced by the acquisition of the Island of Cuba. When we get Cuba we must take it as we find it, leaving the people to decide the question of slavery for themselves, without interference on the part of the Federal Gov- ernment or of any State of this Union. So, when it becomes necessary to acquire any portion of Mexico or Canada, or of this continent or the adjoining islands, we must take them as we find them, leaving the people free to do as they please, — to have slavery or not, as they choose. I never have inquired and never will inquire whether a new State, applying for admission, has slavery or not for one of her institutions. If the Constitution that is presented be the act and deed of the people, and embodies their will, and they have the requi- site population, I will admit them, with slavery or without it, just as that people shall determine. My objection to the Lecompton Constitution did not consist in the fact that it made Kansas a Slave State. I would have been as much opposed to its admission under such a Constitution as a Free State as I was opposed to its admission under it as a Slave State. I hold that that was AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 143 a question which that people had a right to decide for themselves, and that no power on earth ought to have interfered with that decision. In my opinion, the Lecompton Constitution was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will ; and the recent election in that Territory, at which it was voted down by nearly ten to one, shows conclusively that I was right in saying, when the Constitution was presented, that it was not the act and deed of the people, and did not embody their will. If we wish to preserve our institutions in their purity, and transmit them unimpaired to our latest posterity, we must preserve with religious good faith that great principle of self-government which guarantees to each and every State, old and new, the right to make just such constitutions as they desire, and come into the Union with their own constitution, and not one palmed upon them. Whenever you sanction the doctrine that Congress may crowd a constitution down the throats of an unwilling people, against their consent, you will subvert the great fundamental principle upon which all our free insti- tutions rest. In the future 1 have no fear that the attempt will ever be made. President Buchanan declared in his annual message that hereafter the rule adopted in the Minnesota case, requiring a constitution to be submitted to the people, should be followed in all future cases ; and if he stands by that recommendation, there will be no division in the Democratic party on that principle in the future. Hence, the great mission of the Democracy is to unite the fraternal feeling of the whole country, restore peace and quiet, by teaching each State to mind its own business, and regulate its own domestic affairs, and all to unite in carrying out tlie Constitution as our fathers made it, and thus to preserve the Union and render it perpetual in all time to come. Why should we not act as our fathers who made the government ? There was no sectional strife in Washington's army. They were all brethren of a common confederacy; they fought under a common flag that they might bestow upon their posterity a common destiny ; and to this end they poured out their blood in common streams, and shared, in some instances, a common grave. ME. LINCOLN'S REPLY. Ladies and Gentlemen : There is very much in the principles that Judge Douglas has here enunciated that I most cordially approve, and over which I shall have no controversy with him. In so far as he has insisted that all the States have the right to do exactly as they please about all their domestic rela- tions, including that of slavery, I agree entirely with him. He places me wrong in spite of all I can tell him, though I repeat it again and again, insist- ing that I have no difference with him upon this subject. I have made a great many speeches, some of which have been printed, and it will be utterly impos- sible for him to find anything that I have ever put in print contrary to what I now say upon this subject. I hold myself under constitutional obligations to allow the people in all the States, without interference, direct or indirect, to do exactly as they please; and I deny.tliat I have any inclination to interfere with them, even if there were no such constitutional obligation. I can only say again that I am placed improperly — altogether improperly, in spite of all I can say — when it is insisted that I entertain any other view or purposes in regard to that matter. While I am upon this subject, I will make some answers briefly to certain propositions that Judge Douglas has put. He says, " Why can't this Union 144 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN endure permanently, half slave and half free ? " I have said that I supposed it could not, and I will try, before this new audience, to give briefly some of the reasons for entertaining that opinion. Another form of his question is, " Why can't we let it stand as our fathers placed it ? " That is the exact difficulty between us. I say that Judge Douglas and his friends have changed it from the position in which our fathers originally placed it. I say, in the way our fathers originally left the slavery question, the institution was in the course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind rested in the belief that it vxis in the course of ultimate extinction. I say when this government was first estab- lished, it was the policy of its founders to prohibit the spread of slavery into the new Territories of the United States, where it had not existed. But Judge Douglas and his friends have broken up that policy, and placed it upon a new basis, by which it is to become national and perpetual. All I have asked or desired anywhere is that it should be placed back again upon the basis that the fathers of our government originally placed it upon. I have no doubt that it would become extinct, for all time to come, if we but readopted the policy of the fathers, by restricting it to the limits it has already covered, — restricting it from the new Territories. I do not wish to dwell at great length on this branch of the subject at this time, but allow me to repeat one thing that I have stated before. Brooks — the man who assaulted Senator Sumner on the floor of the Senate, and who was complimented with dinners, and silver pitchers, and gold-headed canes, and a good many other things for that feat — in one of his speeches declared that when this government was originally established, nobody expected that the institution of slavery would last until this day. That was but the opinion of one man, but it was such an opinion as w^e can never get from Judge Doug- las or anybody in favor of slavery in the ISTorth at all. You can sometimes get it from a Southern man. He said at the same time that the framers of our government did not have the knowledge that experience has taught us ; that experience and the invention of the cotton-gin have taught us that the per- petuation of slavery is a necessity. He insisted, therefore, upon its being changed from the basis upon which the fathers of the government left it to the basis of its perpetuation and nationalization. I insist that this is the difference between Judge Douglas and mj^self, — that Judge Douglas is helping that change along. I insist upon this govern- ment being placed where our fathers originally placed it. I remember Judge Douglas once said that he saw the evidences on the statute books of Congress of a policy in the origin of government to divide slavery and freedom by a geographical line ; that he saw an indisposition to maintain that policy, and therefore he set about stud3dng up a way to settle the institution on the right basis, — the basis which he thought it ought to have been placed upon at first ; and in that speech he confesses that he seeks to place it, not upon the basis that the fathers placed it upon, but upon one gotten \\\) on " original principles." AVhen he asks me why we cannot get along with it in the attitude where our fathers placed it, he had better clear up the evidences that he has himself changed it from that basis, that he has him- self been chiefly instrumental in changing the policy of the fathers. Any one who will read his speech of the 22d of last jMarch will see that he there makes an open confession, showing that Jie set about fixing the institution upon an altogether different set of principles. I think I have fully answered him when he asks me why we cannot let it alone upon the basis wliere our fathers left it, by showing that he has himself changed the whole policy of the government in that regard. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 145 Now, fellow-citizens, in regard to this matter about a contract that was made between Judge Trumbull and myself, and all that long portion of Judge Douglas's speech on this subject, — I wish simply to say what I have said to him before, that he cannot know whether it is true or not, and I do know that there is not a word of truth in it. And I have told him so before. I don't want any harsh language indulged in, but I do not know how to deal with this persistent insisting on a story that I know to be utterly without truth. It used to be a fashion amongst men that when a charge was made, some sort of proof was brought forward to establish it, and if no proof was found to exist, the charge was dropped. I don't know how to meet this kind of an argument. I don't want to have a fight with Judge Douglas, and I have no way of making an argument up into the consistency of a corn-cob and stopping his mouth with it. All I can do is, good-humoredly to say that, from the beginning to the end of all that story about a bargain between Judge Trumbull and myself, there is not a tvord of truth in it. I can only ask him to show some sort of evidence of the truth of his story. He brings forward iiere and reads from what he con- tends is a speech by James H. Matheny, charging such a bargain between Trumbull and myself My own opinion is that Matheny did do some such immoral thing as to tell a story that he knew nothing about. I believe he did. I contradicted it instantly, and it has been contradicted by Judge Trumbull, while nobody has produced any proof, because there is none. Now, whether the speech which the Judge brings forward here is really the one Matheny made, I do not know, and I hope the Judge will pardon me for doubting the genuineness of this document, since his production of those Springfield resolu- tions at Ottawa. I do not wish to dwell at any great length upon this matter. I can say nothing when a long story like this is told, except it is not true, and demand tliat he who insists upon it shall produce some proof. That is all any man can do, and I leave it in that way, for I know of no other way of dealing with it. The Judge has gone over a long account of the old Whig and Democratic parties, and it connects itself with this charge against Trumbull and myself. He says that they agreed upon a compromise in regard to the slavery question in 1850 ; that in a National 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 be altogether right about that ; I understand that part of the history of the country as stated by him to be correct. I recollect that I, as a member of that jury, acquiesced in that compromise. I recollect in the Presidential election which followed, when we had General Scott up for the Presidency, Judge Douglas was around berating us Whigs as Abolitionists, precisely as he does to-day, — not a bit of difference. I have often heard him. We could do nothing when the old Whig party was alive that was not Abolitionism, but it has got an extremely good name since it has passed away. When that Compromise was made it did not repeal tlie old Missouri Com- promise. It left a region of United States territory lialf 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 orfjani- zation of a Territorial Government, — first of one, then of two Territories north 19 146 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN of tliat line. When he did so, it ended in his inserting a provision substan- tially repealing the Missouri Compromise. That was because the Compromise of 1850 had 7iot repealed 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 Compromise measures of 1850. We never had been seriously disturbed by any Abolition agitation before that period. When he came to form governments for the Territories north of the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, why could he not have let that matter stand as it was standing ? Was it necessarv to the oraaniza- tion 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 disturb- ing that Compromise. There was no sort of necessity for destroying it to organize these Territories. But, gentlemen, it would take up all my time to meet all the little quibbling arguments of Judge Douglas to show that the Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Compromise of 1850. My own opinion is, that a careful investigation of all the arguments to sustain the position that that Compromise was virtually repealed by the Compromise of 1850 would show that they are the merest fallacies. I have the Eeport that Judge Douglas first brought into Congress at the time of the introduction of the Nebraska bill, which in its original form did not repeal the Missouri Com- promise, and he there expressly stated that he had forborne to do so because it had not bec7i done hy the Comi^romise of 1850. I close this part of the discus- sion on my part by asking him the question again, " Why, when we had peace under the Missouri Compromise, could you not have let it alone ? " In complaining of what I said in my speech at Springfield, in which he says I accepted my nomination for the senatorship (where, by the way, he is at fault, for if he will examine it, he will find no acceptance in it), he again quotes that portion in which I said that " a house divided against itself cannot stand." Let me say a word in regard to that matter. He tries to persuade us that there must be a variety in the different insti- tutions of the States of the Union ; that that variety necessarily proceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the face of the country, and the difference in the natural features of the States. I agree to all that. Have these very matters ever produced any difficulty amongst us ? Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the fact that they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulate the commerce that springs from the production of sugar ? Or because we have a different class relative to the production of flour in this State ? Have they produced any differences ? Not at all. They are the very cements of this Union. They don't make the house a house divided against itself. They are the props that hold up the house and sustain the Union. But has it been so with this element of slavery ? Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties over it ? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it ? Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while to observe that we have generally had comparative peace upon the slavery question, and that there has been no cause for alarm until it was excited by the effort to spread it into new territory. Whenever -it has been limited to its present bounds, and there has been no effort to spread it, there has been peace. All the trouble and convulsion has proceeded from efforts to spread it over more terri- tory. It was thus at the date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so again with the annexation of Texas ; so with the territory acquired by the Mexican war ; and it is so now. Whenever there has been an effort to spread it, there has been agitation and resistance. Now, I appeal to this audience (very few AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 147 of whom are my political 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 1820, when the Missouri Compromise was formed, — that which produced the agitation upon the annexation of Texas, and at other times, — work out the same results always? Do you think tliat the nature of man will be changed, that the same causes that pro- duced agitation at one time will not have the same effect at another ? This lias 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 originally stood, and where the fathers originally placed it, or, on the other hand, until it shall entirely master all opposition ? This is the view I entertain, and this is the reason why I enter- tained it, as Judge Douglas has read from my Springfield speech. Now, my friends, tliere is one other thing that I feel myself under some sort of obligation to mention. Judge Douglas has here to-day — in a very ram- bling 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 advertise- ment that he says was used to notify the people of a speech to be made by Judge Trumbull at Waterloo. In commenting on it he desires to know whether we cannot speak frankly and manfully, as he and his friends do. How, I ask, do his friends speak out their own sentiments ? A Convention of his party in this State met on the 21st of April at Springfield, and passed a set of resolutions which they proclaim to the country as their platform. This does constitute their platform, and it is because Judge Douglas claims it is his platform — that these are his principles and purposes — that he has a right to declare he speaks his sentiments " frankly and manfully " On the 9th of June, Colonel John Dougherty, Governor Eeynolds, and others, calling themselves National Democrats, met in Springfield and adopted a set of reso- lutions which are as easily understood, as plain and as definite in stating to the country and to the world what they believed in and would stand upon, as Judge Douglas's platform. Now, what is the reason, that Judge Douglas is not willing that Colonel Dougherty and Governor Keynolds should stand upon their own written and printed platform as well as he upon his ? Why must he look farther than their platform when he claims himself to stand by his platform ? Again, in reference to our platform : On the 16th of June the Eepublicans had their Convention and published their platform, which is as clear and dis- tinct as Judge Douglas's. 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 contrary to tliat platform ? Does the Judixe regard that rule as a good one ? If it turn out that the rule is a good one for me, — that I am responsible for any and every opinion that any man has expressed who is my friend, — then it is a good rule for him. I ask. Is it not as good a rule for him as it is for me ? In my opinion, it is not a good rule for either of us. Do you think differently. Judge ? Mr. Douglas : I do not. Mr. Lincoln : Judge Douglas says he does not think differently. I am 148 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN glad of it. Then can lie tell me why he is looking up resolutions of five or six years ago, and insisting that they were my platform, notwithstanding my protest that they are not, and never were my platform, and my pointing out the platform of the State Convention which he delights to say nominated me for the Senate ? I cannot see what he means by parading these resolutions, if it is not to hold me responsible for them in some way. If he says to me here that he does not hold the rule to be good, one way or the other, I do not comprehend how he could answer me more fvdly if he answered me at greater length. I will therefore put in as my answer to the resolutions that he has hunted up against me, what I, as a lawyer, would call a good plea to a bad declaration. I understand that it is a maxim of law that a poor plea may be a good plea to a bad declaration. I think that the opinions the Judge brings from those who support me, yet differ from me, is a bad declaration against me ; but if I can bring the same things against him, I am putting in a good plea to that kind of declaration, and now I propose to try it. At Freeport, Judge Douglas occupied a large part of his time in producing resolutions and documents of various sorts, as I understood, to make me some- how responsible for them ; and I propose now doing a little of the same sort of thing for him. In 1850 a very clever gentleman by the name of Thomp- son Campbell, a personal friend of Judge Douglas and myself, a political friend of Judge Douglas and opponent of mine, was a candidate for Congress in the Galena District. He was interrogated as to his views on this same slavery question. I have here before me the interrogatories, and Campbell's answers to them. I will read them : — Interrogator! es. 1st. Will you, if elected, vote for and cordially support a bill prohibiting slavery in the Territories of the United States 1 2d. Will you vote for and support a bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia 1 3d. Will yon oppose the admission of any Slave States which may be formed out of Texas or the Territories ] 4th. Will you vote for and advocate the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law passed at the recent session of Congress 1 5th. Will you advocate and vote for the election of a Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall be willing to organize the committee of that House so as to give the Free States their just influence in the business of legislation 1 6th. W-'hat are your views, not only as to the constitutional right of Congress to prohibit the slave-trade between the States, but also as to the expediency of exercising that right immediately 1 Campbell's Reply. To the first and second interrogatories, I answer unequivocally in the affirmative. To the third interrogatory I reply, that I am opposed to the admission of any more Slave States into the Union, that may be formed out of Texas or any other Territory. To the fourth and fifth interrogatories I unhesitatingly answer in the affirmative. To the sixth interrogatory I reply, that so long as the Slave States continue to treat slaves as articles of commerce, the Constitution confers power on Congress to pass laws regulating that peculiar COMMERCE, and that the protection of Human Rights imperatively demands the interposition of every constitutional means to pre- vent this most inhuman and iniquitous traffic. T. Campbell. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 149 I want to say here that Thompson Campbell was elected to Congress on that platform, as the Democratic candidate in the Galena District, against Martin P. Sweet. Judge Douglas : Give me the date of the letter. Mr. Lincoln : The time Campbell ran was in 1850. I have not the exact date here. It was some time in 1850 that these interrogatories were put and the answer given. Campbell was elected to Congress, and served out his term. I think a second election came up before he served out his term, and he was not re-elected. Whether defeated or not nominated, I do not know. [Mr. Campbell was nominated for re-election by the Democratic party, by acclamation.] At the end of his term his very good friend Judge Douglas o'ot him a hiuh office from President Pierce, and sent him off to California. Is not that the fact ? Just at the end of his term in Congress it appears that our mutual friend Judge Douglas got our mutual friend Campbell a good office, and sent him to California upon it. And not only so, but on the 27th of last month, when Judge Douglas and myself spoke at Freeport in joint discussion, there was his same friend Campbell, come all the way from California, to help the Judge beat me ; and there was poor Martin P. Sweet standing on the platform, trying to help poor me to be elected. That is true of one of Judge Douglas's friends. So again, in that same race of 1850, there was a Congressional Convention assembled at Joliet, and it nominated It. S. Molony for Congress, and unani- mously adopted the following resolution : — "Resolved, That we are uncompromisingly opposed to the extension of slavery; and while we would not make such opposition a ground of interference with the inter- ests of the States where it exists, yet we moderately but firmly insist that it is the duty of Congress to oppose its extension into Territory now free, by all means com- patible with the obligations of the Constitution, and with good faith to our sister States ; that these principles were recognized by the Ordinance of 1787, which received the sanction of Thomas Jefferson, who is acknowledged by all to be the great oracle and expounder of our faith." Subsequently the same interrogatories were propounded to Dr. Molony which had been addressed to Campbell, as above, with tlie exception of the 6th, respecting the interstate slave trade, to which Dr. Molony, the Demo- cratic nominee for Congress, replied as follows : — I received the written interrogatories this day, and, as yon will see by the La Salle " Democrat " and Ottawa " Free Trader," I took at Peru on the 5th, and at Ottawa on the 7th, the affirmative side of interrogatories 1st and 2d ; and in relation to the admission of any more Slave States from Free Territory, my position taken at these meetings, as correctly reported in said papers, was emphaticxdUj and distinctly opposed to it. In relation to the admission of any more Slave States from Texas, whether I shall go against it or not will depend upon the opinion that I may here- after form of the true meaning and nature of the resolutions of annexation. If, by said resolutions, the honor and good faith of the nation is pledged to admit more Slave States from Texas when she (Texas) may apply for the admission of such State, then I should, if in Congress, vote for their admission. But if not so pledged and bound by sacred contract, then a bill for the admission of more Slave States from Texas would never receive my vote. To your fourth interrogatory I answer most decidedly in the affirmative, and for reasons set forth in my reported remarks at Ottawa last Monday. To your fifth interrogatory I also reply in the affirmative viost cordicdly, and that I will use my utmost exertions to secure the nomination and election of a man who 150 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN will accomplish the objects of said interrogatories. I most cordially approve of the resolutions adopted at the union meeting held at Princeton on the 27th Sep- tember ult. Yours, etc., R. S. Molony. All I have to say in regard to Dr. Molony is, that he was the regularly nominated Democratic candidate for Congress in his district ; was elected at that time, at the end of his term was appointed to a land-office at Danville. (I never heard anything of Judge Douglas's instrumentality in this.) He held this office a considerable time, and when we were at Freeport the other day, there were handbills scattered about notifying the public that after our debate was over, E. 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 truly I believe, that — " Among those wlio participated in the Joliet Convention, and who supported its nominee, with his platform as laid down in the resolution of the Convention and in his reply as above given, we call at random the following names, all of which are recognized at this day as leading Democrats : — " Cook County, — E. B. Williams, Charles McDonell, Arno Voss, Thomas Hoyne, Isaac Cook." I reckon we ought to except Cook. " F. C. Sherman. "Will, —Joel A. Matteson, S. W. Bowen. "Kane, — B. F. Hall, G. W. Ren wick, A. M. Herriugton, Elijali Wilcox. " McHenry, — W. M. Jackson, Enos W. Smith, Neil Donnelly. "La Salle, — John Rise, William Reddick." William Eeddick ! another one of Judge Douglas's friends that stood on the stand with him at Ottawa, at the time the Judge says my knees trembled so that I had to be carried away. The names are all here : — " Du Page, — Nathan Allen. " De Kalb, — Z. B. Mayo." Here is another set of resolutions which I think are apposite to the matter in hand. On the 28tli of February of the same year, a Democratic District Convention was held at Naperville to nominate a candidate for Circuit Judge. Among the delegates were Bowen and Kelly, of Will ; Captain Xaper, H. H. Cody, Nathan Allen, of Du Page ; W. M. Jackson, J. M. Strode, P. W. Piatt, and Enos W. Smith, of McHenry ; J. Horsman and others, of Winnebago. Colonel Strode presided over the Convention. The following resolutions were unani- mously adopted, — the first on motion of P. W. Piatt, the second on motion of William M. Jackson : — " Resolved, That this Convention is in favor of the Wilmot Proviso, both in Principle and Practice, and that we know of no good reason why any person should oppose the largest latitude in Free Soil, Free Territory and Free Speech. " Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, the time has arrived when all men should he free, whites as well as others." Judge Douglas : What is the date of those resolutions ? Mr. Lincoln : I understand it was in 1850, but I do not knoio it. I do AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 151 not state a thing and say I know it, when I do not. But I have the highest belief that this is so. I know of no way to arrive at the conclusion that tliere is an error in it. I mean to put a case no stronger than the truth will allow. But what I was going to comment upon is an extract from a newspaj)er in De Kalb County ; and it strikes me as being rather singular, I confess, under the circumstances. There is a Judge Mayo in that county, who is a candidate for the Legislature, for the purpose, if he secures his election, of helping to re-elect Judge Douglas. He is the editor of a newspaper [De Kalb County "Sentinel"], and in that paper I find the extract I am going to read. It is part of an editorial article in which he was electioneering as fiercely as he could for Judge Douglas and against me. It was a curious thing, I think, to be in such a paper. I will agree to that, and the Jndge may make the most of it : — "Our education has been such that we have ever been rather in favor of the equality of the blacks ; that is, that they shoidd enjoy all the ■privileges of the whites where they reside. We are aware that this is not a very popular doctrine. We have had many a confab with some who are now strong ' Iiepubbcans,' we taking the broad ground of equahty, and they the opposite ground. " We were brought up in a State where blacks were voters, and we do not know of any inconvenience resulting from it, though perhaps it would not work as well where the blacks are more munerous. We have no doubt of the right of the whites to guard against such an evil, if it is one. Our opinion is that it would be best for all concerned to have the colored population in a State by themselves [in this I agree with liim] ; but if within the jurisdiction of the United States, we say by all means they shoidd have the right to have their Senators and Reiwesentatives in Congress, and to vote for President.. With us ' worth makes the man, and want of it the fel- low.' We have seen many a 'nigger' that we thought more of than some white men." That is one of Judge Douglas's friends. Now, I do not want to leave myself in an attitude where I can be misrepresented, so I will say I do not think the Judge is responsible for tliis article ; but he is quite as responsible for it as I would be if one of my friends had said it. I think that is fair enough. I have here also a set of resolutions passed by a Democratic State Conven- tion in Judge Douglas's own good old State of Vermont, that I think ought to be fjood for him too : — o^ '' Resolved, That liberty is a right inherent and inalienable in man, and that herein all men are equal. " Resolved, That we claim no authority in the Federal Government to abolish slav- ery in the several States, but we do claim for it Constitutional power perpetually to prohibit the introduction of slavery into territory now free, and abolish it wherever, under the jurisdiction of Congress, it exists. " Resolved, That this power ought immediately to be exercised in prohibiting the introduction and existence of slavery in New Mexico and California, in abolishing slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, on the high seas, and wher- ever else, imder the Constitution, it can be reached. "Resolved, That no more Slave States should be admitted into the Federal Union. " Resolved, That the Government ought to return to its ancient policy, not to ex- tend, nationalize, or encoui'age, but to limit, localize, and discourage slavery." At Freeport I answered several interrogatories that had been propounded to me by Judge Douglas at the Ottawa meeting. The Judge has yet not seen fit to find any fault with the position that I took in regard to those seven 152 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN interrogatories, which were certainly broad enough, in all conscience, to cover the entire ground. In my answers, which have been printed, and all have had the opportunity of seeing, 1 take the ground that those who elect me must expect that I will do nothing which will not be in accordance with those answers. I have some right to assert that Judge Douglas has no fault to find with them. But he chooses to still try to thrust me upon different ground, without paying any attention to my answers, the obtaining of which from me cost him so much trouble and concern. At the same time I propounded four interrogatories to Inm, claiming it as a right that he should answer as many interrogatories for me as I did for him, and I would reserve myself for a future instalment when I got them ready. The Judge, in answering me upon that occasion, put in what I suppose he intends as answers to all four of my inter- roaatories. The first one of these interrogatories I have before me, and it is in these words : — "Question 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State constitution, and ask admission into the Union under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the English bill, — some ninety-three thousand, — will you vote to admit them % " As I read the Judge's answer in the newspaper, and as I remember it as pronounced at the time, he does not give any answer which is equivalent to yes or no, — I will or I wont. He answers at very considerable length, rather quarrelling with me for asking the question, and insisting that Judge Trumbull had done something that I ought to say something about, and iinally getting out such statements as induce me to infer that he means to be under- stood he will, in that supposed case, vote for the admission of Kansas. I only bring this forward now for the purpose of saying that if he chooses to put a different construction upon his answer, he may do it. But if he does not, I shall from this time forward assume that he will vote for the admission of Kansas in disregard of the English bilL He has the right to remove any mis- understanding I may have. I only mention it now, that I may hereafter assume this to be the true construction of his answer, if he does not now choose to correct me. The second interrogatory that I propounded to him was this : — Question 2. Can the people of a United States Territory, in anj^ lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution ] " To this Judge Douglas answered that they can lawfully exclude slavery from the Territory prior to the formation of a Constitution. He goes on to tell us how it can be done. As I understand him, he holds that it can be done by the Territorial Legislature refusing to make any enactments for the protec- tion of slavery in the Territory, and especially by adopting unfriendly legis- lation to it. For the sake of clearness, I state it again : that they can exclude slavery from the Territory, 1st, by withholding what he assumes to be an indispensable assistance to it in the way of legislation ; and, 2d, by unfriendly legislation. If I rightly understand him, I wish to ask your attention for a while to his position. In the first place, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that any Congressional prohibition of slavery in the Territories is unconstitutional ; that they have reached this proposition as a conclusion from their former AND STEPHEN >. DOUGLAS. 153 proposition, that the Constitution of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves, and from that other Constitutional provision, that no per- son shall be deprived of property without due process of law. Hence they reach the conclusion that as the Constitution of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves, and prohibits any person from being deprived of property without due process of law, to pass an Act of Congress by which a man who owned a slave on one side of a line would be deprived of him if he took him on the other side, is depriving him of that property without due process of law. That I understand to be the decision of tlie Supreme Court. I understand also that Judge Douglas adheres most firmly to that decision ; and the difficulty is, how is it possible for any power to exclude slavery from the Territory, unless in violation of that decision ? That is the difficulty. In the Senate of the United States, in 1850, Judge Trumbull, in a speech substantially, if not directly, put tlie same interrogatory to Judge Douglas, as to whether the people of a Territory had the lawful power to exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution. Judge Douglas then answered at considerable length, and his answer will be found in the " Congressional Globe," under date of June 9th, 1856. Tlie Judge said that whether the people could exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution or not was a question to be decided hi/ the Supreme Court. He put that proposition, as will be seen by the " Congressional Globe," in a variety of forms, all running to the same thing in substance, — that it was a question for the Supreme Court. I main- tain that when he says, after the Supreme Court have decided the question, that the people may yet exclude slavery by any means whatever, he does virtually say that it is not a question for the Supreme Court. He shifts his ground. I appeal to you whether he did not say it was a question for the Supreme Court ? Has not the Supreme Court decided that question ? "When he now says the people may exclude slavery, does he not make it a question for the people ? Does he not virtually shift his ground and say that it is not a question for the court, but for the people ? This is a very simple proposi- tion, — a very plain and naked one. It seems to me that there is no difficulty in deciding it. In a variety of ways he said that it was a question for the Supreme Court. He did not stop then to tell us that whatever the Supreme Court decides, the people can by withholding necessar}^ " police regulations " keep slavery out. He did not make any such answer. I submit to you now whether the new state of the case has not induced the Judge to sheer away from his original ground. Would not this be the impression of every fair- minded man ? I hold that the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new country with- out police regulations is historically false. It is not true at all. I hold that the history of this country shows that the institution of slavery was originally planted upon this continent without these " police regulations " which the Judge now thinks necessary for the actual establishment of it. Not only so, but is there not another fact : how came this Dred Scott decision to be made ? It was made upon the case of a negro being taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota Territory, claiming his freedom because the Act of Congress pro- hibited his being so held there. Will tlie Judge pretend that Dred Scott loas not held there without p)olice regulations 1 There is at least one matter of record as to his having been held in slavery in the Territory, not only without police regulations, but in the teeth of Congressional legislation supposed to be valid at the time. This shows that there is vigor enough in slavery to plant itself in a new country even against unfriendly legislation. It takes not only law, 20 154 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN but the enforcement of law to keep it out. That is the history of this country upon the subject. I wish to ask one other question. It being understood that the Constitution of the United States guarantees property in slaves in the Territories, if there is any infringement of the right of that property, would not the United States courts, organized for the government of the Territory, apply such remedy as might be necessary in that case ? It is a maxim held by the courts that there is no wrong without its remedy ; and the courts have a remedy for whatever is acknowledged and treated as a wrong. Again : I will ask you, my friends, if you were elected members of the Legislature, what would be the first thing you would have to do before enter- ing upon your duties ? Stvear to support the Constitution of the United States. Suppose you believe, as Judge Douglas does, that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to your neighbor the right to hold slaves in that Ter- ritory ; that they are his property : how can you clear your oaths unless you give him such legislation as is necessary to enable him to enjoy that property ? What do you understand by supporting the Constitution of a State, or of the United States ? Is it not to give such constitutional helps to the rights estab- lished by that Constitution as may be practically needed ? Can you, if you swear to support the Constitution, and believe that the Constitution establishes a right, clear your oath, without giving it support ? Do you support the Con- stitution if, knowing or believing there is a right established under it which needs specific legislation, you withhold that legislation ? Do you not violate and disregard your oath ? I can conceive of nothing plainer in the world. There can be nothing in the words " support the Constitution," if you may run counter to it by refusing support to any right established under the Con- stitution. And what I say here will hold with still more force against the Judge's doctrine of "unfriendly legislation." How could you, having sworn to support the Constitution, and believing it guaranteed the right to hold slaves in the Territories, assist in legislation intended to defeat that right ? That would be violating your own view of the Constitution. Not only so, but if you were to do so, how long would it take the courts to hold your votes unconstitutional and void ? Not a moment. Lastly, I would ask : Is not Congress itself under obligation to give legis- lative support to any right that is established under the United States Con- stitution ? I repeat the question : Is not Congress itself bound to give legislative support to any right that is established in the United States Con- stitution ? A member of Congress swears to support the Constitution of the United States ; and if he sees a right established by that Constitution which needs specific legislative protection, can he clear his oath without giving that protection ? Let me ask you why many of us who are opposed to slavery upon principle give our acquiescence to a Fugitive Slave law ? Why do we hold ourselves under obligations to pass such a law, and abide by it when it is passed ? Because the Constitution makes provision that the owners of slaves shall have the right to reclaim them. It gives the right to reclaim slaves ; and that right is, as Judge Douglas says, a barren right, unless there is legis- lation that will enforce it. The mere declaration, " No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be deliv- ered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due," is powerless without specific legislation to enforce it. Now, on what ground AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 155 would a member of Congress who is opposed to slavery in the abstract, vote for a Fugitive law, as I would deem it my duty to do ? Because there is a constitutional right which needs legislation to enforce it. And although it is distasteful to me, I have sworn to support the Constitution ; and having so sworn, I cannot conceive that I do support it if I withhold from that right any necessary legislation to make it practical. And if that is true in regard to a Fugitive Slave law, is the right to have fugitive slaves reclaimed any better fixed in the Constitution than the right to hold slaves in the Territories ? For this decision is a just exposition of the Constitution, as Judge Douglas thinks. Is the one right any better than the other ? Is there any man who, while a member of Congress, would give support to the one any more than the other ? If I wished to refuse to give legislative support to slave property in the Terri- tories, if a member of Congress, I could not do it, holding the view that the Constitution establishes that right. If I did it at all, it would be because I deny that this decision properly construes the Constitution. But if I acknowl- edge, with Judge Douglas, that this decision properly construes the Constitu- tion, I cannot conceive that I would be less than a perjured man if I should refuse in Congress to give such protection to that property as in its nature it needed. At the end of what I have said here I propose to give the Judge my fifth interrogatory, which he may take and answer at his leisure. My fifth inter- rogatory is this : — If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should need and demand Congressional legislation for the protection of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation ? Judge DouGLA-S : Will you repeat that ? I want to answer that question. Mr. Lincoln : If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should need and demand Congressional legislation for the protection of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation ? I am aware that in some of the speeches Judge Douglas has made, he has spoken as if he did not know or think that the Supreme Court had decided that a Territorial legislature cannot exclude slavery. Precisely what the Judge would say upon the subject, — whether he would say definitely that he does not understand they have so decided, or whether he would say he does understand that the court have so decided, — I do not know; but I know that in his speech at Springfield he spoke of it as a thing they had not decided yet ; and in his answer to me at Freeport, he spoke of it, so far, again, as I can comprehend it, as a thing that had not yet been decided. Now, I hold that if the Judge does entertain that view, I think tliat he is not mistaken in so far as it can be said that the court has not decided anything save the mere question of jurisdiction. I know the legal arguments that can be made, — that after a court has decided that it cannot take jurisdiction in a case, it then has decided all that is before it, and that is the end of it. A plausible argu- ment can be made in favor of that proposition ; but I know that Judge Douglas has said in one of his speeches that the court went forward, like honest men as they were, and decided all the points in the case. If any points are really extra-judicially decided because not necessarily before them, then this one as to the power of the Territorial legislature to exclude slavery is one of them, as also the one that the Missouri Compromise was null and void. They are both extra-judicial, or neither is, according as the court held that 156 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN they had no jurisdiction in the case between the parties, because of want of capacity of one party to maintain a siut in that court. I want, if I have sufficient time, to show that the court did pass its opinion ; but that is the only thing actually done in the case. If they did not decide, they showed what they were ready to decide whenever the matter was before them. What is that opinion ? After having argued that Congress had no power to pass a law excluding slavery from a United States Territory, they then used language to this effect: That inasmuch as Congress itself could not exercise such a power, it followed as a matter of course that it could not authorize a Terri- torial government to exercise it ; for the Territorial legislature can do no more than Congress could do. Thus it expressed its opinion emphatically against the power of a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery, leaving us in just as little doubt on that point as upon any other point they really decided. Now, my fellow-citizens, I will detain you only a little while longer ; my time is nearly out. I find a report of a speech made by Judge Douglas at Joliet, since we last met at Freeport, — published, I believe, in the " Missouri Eepublican," — on the 9th of this month, in which Judge Douglas says : — " You know at Ottawa I read this platform, and asked him if he concurred iu each and all of the principles set forth in it. He would not answer these ques- tions. At last I said frankly, I wish you to answer them, because when I get them up here where the color of your principles are a little darker than in Egypt, I intend to trot you down to Jonesboro. The very notice that I was going to take him down to Egypt made him tremble in the knees so that he had to be carried from the platform. He laid up seven days, and in the mean time held a consulta- tion with his political physicians ; they had Lovejoy and Farnsworth and all the leaders of the Abolition party, they consulted it all over, and at last Lincoln came to the conclusion that he would answer, so he came up to Freeport last Friday." Now, that statement altogether furnishes a subject for philosophical con- templation. I have been treating it in that way, and I have really come to the conclusion that I can explain it in no other way than by believing the Judge is crazy. If he was iu his right mind, I cannot conceive how he would have risked disgusting the four or five thousand of his own friends who stood there, and knew, as to my having been carried from the platform, that there was not a word of truth in it. Judge Douglas : Did n't they carry you off ? Mr. Lincoln : There ! that question illustrates the character of this man Douglas exactly. He smiles now, and says, " Did n't they carry you off ? " But he said then " he had to he carried off ; " and he said it to convince the country that he had so completely broken me down by his speech that I had to be carried away. Now he seeks to dodge it, and asks, " Did n't they carry you off ? " Yes, they did. But, Judge Dovglas, ivhy did nt you tell the truth ? I would like to know why you did n't tell the truth about it. And then again, " He laid up seven days." He puts this in print for the people of the country to read as a serious document. I think if he had been in his sober senses he would not have risked that barefacedness in the presence of thou- sands of his own friends, who knew that I made speeches within six of the seven days at Henry, Marshall County, Augusta, Hancock County, and Macomb, McDonough County, including all the necessary travel to meet him again at Freeport at the end of the six days. Now, I say there is no charitable way to look at that statement, except to conclude that he is actually crazy. There is another thing in that statement that alarmed me AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 157 very greatly as he states it, that he was going to " trot me down to Egypt.'' Thereby lie would have you to infer that I would not come to Egypt unless he forced me, — that I could not be got here, unless he, giant-like, had hauled me down here. That statement he makes, too, in the teeth of the knowledge that I had made the stipulation to come down here, and that he himself had teen very rehidant to enter into the stiptdation. More than all this, Judge Douglas, when he made that statement, must have been crazy, and wholly out of his sober senses, or else he would have known that when he got me down here, that promise — that windy promise — of his powers to annihilate me, would n't amount to anything. Now, how little do I look like being carried away trembling ? Let the Judge go on ; and after he is done with his half hour, I want you all, if I can't go home myself, to let me stay and rot here; and if anything happens to the Judge, if I cannot carry him to the hotel and put him to bed, let me stay here and rot. I say, then, there is something extraordinary in this statement. I ask you if you know any other living man who would make such a statement ? I will ask my friend Casey, over there, if he would do such a thing ? Would he send that out, and have his men take it as the truth ? Did the Judge talk of trotting me down to Egypt to scare me to death ? Why, I know this people better than he does. I was raised just a little east of here. I am a part of this people. But the Judge was raised further nortli, and perhaps he has some horrid idea of what this people might be induced to do. But really I have talked about this matter perhaps longer than I ought, for it is no great thing ; and yet the smallest are often the most difficult things to deal with. The Judge has set about seriously trying to make the impression that when we meet at different places I am literally in his clutches, — that I am a poor, helpless, decrepit mouse, and that I can do nothing at all. This is one of the ways he has taken to create that impres- sion. I don't know any other way to meet it, except this. I don't want to quarrel with him, — to call him a liar ; but when I come square up to him I don't know what else to call him, if I must tell the truth out. I want to be at peace, and reserve all my fighting powers for necessary occasions. My time, now, is very nearly out, and I give up the trifle that is left to the Judge, to let him set my knees trembling again, if he can. MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. My friends, while I am very grateful to you for the enthusiasm which you show for me, I will say in all candor, that your quietness will be much more agreeable than your applause, inasmuch as you deprive me of some part of my time whenever you cheer. I will commence where Mr. Lincoln left off, and make a remark upon this serious complaint of his about my speech at Joliet. I did say there in a play- ful manner that when I put these questions to Mr. Lincoln at Ottawa he failed to answer, and that he trembled and had to be carried off the stand, and required seven days to get up his reply. That he did not walk off from that stand he will not deny. That when the crowd went away from the stand with me, a few persons carried him home on their shoulders and laid him down, he will admit. I wish to say to you that whenever I degrade my friends and myself by allowing them to carry me on their backs along through the public streets, when I am able to walk, I am willing to be deemed crazy. 158 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN I did not say whether I beat him or he beat me in the argument. It is true I put these questions to him, and I put them, not as mere idle questions, but showed that I based them upon the creed of the Black Republican party as declared by their conventions in that portion of the State which he depends upon to elect him, and desired to know whether he indorsed that creed. He would not answer. When I reminded him that I intended brinfiincc him into Egypt and renewing my questions,if he refused to answer, he then consulted, and did get up his answers one week after, — answers which I may refer to in a few minutes, and show you how equivocal they are. My object was to make him avow whether or not he stood by the platform of his party ; the resolutions I then read, and upon which I based my questions, had been adopted by his party in the Galena Congressional District, and the Chicago and Bloomington Congressional Districts, composing a large majority of the counties in this State that give Eepublican or Abolition majorities. Mr. Lincoln cannot and will not deny that the doctrines laid down in these resolu- tions were in substance put forth in Lovejoy's resolutions, w^hich were voted for by a majority of his party, some of them, if not all, receiving the support of every man of his party. Hence, I laid a foundation for my questions to him before I asked him whether that was or was not the platform of his party. He says that he answered my questions. One of them was whether he would vote to admit any more Slave States into the Union. The creed of the Eepublican party as set forth in the resolutions of their various conventions was, that they would under no circumstances vote to admit another Slave State. It was put forth in the Lovejoy resolutions in the Legislature ; it was put forth and passed in a majority of all the counties of this State which give Abolition or Republican majorities, or elect members to the Legislature of that school of politics. I had a right to know whether he would vote for or against the admission of another Slave State, in the event the people wanted it. He first answered that he was not pledged on the subject, and then said : — "In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of anj'- more Slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would he exceedingly sorry ever to be put in the position of having to pass on that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be anotlier Slave State admitted into the Union ; hut I must add that if slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the Territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people, having a fair chance and 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 exceed- ingly sorry to be put in a position where he would have to vote on the ques- tion of the admission of a Slave State. Why is he a candidate for the Senate if he would be sorry to be put in that position ? I trust the people of Illinois will not put him in a position which he would be so sorry to occupy. The next position he takes is that he would be glad to know that there would never be another Slave State, yet, in certain contingencies, he might have to vote for one. What is that contingency ? " If Congress keeps slavery out by law while it is a Territory, and then the people should have a fair chance and should adopt slavery, uninfluenced by the presence of the institution," he sup- posed he would have to admit the State. Suppose Congress should not keep AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 159 slavery out during their Territorial existence, then how would he vote when the people applied for admission into the Union with a slave constitution ? That he does not answer ; and that is the condition of every Territory we have now got. Slavery is not kept out of Kansas by Act of Congress ; and when I put the question to Mr, Lincoln, whether he will vote for the admis- sion with or without slavery, as her people may desire, he will not answer, and you have not got an answer from him. In Nebraska, slavery is not pro- hibited by Act of Congress, but 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 JMexico, Washington Territory, Arizona, and the four new States to be admitted from Texas. You cannot get an answer from him to these questions. His answer only applies to a given case, to a condition, — things which he knows do not exist in any one Territory in the Union. He tries to give you to understand that he would allow the people to do as they please, and yet he dodges the question as to every Territory in the Union. I now ask why cannot Mr. Lincoln answer to each of these Ter- ritories ? He has not done it, and he will not do it. The Abolitionists up north understand that this answer is made with a view of not committinff himself on any one Territory now in existence. It is so understood there, and you cannot expect an answer from him on a case that applies to any one Territory, or applies to the new States which by compact we are pledged to admit out of Texas, when they have the requisite population and desire admission., I submit to you whether he has made a frank answer, so that you can tell how he would vote in any one of these cases. " He would be sorry to be put in the position." Why would he be sorry to be put in this position if his duty required him to give the vote ? If the people of a Terri- tory ought to be permitted to come into the Union as a State, with slavery or without it, as they pleased, why not give the vote admitting them cheerfully ? If in his opinion they ought not to come in with slavery, even if they wanted to, why not say that he would cheerfully vote against their admission ? His intimation is that conscience would not let him vote " 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 travelling 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 Trumbull, and Breese, and Giddings, and Chase, and Fred Douglass, and Lovejoy, and all those Abolitionists and deserters from the Democratic party did make speeches all over this State in the same common cause ? Does he deny that Jim Matheny was then, and is now, his confidential friend, and does he deny that Matheny made the charge of the bargain and fraud in his own language, as I have read it from his printed speech ? Matheny spoke of his own personal knowledge of that bargain. existing between Lincoln, Trumbull, and the Abolitionists. He still remains Lincoln's confidential friend, and is now a candidate for Congress, and is canvassing the Springfield District for Lin- coln. I assert that I can prove the charge to be true in detail if I can ever get it where I can summon and compel the attendance of witnesses. I have the statement of another man to the same effect as that made by Matheny, 160 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN which I am not permitted to use yet; but Jim IMatheny is a good witness on that point, and the history of the country is conclusive upon it. That Lin- cohi up to that time had been a Whig, and then undertook to Abolitionize the Whigs and bring them into the Abolition camp, is beyond denial ; that Trumbull up to that time had been a 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 mem- bers of this Abolition liepublicau party, in full communion, is a fact that cannot be questioned or denied. But Lincoln is not willing to be responsible for the creed of his party. He complains because I hold him responsible; and in order to avoid the issue, he attempts to show that individuals in the Democratic party, many years ago, expressed Al)olition sentiments. It is true that Tom Campbell, when a candidate for Congress in 1850, published the letter which Lincoln read. When I asked Lincoln for the date of that letter, he could not give it. The date of the letter has been suppressed by other speakers who have used it, though I take it for granted that Lincoln did not know the date. If he will take the trouble to examine, he will find that the letter was pub- lished only two days before the election, and was never seen until after it, except in one county. Tom Campbell would have been beat to death by the Democratic party if that letter had been made public in his district. As to Molony, it is true he uttered sentiments of the kind referred to by Mr. Lincoln, and the best Democrats would not vote for him for that reason. I returned from Washington after the passage of the Compromise Measures in 1850, and when I found Molony running under Wentworth's tutelage and on his platform, I denounced him, and declared that he was no Democrat. In my speech at Chicago, just before the election that year, I went before the infuriated people of that city and vindicated the Compromise Measures of 1850. Eemember the city council had passed resolutions nullifying Acts of Congress and instructing the police to withhold their assistance from the execution of the laws ; and as I was the only man in the city of Chicago who was responsible for the passage of the Compromise Measures, I went before the crowd, justified each and every one of those measures; and let it be said, to the eternal honor of the people of Chicago, that when they were convinced by my exposition of those measures that they were right, and they had done wrong in opposing them, they repealed their nullifying resolutions, and declared that they would acquiesce in and support the laws of the land. Tliese facts are well known, and Mr. Lincoln can only get up individual instances, dating back to 1849-'50, which are contradicted by the whole tenor of the Democratic creed. But Mr. Lincoln does not want to be held responsible for the Black Eepub- lican doctrine of no more Slave States. Farnsworth is the candidate of his party to-day in the Chicago District, and he made a speech in the last Con- gress in which he called upon God to palsy his right arm if he ever voted for the admission of another Slave State, whether the people wanted it or not. Lovejoy is making speeches all over the State for Lincoln now, and taking ground against any more Slave States. Washburne, the Black Eepublican candidate for Congress in the Galena District, is making speeches in favor of this same Abolition platform declaring no more Slave States. Why are men running for Congress in the northern districts, and taking that Abolition phatform for their guide, wlien Mr. Lincoln does not want to be held to it down here in Egypt and in the centre of the State, and oljects to it so as to AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 161 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 centre, 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 appro- priate application than he did, when I say to him that his party, Abolition in one end of the State, and opposed to it in the other, is a house divided against itself, and cannot stand, and ought not to stand, for it attempts to cheat the American people out of their votes by disguising its sentiments. Mr. Lincoln attempts to cover up and get over his Abolitionism by telling you that he was raised a little east of you, beyond the Wabash in Indiana, and he thinks that makes a mighty sound and good man of him on all these questions. I do not know that the place where a man is born or raised has much to do with his political principles. The worst Abolitionists I have ever known in Illinois have been men who have sold their slaves in Alabama and Kentucky, and have come here and turned Abolitionists 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 excusable because, raised among slaves, his father and mother having owned slaves, he comes to Illinois, turns Abolitionist, and slanders the graves of his father and mother, and breathes curses upon the institutions imder 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 Ver- mont, with the liigh mountains around me. I love the old green mountains and valleys of Vermont, where I was born, and where I played in my child- hood. I went up to visit them some seven or eight years ago, for the first time for twenty odd years. When I got there they treated me very kindly. They invited me to the Commencement of their college, placed me on the seats with their distinguished guests, and conferred upon me the degree of LL. D. in Latin (doctor of laws), — the same as they did old Hickory, at Cambridge, many years ago ; and I give you my word and honor I understood just as much of the Latin as he did. When they got through conferring the honorary 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, provided he emigrates wlien he is very young," I emigrated when I was very young. I came out here when I was a boy, and I found my mind liberalized, and my opinions enlarged, when I got on these broad prairies, with only the heavens to bound my vision, instead of hav- ing them circumscribed by the little narrow ridges that surrounded the valley where I was born. But I discard all flings of the land where a man was born. I wish to be judged by my principles, by those great public measures and constitutional principles upon which the peace, the happiness, and the per- petuity of this Eepublic now rest. Mr. Lincoln has framed another question, propounded it to me, and desired my answer. As I have said before, I did not put a question to him tliat I did not first lay a foundation for by showing that it was a part of the platform of the party whose votes he is now seeking, adopted in a majority of the counties where he now hopes to get a majority, and supported by the candidates of his party now running in those counties. But I will answer his question. It is as follows : " If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should 21 162 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN need and demand Congressional legislation for the protection of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation ? " I answer him that it is a fundamental article in the Democratic creed that there should be non-interference and non-interven- tion by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories. j\Ir. Lincoln could have found an answer to his question in the Cincinnati platform, if he had desired it. Tlie Democratic party have always stood by that great principle of non-interference and non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories alike, and I stand on that platform now. Now, I desire to call your attention to the fact that Lincoln did not define his own position in his own question. How does he stand on that question ? He put the question to me at Freeport whether or not I would vote to admit Kansas into the Union before she had 93,420 inhabitants. I answered him at once that, it having been decided that Kansas had now population enough for a Slave State, she had population enough for a Free State. I answered the question unequivocally ; and tlien I asked him whether he %vould vote for or against the admission of Kansas before she had 93,420 inhabitants, and he would not answer me. To-day he has called attention to the fact that, in his opinion, my answer on that question was not quite plain enough, and yet he has not answered it himself He now puts a question in relation to Congressional interference in the Territories to me. I answer him direct, and yet he has not answered the question himself. I ask you whether a man has any right, in common decency, to put questions in these public discussions, to his opponent, which he will not answer himself, when they are pressed liome to him. I have asked him tliree times whether he would vote to admit Kansas whenever the people applied with a constitution of their own making and their own adoption, under circumstances that were fair, just, and unexceptionable ; but I cannot get an answer from him. Nor will he answer the question which he put to me, and which I have just answered in relation to Congressional interference in the Territories, by making a slave code there. It is true that he goes on to answer the question by arguing that under the decision of the Supreme Court it is the duty of a man to vote for a slave code in the Territories. He says that it is his duty, under the decision that the court has made ; and if he believes in that decision he would be a perjured man if he did not give the vote. I want to know whether he is not bound to a decision which is contrary to his opinions just as much as to one in ac- cordance with his opinions. If the decision of the Supreme Court, the tribunal created by the Constitution to decide the question, is final and binding, is he not bound by it just as strongly as if he was for it instead of against it origi- nally ? Is every man in this land allowed to resist decisions he does not like, and only support those that meet his approval ? What are important courts worth, unless their decisions are binding on all good citizens ? It is the fun- damental principle of the judiciary that its decisions are final. It is created for that purpose ; so that when you cannot agree among yourselves on a dis- puted point, you appeal to the judicial tribunal, which steps in and decides for you ; and that decision is then binding on every good citizen. It is the law of the land just as much with Mr. Lincoln against it as for it. And yet he says that if that decision is binding, he is a perjured man if he does not vote for a slave code in the different Territories of this Union. Well, if you [turning to Mr. Lincoln] are not going to resist the decision, if you obey it, and do not intend to array mob law against the constituted authorities, then. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 163 according to your own statement, you will be a perjured man if you do not vote to establish slavery in these Territories. My doctrine is, that even taking Mr. Lincoln's view that the decision recognizes the right of a man to carry his slaves into the Territories of the United States if he pleases, yet after he gets there he needs affirmative law to make that right of any value. Tiie same doctrine not only applies to slave property, but all other kinds of property. Chief Justice Taney places it upon the ground that slave property is on an equal footing with other property. Suppose one of your merchants should move to Kansas and open a liquor store : he has a right to take groceries and liquors there ; but the mode of selling them, and the circumstances under which they shall be sold, and all the remedies, must be prescribed by local' legislation ; and if that is unfriendly, it will drive him out just as effectually as if there was a constitutional provision against the sale of liquor. So the absence of local legislation to encourage and support slave property in a Territory excludes it practically just as eff'ectually as if there was a positive constitutional pro- vision against it. Hence, I assert that under the Dred Scott decision you cannot maintain slavery a day in a Territory where there is an unwilling people and unfriendly legislation. If the people are opposed to it, our right is a barren, worthless, useless right ; and if they are for it, they will support and encourage it. We come right back, therefore, to the practical question, If the people of a Territory want slavery, they will have it ; and if they do not want it, you cannot force it on them. And this is the practical question, the great principle, upon which our institutions rest. I am willing to take the decision of the Supreme Court as it was pronounced by that august tri- bunal, without stopping to inquire whether I would have decided that way or not. I have had many a decision made against me on questions of law which I did not like, but I was bound by them just as much as if I had had a hand in making them and approved them. Did you ever see a lawyer or a client lose his case that he approved the decision of the court ? They always think the decision unjust when it is given against them. In a government of laws, like ours, we must sustain the Constitution as our fathers made it, and main- tain the rights of the States as they are guaranteed under the Constitution ; and then we will have peace and harmony between the different States and sections of this glorious Union. FOURTH JOINT DEBATE, AT CHARLESTON. September 18, 1858. MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : It will be very difficult for an audience so large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently 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 perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me, I 164 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes iu saying sometliing in regard to it. I will say, then, that I ara not, nor ever have heen, 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 diff'erence 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 cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of hav- ing 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. ]\Iy understanding is that I can just let her alone. 1 am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recol- lect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel Eichard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it ; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this : that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, except in the State Legislature, — not in the Congress of the United States ; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. 1 do not propose dwelling louger at this time on this subject. When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to Illinois in the month of August, lie made a speech at Chicago, in which he made M'hat may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which I understand proved to be very offensive to him. The Judge was at that time out upon one of his speaking tours through the country, and when the news of it reached him, as 1 am informed, he denounced Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for hav- ing said what he did in regard to that matter. I was travelling at that time, and speaking at the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent days ; and when I heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and what Douglas had said back again, I felt that I was in a position where I could not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter. Consequently, upon two or three occa- sions 1 alluded to it, and alluded to it in no other wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by Trumbull against Douglas, I 'personally knew nothing, and sought to say nothing about it ; that I did personally know Judge AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 165 Trumbull ; that I believed him to be a man of veracity ; that I believed him to be a man of capacity suflicient to know very well whether an assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn from a set of facts, was true or false ; and as a conclusion of my own from that, I stated it as my belief, if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove everything he had said. I said this upon two or three occasions. Upon a subsequent occasion. Judge Trum- bull spoke again before an audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his charge against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to substantiate it. This speech was published at length ; and subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In the course of his speech, and near the close of it, he stated in regard to myself what I will now read: " Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders." I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitation to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally been my purpose to discuss that matter at all. Lut inas- much as it seems to be the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once in my life I will play General Jackson, and to the just extent I take the responsibility. I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that por- tion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at Jacksonville in answer to it. I shall thereby furnish tlie readers of this debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take half of my first hour to do so. I can only make some comments upon them. Trumbull's charge is in the following words : " Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a Constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot." I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he regards as sufficient evidence to sub- stantiate this charge.^ It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigier, upon the floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference among the senators, in which conference it was determined to have an Enabling Act passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution under, and in this con- ference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people after it should be formed. He then brings forward to show, and showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with that clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause inserted into the bill, which would in its nature 2y>'C've7it a reference of the constitution back for a vote of the people, — if, indeed, upon a mere silence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to vote upon it. These are the general statements that be lias made. I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he makes is : " 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 1 See Trumbull's speech at the close of this debate. 166 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN against their will ? " His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the purpose of robbing the people of that riglit. I would say, in the first place, that that would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, as Judge I)ougias states, that many Territorial bills have passed without having such a provision in tlieni. I believe it is true, though I am not certain, that in some instances, constitutions framed under such bills have been submitted to a vote of the people, with the law silent upon the subject ; but it does not appear that they once had their Enabling Acts framed with an express provision for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people, and then that they were stricken out when Congress did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have been bills which never had the provision in, I do not question ; but when was that provision taken out of one that it was in ? More especially does this evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trum- bull advanced, when we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almost simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a con- ference 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 whicli it was agreed they should so frame the bill that there should be no submission of the constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge does not notice this part of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to be submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter into a plot to put in force a constitution for Kansas without 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 examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted." This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I only want 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- nall}^ brought it forward ? I ask why, if the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take tlie 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 Trumbull tells a lie about these words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken out, I have before me what I sup- pose to be a genuine copy of the Toombs bill, in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says were in it were, in fact, originally there. If there be any dispute upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show they were there. If there be any controversy upon the sense of the words, — whether these words which were stricken out really constituted a provision for sub- AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 167 mitting tlie matter to a vote of the people, — as that is a matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull's own argument. He says that the propo- sition is in these words : — " That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to tlie said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their free acceptance or rejec- tion ; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified hy the peoiJle at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill when it came back, and he says tliis was a provision for submitting the consti- tution to a vote of the people ; and his argument is this : " Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the election for the adop- tion of the constitution, unless such an election was to be held ? " This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge at all, but he stands up and says there was no such proposition in that bill for sub- mitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people. Trumbull admits that the language is not a direct provision for submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another provision. He asks you how it is possible to ratify the land proposition at the election for the adoption of tlie constitution, if there was no election to be held for the adoption of the consti- tution. And he goes on to show that it is not any less a law because the pro- vision is put in that indirect shape than it would be if it was put directly. But I presume I have said enough to draw attention to this point, and I pass it by also. Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumliull, and at very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in a speech in the Senate that he supposed 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 anybody thinking otherwise now ? Fellow-citizens, this much may be said in reply : That bill had been in the hands of a party to which Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of the committee, at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had a printed copy of the original Toombs bill. I have not the evidence on that point, except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of business there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of altering, were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, until the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterward, when it was reported back, there was a dis- cussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull in reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the bearings of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not follow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive, that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that what Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did ? Suppose 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 per- ceive he was in the plot ? He also asks the question : Why did n'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 con- nection 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 receive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull did 168 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN 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 7ioticcd that part of it at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment, does not throw much blame upon him ; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact as to what Judge Douglas taas 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 submitting the constitution to a vote of the people when it went into his (Judge Douglas's) hands, that it was missing when he reported it to the Senate, and that in a public speech he had subse- quently 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 Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that tlie bill not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with another clause and another pro- vision in it, saying that " until the complete execution of this Act there shall be no election in said Territory," — which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but was adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from exer- cising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the question. Now, in regard to what he says, that Trumbull sliifts the issue, that he shifts his ground, — and I believe he uses the term that, " it being proven false, he has changed ground," — I call upon all of you, when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's speech (for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trumbull has shifted his ground or not. I say he did not shift his ground, but that he brought forward his original chars^e and the evidence to sus- O ^ O Oil tain it yet more fully, but precisely as he originally made it. Then, in addition thereto, he 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 he thought, and as I think, to prove his prop- osition. To illustrate : A man brinus an accusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a second trial he introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and a third witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives farther testimony corroborative of 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 Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last pro- vision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and a substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is true that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. Trumbull has not said it was not. Trumbull has himself said that it was so stricken out. He says : " I am speaking of the bill as Judge Douglas reported it back. It was amended AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 169 somewhat in the Senate before it passed, but I am speaking of it as he brought it back." Now, when Judge Douglas parades the fact that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he asserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only said that he originally put it in, — not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull says it was not in the bill w^hen it went to the committee. AVhen it came back it was in, and Judsxe Douolas said the alterations w^ere made by him in consultation wnth Toombs. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants to contradict Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not put it in, and not that he did n't take it out again. It is said that a bear is sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub ; and so I presume it was in this case. I presume the truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward took it out. That I take it is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing, Douglas says another thing, and the two don't contradict one another at all. The question is, What did he put it in for ? In the first place, wdiat did he take the other provision out of the bill for, — the provision which Trumbull argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people ? What did he take that out for ; and, having taken it out, what did he put this in for ? I say that in the run of things, it is not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge Douglas to take that latter clause out again. The question that Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in ; and he don't meet Trumbull at all unless he denies that. In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses tliis language toward Judge Trumbull. He says : " He forges his evidence from beginning to end ; and by falsifying the record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge." Well, that is a pretty serious statement. Trumbull forges his evidence from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say that it is not true. What is a forgery ? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has brought forward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to, examine whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had the bill or document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says that is a copy of the Toombs bill, — the amendment offered by Toombs. He says that is a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas's hands. Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery ? That is one thing Trumbull brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning to end ! That is the " beginning," we will say. Does Douglas say that is a forgery ? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent examination upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery ? Does he say it in his general sweeping charge ? Does he say so now ? If he does not, then take this Toombs bill and the bill in the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see that the provision is in the one and not in the other ; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken out. But while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull's other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull says there are in this original Toombs bill these words : " That the following propo- sitions be, and the same are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejection ; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we 22 170 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN will open the paper here and see whether it is or uot. Agaiu, Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December 9, 1857 : — " I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the bill was introduced, and the question Avas raised and discussed, whether tlie constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was held by those most in- telligent on the subject that in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better there should be no such provision in the Toombs bill ; and it was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the Convention would make a constitution, and send it here, without submitting it to the popular vote." Then Trumbull follows on : — " In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 [" Congressional Globe," same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said : — " ' Xothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollection was clear that I left the confer- ence under the impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this Convention. This impression was stronger because I thouglit the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great aversion ; but with the hope of accomplishing a great good, and as no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of testimony as to the correctness of these impres- sions, and with their submission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows : — " ' " That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejec- tion ; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the Constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." " ' The bin read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same section word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the conference referred to ; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate with amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the third section Avhich indicated to the Convention that the constitution should be approved by the people. The words, " and ratified hy the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution" had been stricken out.' " !N"ow, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the " Congressional Globe " on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is a forgery ? Does he say there is no such thing in the " Congressional Globe " ? "What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his evidence from beginning to end ? So again he says in another place, that Judge Douglas, in his speech, December 9, 1857 (" Congressional Globe," part I. page 15), stated': — " That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified hy him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate." AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, 171 Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and is recorded in tlie " Congressional Globe." Is it a forgery ? Is it there or not ? It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take these pieces of evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he dare do it. A voice : He will. Mr. Lincoln : Well, sir, you had better not commit him. He gives other quotations, — another from Judge Douglas. He says : — " I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union, from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the people. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so understood at the time. If the 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 certaiidy have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done, which ought in fairness to have been done." Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. Does Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true ? Trumbull says somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any one who will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the notice of those who were engi- neering the bill, that it lacked that provision ; and then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge Douglas, where Judge Trumbull uses this language : — "Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probably recollecting or being reminded of the fiict that I had objected to the Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for a submission of the constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the 'Globe,' page 22, in which he says : — " ' That the bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention was called to that about the time it was passed ; and I took the fair construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the constitution would be sub- mitted to the people.' " Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that it was a new dis- covery, you will determine." So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and yet maintain his position that Trumbull's evidence " was forged from begin- ning to end." I will remark that I have not got these " Congressional Globes " with me. They are large books, and difficult to carry about, and if Judge Douglas shall say that on these points where Trumbull has quoted from them tliere are no such passages there, I shall not be able to prove they are there upon this occasion, but I will have another chance. Whenever he points out the forgery and says, " I declare that this particular thing which Trumbull has uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then my attention will be drawn to tliat, and I will arm myself for the contest, — stating now that I have not tlie slightest doubt on earth that I will find every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the question is, How can Douglas call that a forgery ? How can he make out that it is a forgery ? What is a forgery ? It is the bringing forward something in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect when it is altogether untrue. If you come forward with my note for one hundred dollars when I have never given such a note, there is a 172 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN forgery. If you come forward with a letter purporting to be Avritten by me which I never wrote, there is another forgery. If you produce anything in writing or in print saying it is so and so, the document not being genuine, a forgery has been committed. How do you make this a forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine ? If Judge Douglas does say tliese docu- ments and quotations are false and forged, he has a full right to do so ; but until he does it specitically we don't know how to get at him. If he does say they are false and forged, I will then look further into it, and I presume I can procure the certificates of the proper ofUcers that they are genuine copies. I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly wliere Trumbull says it is. Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in making his sweeping charoe that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged from beginning to end, at all meets the case, — if that is the way to get at the facts. I repeat again, if he will point out which one is a forgery, I will carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one of them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it any longer. I have always wanted to deal with every one I meet, candidly and honestly. If I have made any assertion not warranted by facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully. But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and tlje evidence he has brought forward branded in general terms, "a forgery from beginning to end." This is not the legal way of meeting a charge, and I submit to all intelligent persons both friends of Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is. The point upon Judge Douglas is this. The bill that went into his hands had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to the people ; and I say its language amounts to an express provision for a submission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was known that the bill was silent in this particular ; hut I say, Judge Douglas, it was not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the declaration, when you got it, for a submission of the con- stitution to the people. And now, my direct question to Judge Douglas is, to answer why, if he deemed the bill silent on this point, he found it necessary to strike out those particular harmless words. If he had found the bill silent and without this provision, he might say what he does now. If he supposes it was implied that the constitution would be submitted to a vote of the people, how could these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to strike them out ? How could he infer that a submission was still implied, after its express provision had been stricken from the bill ? I find the bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it out, and although he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a vote of the people, I ask, WJty did you first jiut it in .? I ask him whether he took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges was in the bill? If he admits that he did take it, I ash him n-Jiat he did it for ? It looks to us as if he had altered the bill. If it looks differently to him, — if he has a different reason for his action from the one we assign bim — he can tell it. I insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it. I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three minutes of being out. I presume it is expired now ; I therefore close. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 17B SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies axd Gentlemen : I had supposed that we assembled here to-day for the purpose of a joiut discussiou between Mr. Lincohi and myself upon the political questions that now agitate the whole country. The rule of such discussions is, that the opening speaker shall touch upon all the points he intends to discuss, in order that his opponent, in reply, shall have the oppor- tunity of answering them. Let me ask you what questions of public policy, relatino- to the welfare of this State or the Union, has IMr. Lincoln discussed before you ? Mr. Lincoln simply contented himself at the outset by sayiug that he was not in favor of social and political equality between the white man and the negro, and did not desire the law so clianged as to make the latter voters or eligible to office. I am <>lad that I have at last succeeded in getting an answer out of him upon this question of negro citizenship and eligibility to office, for I have been trying to bring him to the point on it ever since this canvass commenced. I will now call your attention to the question which Mr. Lincoln has occupied his entire time in discussing. He spent his whole hour in retailing a charge made by Senator Trumbull against me. The circumstances out of M'hich that charge was manufactured occurred prior to the last Presidential election, over two years ago. If the charge was true, why did not Trumbull make it in 1856, when I was discussing the questions of that day all over this State with Lincoln and him, and when it was pertinent to the then issue ? He was then as silent as the grave on the subject. If that charge was true, the time to have brought it forward was the canvass of 1856, the year wlien the Toombs bill passed the Senate. When the facts were fresh in the public mind, when the Kansas question was the paramount question of the day, and when such a charge would have had a material bearing on the election, whv did he and Lincoln remain silent then, knowino- that such a chariie could be made and proven if true ? Were they not false to you and false to the country in going through that entire campaign, concealing their knowledge of this enormous conspiracy which, Mr. Trumbull says, he then knew and would not tell ? Mr. Lincoln intimates, in his speech, a good reason why Mr. Trumbull would not tell, for he says that it might be true, as I proved that it was at Jacksonville, that Trumbull was also in the plot, yet that the fact of Trum- bull's being in the plot would not in any way relieve me. He illustrates this argument by supposing himself on trial for murder, and says that it would be no extenuating circumstance if, on his trial, another man was found to be a party to his crime. Well, if Trumbull was in the plot, and concealed it in order to escape the odium which would have fallen upon himself, I ask you whether you can believe him now when he turns State's evidence, and avows his own infamy in order to implicate me. I am amazed that Mr. Lincoln sliould now come forward and indorse that charge, occupying his whole hour in reading Mr. Trumbull's speech in support of it. Why, I ask, does not Mr. Lincoln make a speech of his own instead of taking up his time reading Trumbull's speech at Alton ? I supposed that Mr. Lincoln was capable of making a public speech on his own account, or I should not have accepted the banter from him for a joint discussion. ["How about the charges?"] Do not trouble yourselves, I am going to make my speech in my own way, and I trust, as the IJemocrats listened patiently and respectfully to Mr. Lincoln, that his friends will not interrupt me when I am answering him. When Mr. Trumbull returned from the East, the first thing he did when he landed at 174 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Chicago was to make a speech wholly devoted to assaults upon my public character and public action. Up to that time I had never alluded to his course in Congress, or to him directly or indirectly, and hence his assaults upon me were entirely without provocation and without excuse. Since then he has been travelling from one end of the State to the other, repeating his vile charge. I propose now to read it in his own language : — " Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that there was a preconcerted arrangement and plot entered into by the very men who now claim credit for oppos- ing a constitution formed and put in force without giving the people any opportunity to pass upon it. This, my friends, is a serious charge, but I charge it to-night tliat the very men who traverse the country imder banners proclaiming popular sovereignty, by design concocted a bill on purpose to force a constitution upon that people." In answer to some one in the crowd who asked him a question, Trumbull said : — " And you want to satisfy yourself that he was in the plot to force a constitution upon that peopled I will satisfy you. I will cram the truth down any honest man's throat until he cannot deny it. And to the man who does deny it, I will cram the lie down his throat till he shall cry enough. " It is preposterous ; it is the most damnable effrontery that man ever put on, to conceal a scheme to defraud and cheat the people out of their rights, and then- claim credit for it." That is the polite language Senator Trumbull applied to me, his colleague, when I was two hundred miles off. Why did he not speak out as boldly in the Senate of the United States, and cram the lie down my throat when I denied the charge, first made by Bigler, and made him take it back ? You all recollect how Bigler assaulted me when I was engaged in a hand-to-hand fight, resisting a scheme to force a constitution on the people of Kansas against their will. He then attacked me with this charge ; but I proved its utter falsity, nailed the slander to the counter, and made him take the back track. There is not an honest man in America who read that debate who will pre- tend that the charge is true. Trumbull was then present in the Senate, face to face with me ; and why did he not then rise and repeat the charge, and say he would cram the lie down my throat ? I tell you that Trumbull then knew it was a lie. He knew that Toombs denied that there ever was a clause in the bill he brought forward, calling for and requiring a submission of the Kansas Constitution to the people. I will tell you what the facts of the case were. I introduced a bill to authorize the people of Kansas to form a consti- tution, and come into the Union as a State whenever they should have the requisite population for a member of Congress, and Mr. Toombs proposed a substitute, authorizing the people of Kansas, with their then population of only 25,000, to form a constitution, and come in at once. The question at issue was, whether we would admit Kansas with a population of 25,000, or, make her wait until she had the ratio entitling her to a representative in Con- gress, which was 93,420. That was the point of dispute in the Committee of Territories, to which both my bill and Mr. Toombs's substitute had been referred. I was overruled by a majority of the committee, my proposition rejected, and Mr. Toombs's proposition to admit Kansas then, with her popu- lation of 25,000, adopted. Accordingly, a bill to carry out his idea of immedi- ate admission was reported as a substitute for mine : the only points at issue AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 175 being, as I have already said, the question of population, and the adoption of safeguards against frauds at tlie election. Trumbull knew this, — the whole Senate knew it, — and hence he was silent at that time. He waited until I became engaged in this canvass, and finding that I was showing up Lincoln's Abolitionism and negro equality doctrines, that I was driving Lincoln to the wall, and white men would not support his rank Abolitionism, he came back from the East and trumped up a system of charges against me, hoping that I would be compelled to occupy my entire time in defending myself, so that I would not be able to show up the enormity of the principles of the Abolition- ists. Now, the only reason, and the true reason, why Mr. Lincoln has occu- pied the whole of his first hour in this issue between Trumbull and myself, is, to conceal from this vast audience the real questions which divide the two great parties. I am not going to allow them to waste much of my time with these per- sonal matters. I have lived in this State twenty-five years, most of that time have been in public life, and my record is open to you all. If that record is not enough to vindicate me from these petty, malicious assaults, I despise ever to be elected to office by slandering my opponents and traducing other men. Mr. Lincoln asks you to elect him to the United States Senate to-day solely because he and Trumbull can slander me. Has he given any other reason ? Has he avowed what he was desirous to do in Congress on any one question ? He desires to ride into office, not upon his own merits, not upon the merits and soundness of his principles, but upon his success in fastening a stale old slander upon me. I wish you to bear in mind that up to the time of the introduction of the Toombs bill, and after its introduction, there had never been an Act of Con- gress for the admission of a new State which contained a clause requiring its constitution to be submitted to the people. The general rule made the law silent on the subject, taking it for granted that the people would demand and compel a popular vote on the ratification of their constitution. Such was the general rule under Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and Polk, under the Whig Presidents and the Democratic Presidents, from the beginning of the government down, and nobody dreamed that an effort would ever be made to abuse the power thus confided to the people of a Territory. For this reason our attention was not called to the fact of whether there was or was not a clause in the Toombs bill compelling submission, but it was taken for granted that the constitution would be submitted to the people whether the law compelled it or not. Now, I will read from the report by me as Chairman of the Committee on Territories at the time I reported back the Toombs substitute to the Senate. It contained several things which I had voted against in committee, but had been overruled by a majority of the members, and it was my duty as Chair- man of the Committee to report the bill back as it was agreed upon by them. The main point upon which I had been overruled was the question of popu- lation. In my report accompanying the Toombs bill, I said : — " In the opinion of your Committee, whenever a constitution shall be formed in any Territory, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State, justice, the genius of our institutions, the whole theory of our republican system, imperatively demand that the voice of the people shall be fsiirly expressed, and their will embodied in that fundamental law, without fraud, or violence, or intimidation, or any other improper or uidawful influence, and subject to no other restrictions than those im- posed by the Constitution of the United States." 176 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN There you find that we took it for granted that the constitution was to be submitted to the people, whether the bill was silent on the subject or not. Suppose I had reported it so, following the example of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmoi'e, and Pierce, would that fact have been evidence of a conspiracy to force a constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will ? If the charge whicli Mr. Lincoln makes be true against me, it is true against Zachary Taylor, IMillard Fillmore, and every Wliig President, as well as every Democratic President, and against Henry Clay, who, in the Senate or House, for forty years advocated bills similar to tlie one I reported, no one of them con- taining a clause compelling the submission of the constitution to the people. Are Mr. Lincoln and JMr. Trumbull prepared to charge upon all those eminent men from the beginning of the government down to the present day, that the absence of a provision compelling submission, in the various bills passed by them, authorizing the people of Territories to form State constitutions, is evidence of a corrupt design on their part to force a constitution upon an unwilling people ? I ask you to reflect on these things, for I tell you that there is a conspiracy to carry this election for the Black Eepublicans by slander, and not by fair means. Mr. Lincoln's speech this day is conclusive evidence of the fact. He has devoted his entire time to an issue between Mr. Trumbull and myself, and has not uttered a word about the politics of the day. Are you going to elect Mr. Trumbull's colleague upon an issue between Mr. Trumbull and me ? I thought I was running against Abraham Lincoln, that he claimed to be my opponent, had challenged me to a discussion of the public questions of the day with him, and was discussing these questions with me ; but it turns out that his only hope is to ride into office on Trumbull's back, who will carry him by falsehood. Permit me to pursue this subject a little further. An examination of the record proves that Trumbull's charge — that the Toombs bill originally con- tained a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted to the people — is false. The printed copy of the bill which Mr. Lincoln held up before you, and which he pretends contains such a clause, merely contains a clause requiring a submission of the land grant, and there is no clause in it requiring a submission of the constitution. Mr. Lincoln cannot find such a clause in it. My report shows that we took it for granted that the people would require a submission of the constitution, and secure it for themselves. There never was a clause in the Toombs bill requiring the constitution to be submitted ; Trumbull knew it at the time, and his speech made on the night of its pas- sage discloses the fact that he knew it was silent on the subject. Lincoln pretends, and tells you, that Trumbull has not changed his evidence in sup- port of his charge since he made his speech in Chicago. Let us see. The Chicago " Times " took up Trumbull's Chicago speech, compared it with the official records of Congress, and proved that speech to be false in its charge that the original Toombs bill required a submission of the constitution to the people. Trumbull then saw that he was caught, and his falsehood exposed, and he 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 constitution to the people, and quoted what he pretended was the clause. Now, has not Mr. Trumbull entirely changed the evidence on which he bases his charge ? The clause which he quoted in AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 177 his Alton speech (which he has published and circulated broadcast over the State) as having been put into the Toombs bill by nie, is in the following words : " And until the complete execution of this Act, no other election shall be held in said Territory." Trumbull says that the object of that amendment was to prevent the Con- vention from submitting the constitution to a vote of the people. Now, I will show you that when Trumbull made that statement at Alton he knew it to be untrue. I read from Trumbull's speech in the Senate on the Toombs bill on the night of its passage. He then said : — " There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have discovered, about submitting the constitution, which is to he formed, to the people for their sanction or rejection. Perhaps the Convention will have the right to submit it, if it should think proper, but it is certainly not compelled to do so, according to the provisions of the bill." Thus you see that Trumbull, when the bill was on its passage in the Senate, said that it was silent on the subject of submission, and that there was nothing in the bill one way or the other on it. In his Alton speech he says there was a clause in the bill preventing its submission to the people, and that I had it voted in as an amendment. Thus I convict him of false- hood and slander by quoting 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 ? I will now show you that the clause which Trumbull says 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 substi- tuted in its place. I call your attention to the same volume of the " Con- gressional Globe " to which I have already referred, page 795, where you will find the following report of the proceedings of the Senate : — ^' Mr. Douglas : I have an amendment to offer from the Committee on Terri- tories. On page 8, section 11, strike out the words 'until the complete execution of this Act, no other election shall be held in said Territory/ and insert the amendment which I hold in my hand." You see from this that I moved to strike out the very words that Trum- bull says I put in. The Committee on Territories overruled me in committee, and put the clause in ; but as soon as I got the bill 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 amendment was agreed to ttnanimously. I then offered another amendment, 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 Committee, to fol- low the amendment which has been adopted. The bill reads now : 'And until the complete execution of tliis 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 this Act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby postponed until such time as said Convention shall appoint,' so that they can appoint the day in the event that there should be a failure to come into the Union." The amendment was unanimously agreed to, — clearly and distinctly recognizing the right of the Convention to order just as many elections as 23 178 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN they saw proper in the execution of the Act. Triunbull 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 submission, in the face of the fact, that, on my motion, the bill was so amended before it passed as to recognize in express words the right and duty of submission. On this record that I have produced before you, I repeat my charge that Trumbull did falsify the public records of tlie country, in order to make his charge against me, and I tell Mr. Abraham Lincoln that if he will examine these records, he will then know that what I state is true. Mr. Lincoln has this day indorsed Mr. Trumbull's 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. Lincoln, in parading his calumnies against me, to put Mr. Trumbull between him and the odium and responsibility which justly attaches to such calumnies. I 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 petty personal matters. It is unbecoming the dignity of a canvass for an ofhce of the character for which we are candidates. When I commenced the canvass at Chicago, I spoke of Mr. Lincoln in terms of kind- ness as an old friend ; I said that he was a good citizen, of unblemished char- acter, against whom I liad 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 disagreeable, un courteous, or disreputable in these personalities, the sole responsibility rests on Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Trumbull, and their backers. I will show you another charge made by Mr. Lincoln against me, as an off-set to his determination of willingness to take back anything that is incor- rect, and to correct any false statement he may have made. He has several times charged that the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself, at the time I introduced the Nebraska bill in January, 1854, at Washington, entered into a conspiracy 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. I told him, " Mr. Lincoln, I know what you are after, — you want to occupy my time in personal matters, to prevent me from showing up the revolutionary principles which the Abolition party — whose candidate you are — have proclaimed to the world." But he asked me to analyze liis proof, and I did so. I called his attention to the fact that at the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, 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 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 pending that year, there was an understanding between the Democratic owners of Dred Scott and the Judges of the Supreme Court and other parties involved, 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 Eev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress from Springfield, AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 179 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 emanci- pating 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 defence was conducted by Abolition lawyers, — and thus the Abolitionists managed 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 wlio 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 unscrupulous this charge against the Supreme Court, President Pierce, Presi- dent Buchanan, and myself is. Lincoln says that President Buchanan was in the conspiracy at Washington in the winter of 1854, when the Nebraska 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 distinguished ability and usefulness, that he had not been in the United States for nearly a year previous, and that he did not return until about three years after. Yet Mr. Lincoln keeps repeating this charge of conspiracy against Mr. Buchanan when the public records prove it to be untrue. Having proved it to be false as far as the Supreme Court and President Buchanan are con- cerned, I drop it, leaving the public to say whether I, by myself, without their concurrence, could have gone into a conspiracy with them. My friends, you see that the object clearly is to conduct the canvass on personal matters, and hunt me down with charges that are proven to be false by the public records of the country, I am willing to throw open my whole public and private life to the inspection of any man, or all men who desire to investigate it. Hav- ing resided among you twenty-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 public conduct without making any more defence against these assaults. Fellow-Citizens, I came here for the purpose of discussing the leading poli- tical topics which now agitate the country. I 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 satis- factory, I leave others to ascertain the fact ; if liis course on the Mexican 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. I have no assaults to make upon him, except to trace his course on the questions that now divide the country and engross so much of tlie people's attention. You know that prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great poli- tical parties, one the Whig, the other the Democratic. I, as a Democrat for twenty years prior to that time, had been in public discussions in this State as an advocate of Democratic principles, and I can appeal with confidence to every old line Whig within the hearing of my voice to bear testimony that during all that period I fought you Whigs like a man on every question that separated the two parties. I had the highest respect for Henry Clay as a gal- lant party leader, as an eminent statesman, and as one of the bright orna- ments of this country ; but I conscientiously believed that the Democratic 180 DEBATES, BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN party was right on the questions whicli separated the Democrats from the Whigs. The man does not live who can say that I ever personally assailed Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, or any one of the leaders of that great party, whilst I combated with all my energy the measures they advocated. What did we differ about in those days ? Did Whigs and Democrats differ about this slavery question ? On the contrary, did we not, in 1850, unite to a man in favor of that system of Compromise measures which Mr. Clay introduced, Webster defended, Cass supported, and Fillmore approved and made the law of the laud by his signature ? While we agreed on those Compromise measures, we differed about a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, the sub- treasury, and other questions of that description. Now, let me ask you wliich one of those questions on which Whigs and Democrats then differed now remains to divide the two great parties ? Every one of those questions which divided Whigs and Democrats has passed away, the country has outgrown them, they have passed into history. Hence it is immaterial whether you were right or I was right on the bank, the sub-treasury, and other questions, because they no longer continue living issues. What, then, has taken the place of those questions about which we once differed ? The slavery question has now become the leading and controlling issue ; that question on which you and I agreed, on which the Whigs and Democrats united, has now become the lead- ing issue between the National Democracy on the one side, and the Eepublican, or Abolition, party on the other. Just recollect for a moment the memorable contest of 1850, when this coun- try was agitated from its centre to its circumference by the slavery agitation. All eyes in this nation were then turned to the three great lights that survived the days of the Eevolution. They looked to Clay, tlien in retirement at Ash- land, and to Webster and Cass, in the United States Senate. Clay had retired to Ashland, having, as he supposed, performed his mission on earth, and was preparing himself for a better sphere of existence in another world. In that retirement he heard the discordant, harsh, and grating sounds of sectional strife and disunion, and he aroused and came forth and resumed his seat in the Senate, that great theatre of his great deeds. From the moment that Clay arrived among us he became the leader of all the Union men, whether Whigs or Democrats. For nine months we each assembled, each day, in the council- chamber, Clay in the chair, with Cass upon his right hand, and Webster upon his left, and the Democrats and Whigs gathered around, forgetting differences, and only animated by one common, patriotic sentiment, to devise means and measures by which we could defeat the mad and revolutionary scheme of the Northern Abolitionists and Southern disunionists. We did devise those means. Clay brought them forward, Cass advocated them, the Union Democrats and Union Whigs voted for them, Fillmore signed them, and they gave peace and quiet to the country. Those Compromise measures of 1850 were founded upon the great fundamental principle that the people of each State and each Territory ought to be left free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Federal Constitution. I will ask every old line Democrat and every old line Whig within the hearing of my voice if I have not truly stated the issues as they then presented themselves to the coun- try. You recollect that the Abolitionists raised a howl of indignation, and cried for vengeance and the destruction of Democrats and Whigs both, who supported those Compromise measures of 1850. When I returned home to Chicago, I found the citizens inflamed and infuriated against the authors of those great measures. Being the only man in that city wlio was held responsible for aftirmative votes on all those measures, I came forward and AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 181 addressed the assembled iDhabitants, defended each and every one of Clay's Compromise measures as they passed the Senate and the House, and were ap- proved by President Fillmore. Previous to that time, the city council had passed resolutions nullifying the Act of Congress, and instructing the police to withhold all assistance from its execution ; but the people of Chicago listened to my defence, and, like candid, frank, conscientious men, when they became convinced that they had done an injustice to Clay, Webster, Cass, and all of us who had supported those measures, tliey repealed their nullifying resolutions, and declared that the laws should be executed and the supremacy of the Con- stitution maintained. Let it always be recorded in history to the immortal honor of the people of Chicago that they returned to their duty when they found that they were wrong, and did justice to tliose whom they had blamed and abused unjustly. When the Legislature of this State assembled that year, they proceeded to pass resolutions approving the Compromise measures of 1850. When the Whig party assembled in 1852 at Baltimore in National Convention for the last time, to nominate Scott for the Presidency, they adopted as a part of their platform the Compromise measures of 1850 as the cardinal plank u]wn which every Whig would stand, and by wliich he would regulate his future conduct. When the Democratic party assembled at the same place one month after, to nominate General Pierce, we adopted the same platform so far as those Compromise measures were concerned, agreeing tliat 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 questions. 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 liroad and wide by the great Webster ? How is it that so many old line Democrats have abandoned the old faith of their party, and joined with Abolitionism and Free-soilism to overturn the platform of the old Democrats, and the plattbrm of the old Whigs ? You cannot deny that since 1854 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 tlie god-like Webster, than many of the leaders of the Whig party, such as Seward of New York and his followers, led off 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 l)ill, the disappointed politicians in the Demo- cratic party united with the disappointed politicians in the Wliig party, and endeavored to form a new party, composed of all the Abolitionists, of Aboli- tionized Democrats and Abolitionized Whigs, banded together in an Abolition platform. And who led that crusade against National principles in this State ? I answer, Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the Wiiigs, 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 place of General Shields, and that Trumbull should go to Congress from the Ijelleville District until I would be accommo- dating 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. Trumbull, one an old line Whig and the other an old line Democrat, were hunting in partnership to elect a 182 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Legislature against the Democratic party. I canvassed the State that year from the time I returned home until the election came off, and spoke in every county that I could reach during that period. In the northern part of the State I found Lincoln's ally, in the person of Fred Douglass, the negro, preaching Abolition doctrines, while Lincoln was discussing the same princi- ples down here, and Trumbull, a little farther down, was advocating the elec- tion of members to the Legislature who would act in concert with Lincoln's and Fred Douglass's friends. I witnessed an effort made at Chicago by Lincoln's then associates, and now supporters, to put Fred Douglass, the negro, on the stand at a Democratic meeting, to reply to the illustrious General Cass, when he was addressing the people there. They had the same negro hunting me down, and they now have a negro traversing the northern counties of the State and speaking in behalf of Lincoln. Lincoln knows that when we were at Freeport in joint discussion there was a distinguished colored friend of his there then who was on the stump for him, and who made a speech there the night before we spoke, and another the night after, a short distance from Free- port, in favor of Lincoln ; and in order to show how much interest the colored brethren felt in the success of their brother Abe, I have with me here, and would read it if it would not occupy too much of my time, a speech made by Fred Douglass in Poughkeepsie, N. Y., a short time since, to a large Conven- tion in which Jie conjures all the friends of negro equality and negro citizenship to rally as one man around Abraham Lincoln, the perfect embodiment of their principles, and by all means to defeat Stephen A. Douglas. Thus you find that this Kepublican party in the northern part of the State had colored gentle- men for their advocates in 1854, in company with Lincoln and Trumbull, as they have now. When, in October, 1854, 1 went down to Springfield to attend the State Fair, I found the leaders of this party all assembled together under the title of an anti-Nebraska meeting. It was Black Eepublicans up north, and anti-Nebraska at Springfield. I found Lovejoy, a high-priest of Aboli- tionism, and Lincoln, one of the leaders who was towing the old line Whigs into the Abolition camp, and Trumbull, Sidney Breese, and Governor Reynolds, all making speeches against the Democratic party and myself, at the same place and in the same cause. The same men who are now fighting the Demo- cratic party and the regular Democratic nominees in this State were fighting us then. They did not then acknowledge that they had become Abolitionists, and many of them deny it now. Breese, Dougherty, and Reynolds were then fighting the Democracy under the title of anti-Xebraska men, and now they are fighting the Democracy under the pretence that they are Simon pure Demo- crats, saying that they are authorized to have every office-holder in Illinois beheaded who ureters the election of Douolas to that of Lincoln, or the success of the Democratic ticket in preference to the Abolition ticket for members of Congress, State officers, members of the Legislature, or any office in "the State. They canvassed the State against us in 1854, as they are doing now, owning different names and different principles in different localities, but having a common object in view, viz. : The defeat of all men holding National principles in opposition to this sectional Abolition party. They carried the Legislature in 1854, and when it assembled in Springfield they proceeded to elect a United States Senator, all voting for Lincoln, with one or two exceptions, which excep- tions prevented them from quite electing him. And why should they not elect him ? Had not Trumbull agreed that Lincoln should have Shields's place ? Had not the Abolitionists agreed to it? Was it not the solemn compact, the condition on which Lincoln agreed to Abolitionize the old Whigs that he should AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 183 be senator ? Still, Trumbull, having control of a few Abolitionized Democrats, would not allow them all to vote for Lincoln on any one ballot, and thus kept him for some time ■within one or two votes of an election, until he worried out Lincoln's friends, and compelled them to drop him and elect Trumbull, in violation of the bargain. I desire to read you a piece of testimony in con- firmation of the notoriously public facts which I have stated to you. Colonel James H. MatJieny, of Springfield, is, and for twenty years has been, the confi- dential personal and political friend and manager of Mr. Lincoln. Matheny is this very day the candidate of the Eepublican, or Abolition, party for Congress against the gallant Major Thos. L. Harris, in the Springfield District, and is making speeclies for Lincoln and against me. I will read you the testimony of Matheny about this bargain between Lincoln and Trumbull wlien they undertook to Abolitionize Whigs and Democrats only four years ago. Matheny, being mad at Trumbull for having played a Yankee trick on Lincoln, exposed the bargain in a public speech two years ago, and I will read the published report of that speech, the correctness of which Mr. Lincoln will not deny : — " The Whigs, Abolitionists, Know-Nothings, and renegade Democrats made a solemn compact for the pui'pose of carrying this State against the Democi-acy on this plan : 1st, that they would all combine and elect Mr. Trumbull to Congress, and thereby carry his district for the Legislature, in order to throw all the strength that could be obtained into that body against the Democrats ; 2d, that when the Legishiture should meet, the officers of that body, sucli as Speaker, clei'ks, doorkeepers, etc., would be given to the Abolitionists ; and, 3d, that the Whigs were to have the United States senator. That, accoi'dingly, in good faith, Trumbull was elected to Congress, and his district carried for the Legislature ; and when it convened, the Abolitionists got all the officers of that body, and thus far the 'bond' was fairly executed. The Whigs, on their part, demanded the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that the bond might be fulfilled, the otlier parties to the contract having already secured to themselves all that was called for. But, in the most perfidious manner, they refused to elect Mr. Lincoln ; and the mean, lowdived, sneaking Trumbull succeeded, by pleading all that was required by any party, in thrusting Lincoln aside, and foisting himself, an excrescence from the rotten bowels of the Democracy, into the United States Senate ; and thus it has ever been, that an honest man makes a bad bargain when he conspires or contracts with rogues." Lincoln's confidential friend Matheny thought that Lincoln made a bad bargain when he conspired with such rogues as Trumbull and the Abolitionists. I would like to know whether Lincoln had as high opinion of Trumbull's veracity when the latter agreed to support him for the Senate, and then cheated him as he does now, when Trumbull comes forward and makes charges against me. You could not then prove Trumbull an honest man either by Lincoln, by Matheny, or by any of Lincoln's friends. They charged every- where that Trumbull had cheated them out of the bargain, and Lincoln found sure enough that it was a had bargain to contract and conspire witli rogues. And now I will explain to you what has been a mystery all over the State and Union, — the reason why Lincoln was nominated for the United States Senate by the Black Republican Convention. You know it has never been usual for any party, or any convention, to nominate a candidate for United States senator. Probably this was the first time that such a thing was ever done. The Black Republican Convention had not been called for that pur- pose, but to nominate a State ticket, and every man was surprised and many disOTsted when Lincoln was nominated. Archie Williams thought he "was entitled to it. Browning knew that he deserved it, Wentworth was certain that 184 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN he would get it, Peck had hopes, Judd felt sure that he was the man, and Palmer had claims and had made arrangements to secure it ; but, to their utter amazement, Lincoln was nominated by the Convention, and not only that, but he received the nomination unanimously, by a resolution declaring that Abraham Lincoln was " the first, last, and only choice " of the Republican party. How did this occur ? Why, because they could not get Lincoln's friends to make another bargain with " rogues," unless the whole party would come up as one man and pledge their honor that they would stand by Lincoln first, last, and all the time, and that he should not be cheated by Lovejoy this time, as he was by Trumbull before. Thus, by passing this resolution, the Abolitionists are all for him, Lovejoy and Farnsworth are canvassing for him, Giddings is ready to come here in his behalf, and the negro speakers are already on the stump for him, and he is sure not to be cheated this time. He would not go into the arrangement until he got their bond for it, and Trumbull is compelled now to take the stump, get up false charges against me, and travel all over the State to try and elect Lincoln, in order to keep Lincoln's friends quiet about the bargain in which Trumbull cheated them four years ago. You see, now, why it is that Lincoln and Trumbull are so mighty fond of each other. They have entered into a conspiracy to break me down by these assaults on my public character, in order to draw my attention from a fair exposure of the mode in which they attempted to Abolitionize the old Whig and the old Democratic parties and lead them captive into the Abolition camp. Do you not all remember that Lincoln went around here four years ago making speeches to you, and telling that you should all go for the Abolition ticket, and swearing that he was as good a Whig as he ever was; and that Trumbull went all over the State making pledges to the old Democrats, and trying to coax them into the Abolition camp, swearing by his Maker, with the uplifted hand, that he was still a Democrat, always intended to be, and that never would he desert the Democratic party. He got your votes to elect an Abolition Legislature, which passed Abolition resolutions, attempted to pass Abolition laws, and sustained Abolitionists for office, State and National. Now, the same game is attempted to be played over again. Then Lincoln and Trumbull made captives of the old Whigs and old Demo- crats, and carried them into the Abolition camp, where Father Giddings, the high-priest of Abolitionism, received and christened them in the dark cause just as fast as they were brought in. Giddings found the converts so numer- ous that he had to have assistance, and he sent for John P. Hale, N. P. Banks, Chase, and other Abolitionists, and they came on, and with Lovejoy and Fred Douglass, the negro, helped to baptize these new converts as Lincoln, Trumbull, Breese, Eeynolds, and Dougherty could capture them and bring them within the Abolition clutch. Gentlemen, they are now around, making the same kind of speeches. Trumbull was down in ]\Ionroe County the other day, assailing me, and making a speech in favor of Lincoln ; and I will show you under what notice his meeting was called. You see these people are Black Republicans or Abolitionists up north, while at Springfield to-day they dare not call their Convention " Republican," but are obliged to say " a Convention of all men opposed to the Democratic party ; " and in Monroe County and lower Egypt Trumbull advertises their meetings as follows : — A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place at Waterloo ou Monday, September 12th inst., whereat Hon. Lyman Trumbull, Hon. John Baker, and others will address the people upon the different political topics of the day. Members of AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 185 all parties are cordially invited to be present, and hear and determine for them- selves. September 9, 1858. The Free DEMOCRACY. Did you ever before hear of this new party, called the "Free Democracy"? What object have these Black Eepublicans in changing their name in every county ? They have one name in the north, another in the centre, and another in the south. When I used to practise law before my distinguished judicial friend, whom I recognize in the crowd before me, if a man was charged with horse-stealing, and the proof showed that he went by one name in Stephenson County, another in Sangamon, a third in Monroe, and a fourth in Randolph, we thouglit that the fact of his changing his name so often to avoid detection was pretty strong evidence of his guilt. I would like to know why it is that this great Free-soil Abolition party is not willing to avow the same name in all parts of the State ? If this party believes that its course is just, why does it not avow the same principles in the Xorth and in the South, in the East and in the West, wherever the American Hag waves over American soil ? A voice : The party does not call itself Black Republican in the North. Mr. Douglas : Sir, if you will get a copy of the paper published at Wau- kegan, fifty miles from Chicago, which advocates the election of Mr. Lincoln, and has his name flying at its mast-head, you will find that it declares that " this paper is devoted to the cause " of Black Republicanism. I had a copy of it, and intended to bring it down here into Egypt to let you see what name the party rallied under up in the northern part of the State, and to convince you that their principles are as different in the two sections of the State as is their name. I am sorry that I have mislaid it and have not got it here. Their principles in the north are jet-black, in the centre they are in color a decent mulatto, and in lower Egypt they are almost wliite. Wliy, I admired many of the white sentiments contained in Lincoln's speech at Jonesboro, and could not help but contrast them with tlie speeches of the same distinguished orator made in the northern part of the State. Down here he denies that the Black Republican party is opposed to the admission of any more Slave States, under any circumstances, and says that they are willing to allow the people of each State, when it wants to come into the Union, to do just as it pleases on the question of slavery. In the north, you find Lovejoy, their candidate for Congress in the Bloomington District, Farnsworth, their candidate in the Chicago District, and Washburne, their candidate in the Galena District, all declaring that never will they consent, under any circumstances, to admit another Slave State, even if the people want it. Thus, while they avow one set of principles up there, they avow another and entirely different set down here. And here let me recall to Mr. Lincoln the scriptural quotation which he has applied to the Federal Government, that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and ask him how does he expect this Abolition party to stand when in one half of the State it advocates a set of principles which it has repudiated in the other half? I am told that I have but eight minutes more. I would like to talk to you an hour and a half longer, but I will make the best use I can of the remaining eight minutes. Mr. Lincoln said in his first remarks that he was not in favor of the social and political equality of the negro with the white man. Every- where up north he has declared that he was not in favor of the social and political equality of the negro, but he would not say whether or not he was 24. 186 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN opposed to negroes voting and negro citizenship. I want to know whether he is for or against negro citizenship. He declared his utter opposition to the Dred Scott decision, and advanced as a reason that the court had decided that it was not possible for a negro to be a citizen under the Constitution of the United States. If he is opposed to the Dred Scott decision for that reason, he must be in favor of conferring the right and privilege of citizenship upon the negro ! I have been trying to get an answer from him on that point, but have never yet obtained one, and I will show you why. In every speech he made in the north he quoted the Declaration of Independence to prove that all men were created equal, and insisted that tlie phrase "all men" included the negro as well as the white man, and that the equality rested upon divine law. Here is what he said on that point : — " I should like to know if, taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop 1 If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another say it does not mean some other man 1 If that Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book in which we find it and tear it out." Lincoln maintains there that the Declaration of Independence asserts that the negro is equal to the white man, and that under divine law ; and if he believes so, it was rational for him to advocate negro citizenship, which, when allowed, puts the negro on an equality under the law. I say to you in all frankness, gentlemen, that in my opinion a negro is not a citizen, cannot be, and ought not to be, under the Constitution of the United States. I will not even qualify my opinion to meet the declaration of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, " that a negro descended from African parents, who was imported into this country as a slave, is not a citizen, and cannot be." I say that this government was established on the white basis. It was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their poster- ity forever, and never should be administered by any except white men. I declare that a negro ought not to be a citizen, whether his parents were imported into this country as slaves or not, or whether or not he was born here. It does not depend upon the place a negro's parents were Ijorn, or whether they were slaves or not, but upon the fact that he is a negro, belong- ing to a race incapable of self-government, and for that reason ought not to be on an equality Mdth white men. My friends, I am sorry that I have not time to pursue this argument further, as I might have done, but for the fact that Mr. Lincoln compelled me to occupy a portion of my time in repelling those gross slanders and false- hoods that Trumbull has invented against me and put in circulation. In conclusion, let me ask you wliy should this government be divided by a geographical line, — arraying all men North in one great hostile party against all men South ? Mr. Lincoln tells you, in his speech at Springtield, " that a house divided against itself cannot stand ; that this Government, divided into Free and Slave States, cannot endure permanently ; that they must either be all free or all slave ; all one thing or all the other." Why cannot this govern- ment endure, divided into Free and Slave States, as our fathers made it ? When this government was established by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Hamilton, Franklin, and the other sages and patriots of that day, it was composed of Free States and Slave States, bound together by one common Constitution. We have existed and prospered from that day to this thus divided, and have increased with a rapidity never before equalled, in wealth, AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 187 the extension of territory, and all the elements of power and greatness, until we have become the first nation on the face of the globe. Why can we not thus continue to pi'osper ? We can, if we will live up to and execute the gov- ernment upon those principles upon which our fathers established it. During the whole period of our existence, Divine Providence has smiled upon us, and showered upon our nation richer and more abundant blessings than have ever been conferred upon any other. MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. Fellow-Citizens : It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour answer to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried one. I shall only be able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I shall have to totally omit others, for the want of time. Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I mentioned, in a certain speech of mine which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen ; and without saying what was my ground of com- plaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state wliat objection I had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them myself. Now, my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen, under the Constitution of the United States, if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it. That is all I have to say about it. Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north, and my speeches south ; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north, and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and I dare him to point out any difference let ween my speeches north and south. While I am here perhaps I ought to say a word, if I have the time, in regard to the latter por- tion of the Judge's speech, which was a sort of declamation in reference to my having said I entertained the belief that this government would not endure, half slave and half free. I have said so, and I did not say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhaps would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in detail ; but let me ask you a few ques- tions. Have we ever had any peace on this slavery question ? When are we to have peace upon it, if it is kept in the position it now occupies ? How are 188 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN we ever to have peace upon it ? That is au important question. To be sure, if we will all stop, and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march on in their present career until they plant the institution all over the nation, here and wherever else our flag waves, aud we acquiesce in it, there will be peace. But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is going to get the people to do that ? They have been wrangling over this question for at least forty years. This was the cause of the agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise ; this produced the troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the territory acquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was the trouble which was quieted by the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled "forever'' as both the great political parties declared in their National Conventions. That " forever " turned out to be just four years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. When is it likely to come to au 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 Constitu tion, 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 tliat 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, aud 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 than 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 afjitation will be than we can see the end of the M'orld itself. The Nebraska- Kansas bill was introduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end, we may say we are four years and a half nearer tlie end. So, too, we can say we are four years and a half nearer tlie 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 settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should sink to-day, aud leave a great vacant space in the earth's sur- face, 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 ivill rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to the slavery agitation. The other way is for us to surrender, and let Judge Douglas and his friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States ; cease speaking of it as in any way a wrong ; regard slavery as one of the common matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and cattle. But while it drives on in its state of progress 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 extinction it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not sujDpose 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 AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 189 have no doubt. But, my friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this point. Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties i}i 1854 : Judge Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he told a cock-and-bull story 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 beginning- to end there is not one word of truth in it. I have called upon him for the proof, and he does not at all meet me as Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just talking, by producing the record. He did n't bring the record, because there ^^■as no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready to indorse Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me, I would not be likely to indorse his veracity ; but I am ready to indorse his veracity because neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years that I have known Lyman Trumbull, have I kiioivn him to fail of his word or tell a falsehood, large or small. It is for that reason that I indorse Lyman TrutnbuU. Mr. James Brown (Douglas Post-Master) : What does Ford's History say about him ? Mr. Lincoln : Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My own recollection is, that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful terms in several portions of his book, a7id that he talks a great deal ivorse of Judge Donglcts. I refer you, sir, to the History for examination. Judge Douglas complains, at considerable length, about a disposition on the part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to attend to that suggestion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly accused of deal- ing illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either in court, or in a political canvass, or anywhere else. I would despise myself if I supposed myself ready to deal less liberally with an adversary than I was willing to be treated myself. Judge Douglas, in a general way, without putting it in a direct shape, revives the old charge against me in reference to the Mexican war. He does not take the responsibility of putting it in a very definite form, hut makes a general reference to it. That charge is more than ten years olch He complains of Trumbull and myself, because he says we bring charges against him one or two years old. He knows, too, tliat in regard to the Mexican war story, the more respectable papers of his own party throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and acknowledge that it was a lie. [Here Mr. Lincoln turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting Hon. Orlando B. Ficklin, led him forward, and said: — ] I do not mean to do anything with Mr. Ficklin, except to present his face and tell you that he personally knows it to he a lie ! He was a member of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and he [Ficklin] knows that whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such indorsement, and voted against it ; but I never voted against tlie supplies for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a dollar was asked, by way of com- pensation or otherwise, for the benefit of the soldiers, I gave all the votes that Ficklin or Douglas did, and j^o'hajys 'more. 190 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Mr. FiCKLiN : INIy friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter. Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas and myself. In reference to this Mexican war, my recollection is that when Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashraun of Massachu- setts, in which he declared tliat the Mexican war was unnecessary and unconstitutionally commenced by the President, — my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution. Mr. Lincoln : That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution censuring the President for the manner in which the war was begun. You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their coun- try. I say that Ficklin knows it is false. When that charge was brought forward by the Chicago " Times," the Springfield " Register " [Douglas organ] reminded the " Times " that the charge really applied to John Henry ; and I do know that Jolin Henry is now making speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. If the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of a set-off to what I said to-day in reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that he made this charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He brought this forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face ; and in the opening speech tliat Judge Douglas made, he attacked me in regard to a matter ten years old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about people making charges against him only two years old ! The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon this charge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in my open- ing speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said that when Judge Douglas was speaking at places where I spoke on the succeeding day, he used very harsh language about this charge. Two or three times afterward I said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's veracity and intelligence; and my own opinion was, from what I knew of the character of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his position, and prove whatever he had stated to be true. This I repeated two or three times ; and then I dropped it, without saying anything more on the subject for weeks, — perhaps a month. I passed it by without noticing it at all till I found, at Jacksonville, Judge Douglas, in the plenitude of his power, is not willing to answer Trumbull and let me alone, l3ut he comes out there and uses this language : " 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." What was Lincoln to do ? Did he not do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas here, to tell him he was ready for the responsibility ? I ask a candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the assailant rather than I ? Here I meet him face to face, and say I am ready to take the responsibility, so far as it rests on me. Having done so, I ask the attention of this audience to the question whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it ? You all heard me call upon him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery ? Does he say that what I 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 " Globe " of the quotations from Bigler'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 ? AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 191 [" He did n't deny one of them."] / would then like to hnow lioiv it comes about that ivhen each piece of a story is true, the whole story turns out false ? I take it these people have some sense ; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is play- ing 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 the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Ain't the Judge playing the cuttle-fish ? Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration 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. Not one of them has he shown to he a forgery. Then I ask the original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is it 2'>ossible that the tvhole is a falsehood 1 In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the people, what was his answer ? He comes here and reads from the " Congressional Globe " to show that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill. Why, Trumbull has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull says he [Douglas] put it in ; and it is no answer to the charge to say he afterward took it out. Both are perhaps true. It was in regard to that thing precisely that I told him he had dropped tlie cub. Trumbull shows you that by his introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to that assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially say that Douglas struck it out. Sup- pose that were the case, does it answer Trumbull ? I assert that you [point- ing to an individual] are here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you were in Mattoon yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your head, and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole force of Douglas's argument. Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a Constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge Douglas deny that fact ? Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull reads was put in that bill ? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he dare to deny that ? He does not, and I have the right to repeat the question, — Why Judeje Douglas took it 02it ? Bigler has said there was a combination of certain senators, among whom he did not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas bill should have a clause in it not to have the consti- tution formed under it submitted to a vote of the people. He did not say that Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken out of the hill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and done with a mutual under- standing after the conference ; and while we do not know that it was abso- lutely so, yet it looks so probable that we have a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it was done, to tell what the true reason was. When he will not tell what the true reason 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 modifications in the bill had heen made by him, in considtation with Toombs, the oricjinator of the 192 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN hill. He tells us the same to-day. He says there were certain moJificatious made in the 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 the alterations and modifications were made hy him, iqwn considtatioii with Toomls. We have his own word that these alterations were made hy Mm, and not by the Committee. Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about coming to the exact question ? What is the reason he will not tell you anything about HOW it was made, BY whom it was made, or that he remembers it being made at all ? Why does he stand playing upon the mean- ing of words, and quibbling around the edges of the evidence ? If he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have a right to infer that Judge Douglas understood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering that bill through, to make a constitution, and have Kansas come into the Union with that constitution, without its being submitted to a vote of the peojjle. If he will explain his action on this question, by giving a better reason for the facts that happened, than he has done, it will be satisfactory. But until he does that, — until he gives a better or more plausible reason than he has offered against the evidence in the case, — / suggest to him it loill not avail him at all that he swells himself up, takes on dignity, and calls ijcople liars. Why, sir, there is not a w^ord in Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has only arrayed the evidence, and told you what follows as a matter of reasoning. There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends on Trumbuil's'word. If you have ever studied geometry, you remember that by a course of reasoning, Euclid proves that all the angles in a triangle are equal to two right angles. Euclid has shown you how to work it out. Now, if you undertake to disprove that proposition, and to show that it is erroneous, would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar ? They tell me that my time is out, and therefore I close. Extract from j\[r. Trumbull's Speech made at Alton, referred to by ^Ir. Lincoln in his opening at Charleston. I come now to another extract from a speech of Mr. Douglas, made at Beards- town, and reported in the " Missouri EepubHcan." This extract has reference to a statement made by me at Chicago, wherein I charged that an agreement had been entered into by the very persons now claiming credit for opposing a constitution not submitted to the people, to have a constitution formed and put in force without giv- ing the people of Kansas an opportunity to pass upon it. Without meeting this charge, which I substantiated by a reference to the record, my colleague is reported to have said : — " For when this charge was once made in a much milder form, in the Senate of the United States, I did brand it as a lie in the presence of Mr. Trumbull, and Mr. Trumbull sat and heard it thus branded, without daring to say it was true. I tell you he knew it to be false when he uttered it at Ciiicago ; and yet he says he is going to cram the lie down his throat until he should cry enough. The miserable, craven-hearted wretch ! he would rather have both ears cut off than to use that lan- guage in my presence, where I could call him to account. I see the object is to draw me into a personal controversy, with the hope thereby of concealing from the public the enormity of the principles to which they are committed. I shall not allow much of my time in this canvass to he occupied by tliese personal assaults : I have none to make on Mr. Lincoln; I have none to make on Mr. Trumbull; I have none to make AND STEPPIEN A. DOUGLAS. 193 on any other political opponent. If I cannot stand on my own public record, on my own private and public character as history will record it, I will not attempt to rise by traducing the character of other men. I will not make a blackguard of myself by imitating the course they have pursued against me. I have no charges to make auainst them." This is a singular statement, taken altogether. After indulging in language which would disgrace a loafer in the filthiest purlieus of a fish-market, he winds up by saying that he will not make a blackguard of himself, that he has no charges to make against me. So I suppose he considers that to say of another that he knew a thing to be false when he utttered it, that he was a " miserable, craven-hearted wretch," does not amount to a personal assault, and does not make a man a black- guard. A discriminating public will judge of that for themselves ; but as he says he has " no charges to make on Mr. Trumbull," I suppose politeness requires I should believe him. At the risk of again offending this mighty man of war, and losing something more than my ears, I shall have the audacity to again read the record upon him, and prove and pin upon him, so that he cannot escape it, the truth of every word I uttered at Chicago. You, fellow-citizens, are the judges to determine whether I do this. My colleague says he is willing to stand on his public record. By that he shall be tried ; and if he had been able to discriminate between the exposure of a public act by the record, and a personal attack upon the individual, he would have discovered that there was nothing personal in my Chicago remarks, unless the condemnation of himself by his own public record is personal ; and then 3'^ou must judge who is most to blame for the torture his public record inflicts upon him, he for making, or I for reading it after it was made. As an individual, I care very little about Judge Douglas one way or the other. It is his public acts with which I have to do, and if they condemn, disgrace, and consign him to oblivion, he has only himself, not me, to blame. Now, the charge is that there was a plot entered into to have a constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the people an opportunity to pass upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot. This is as susceptible of proof by the record as is the fact that >the State of Minnesota was admitted into the Union at the last session of Congress. On the 25th of June, 1856, a bill was pending in the United States Senate to authorize the people of Kansas to form a constitution and come into the Union. On that day Mr. Toombs offered an amendment which he intended to propose to the bill which was ordered to be printed, and, with the original bill and other amendments, recommended to the Committee on Territories, of which Mr. Douglas was Chairman. This amendment of Mr. Toombs, printed by order of the Senate, and a copy of Avhich I have here present, provided for the appointment of commissioners who were to take a census of Kansas, divide the Territory into election districts, and superin- tend the election of delegates to form a constitution, and contains a clause in the 18th .section which I will read to you, requiring the constitution which should be formed to bo submitted to the people for adoption. It reads as follows : — " That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or re- jection, which, if accepted by the Convention, and ratified by the people at the elec- tion for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory on the United States, and upon the said State of Kansas," etc. It has been contended by some of the newspaper press that this section did not require the constitution which should be formed to be submitted to the people for approval, and that it was only the land propositions which were to be submitted. You will observe the language is that the propositions are to be " ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution." Would it have been pos- sible to ratify the land propositions " at the election for the adoption of the constitu- tion," unless such an election was to be held] When one thing is required by a contract or law to be done, the doing of which 25 194 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN is made dependent ujion and cannot be performed vpithont the doing of some other thing, is not that other thing just as much required by the contract or law as the first 1 It matters not in wliat part of the Act, nor in what phraseology the intention of the Legislature is expressed, so you can clearly ascertain what it is ; and whenever that intention is ascertained from an examination of the language used, such inten- tion is part of and a requirement of the law. Can any candid, fair-minded man read the section I have quoted, and say that the intention to have the constitution which should be formed submitted to the people for their adoption, is not clearly expressed] In my judgment, there can be no controversy among honest men upon a proposition so plain as this. Mr. Douglas has never pretended to deny, so far as I am aware, that the Toombs amendment, as originally introduced, did require a submission of the constitution to the people. This amendment of Mr. Toombs was referred to the Committee of Avhich Mr. Douglas was Chairman, and reported back by him on the 30th of June, with the words, " And ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution," stricken out. I have here a copy of the bill as reported back by Mr. Douglas, to substantiate the statement I make. Various other alterations were also made in the bill, to which I shall presently have occasion to call attention. There was no other clause in the original Toombs bill requiring a submission of the constitution to the people than the one I have read, and there was no clause whatever, after that was struck out, in the bill, as reported back by Judge Douglas, requiring a submission. I will now introduce a witness whose testimony cannot be impeached, he acknowledging himself to have been one of the conspirators and privy to the fact about which he testifies. Senator Bigler, alluding to the Toombs bill, as it was called, and which, after sundry amendments, passed the Senate, and to the propriety of submitting the consti- tution which should be formed to a vote of the people, made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December 9th, 1857. I read from part 1, "Congres- sional Globe" of last session, paragraph 21 : — " I was present when that subject was discussed by senators, before the bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was held by the most intelligent on the subject that in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better that there should be no such provision in the Toombs bill ; and it is my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that that Convention would make a constitution and send it here, without submitting it to the popular vote." In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 ("Congressional Globe," same volume, page 113), Senator Bigler said : — " Nothing was farther from my mind than to allude to any social or confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollection was clear that I left the confer- ence under the impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to the Convention. This impression was the stronger, because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed i;pon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great aver- sion ; but with the hope of accomplishing great good, and as no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their submission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the Senator from Illinois, on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows : — " ' That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejec- tion ; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and upon the said State of Kansas.' AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 195 " The bill read in place by the Senator from Georgia, on the 25th of June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same section, word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the conference referred to ; but, sir, wlien the Senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate, with amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the Convention tliat the constitution should be approved by the people. The words ' and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution ' had been stricken out." I am not now seeking to prove that Douglas was in the plot to force a constitutioii upon Kansas without allowing the people to vote directly upon it. I shall attend to that branch of the subject by and by. My object now is to prove the existence of the plot, what the design was, and I ask if I have not already done so. Here are the facts : — The introduction of a bill on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the calling of a Convention in Kansas to form a State constitution, and providing that the constitu- tion should be submitted to the people for adoption ; an amendment to this bill, pro- posed by Mr. Toombs, containing the same requirement ; a reference of these various bills to the Committee on Territories ; a consultation of senators to determine whether it was advisable to have the constitution submitted for ratification ; the determina- tion that it was not advisable ; and a report of the bill back to the Senate next morn- ing, with the clause providing for the submission stricken out. Could evidence be more complete to establish the first part of the charge I have made of a plot having been entered into by somebody, to have a constitution adopted without submitting it to the people 1 Now, for the other part of the charge, that Judge Douglas was in this 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 tlie fact that he reported back the Toombs amend- ment, with the clause providing for the submission stricken out, — this in connec- tion with his speech 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 Com- mittee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a Constitution for themselves. Subsequently the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Toombs) brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate." This of itself ought to be sufl[icient to show that my colleague was an instrument in the plot to have a constitution put in force without submitting it to the people, and to forever close his mouth from attempting to deny. No man can reconcile his acts and former declarations with his present denial, and the only charitable conclusion would be that he was being used by others without knowing it. Whether he is entitled to the benefit of even this excuse, you must judge on a candid hearing of the facts I shall present. When the charge was first made in the United States Senate, by Mr. Bigler, that my colleague had voted for an Enabling Act which put a govern- ment in operation without submitting the constitution to the people, my colleague ("Congressional Globe," last session, part 1, page 24) stated: — " 1 will ask the senator to show mo 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. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on it ; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done which ought in fairness to have been done." I knew at the time this statement was made tluit I had urged the very objection 196 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN to the Toombs Lill two years before, that it did not provide for the submission of tlie constitution. You will find my remarks, made on the 2d of July, 1856, in the appendix to the "Congressional Globe" of that year, page 179, urging tliis very objection. Do you ask why I did not expose him at the time 1 I will tell you : Mr. Douglas was then doing good service against the Lecompton iniquity. The Kepub- licans were then engaged in a hand-to-hand fight with the National Democracy to prevent the bringing of Kansas into the Union as a Slave State against the wishes of its inhabitants, and of course I was unwilling to turn our guns from the common enemy to strike down an ally. Judge Douglas, however, on the same day, and in the same debate, probably recollecting, or being reminded of, the fact that I had objected to the Toombs bill when pending, that it did not provide for the submission of the constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the " Congressional Globe," page 22, in which he says : — " That the bill was silent on the subject is true, and my attention was called to that about the time it was ];)assed ; and I took the fair construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the constitution would be submitted to the people." Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that it was a new dis- covery, you will determine ; for if the public records do not convict and condemn him, he may go uncondemned, so far as I am concerned. I make no use here of the testimony of Senator Bigler to show that Judge Douglas must have been privy to the consultation held at his house, when it was determined not to submit the constitu- tion to the people, because Judge Douglas denies it, and I wish to use his own acts and declarations, which are abundantly sufficient for my purpose. I come to a piece of testimony which disposes of all these various pretences which have been set up for striking out of the original Toombs proposition the clause requir- ing a submission of the constitution to the people, and shows that it was not done either by accident, by inadvertence, or because it was believed that, the bill being silent on the subject, the constitution would necessarily be submitted to the people for approval. What Avill you think, after listening to the facts already presented, to show that there was a design with those who concocted the Toombs bill, as amended, not to submit the constitution to the people, if I now bring before you the amended bill as Judge Douglas reported it back, and show the clause of the original bill requir- ing submission was not only struck out, but that other clauses were inserted in the bill, putting it absolutely out of the power of the Convention to submit the constitu- tion to the people for approval, had they desired to do sol If I can produce such evidence as that, will you not all agree that it clinches and establishes forever all I charged at Chicago, and more too 1 I propose now to furnish that evidence. It will be remembered that Mr. Toombs's bill provided for holding an election for delegates to form a constitution under the supervision of commissioners to be appointed by the President ; and in the bill as reported back by Judge Douglas, these words, not to be found in the orif/inal hill, are inserted at the close of the 11th section, viz. : — " And until the complete execution of this Act, no other election shall be held in said Territory." This clause put it out of the power of the Convention to refer to the people for adoption; it absolutely prohibited the holding of any other election than that for the election of delegates, till that Act was completely executed, which would not have been until Kansas was admitted as a State, or at all events till her constitution was fully prepared and ready for submission to Congress for admission. Other amend- ments reported by Judge Douglas to the original Toombs bill clearly show that the intention was to enable Kansas to become a State without any further action than sim]^ly a resolution of admission. The amendment reported by Mr. Douglas, that " until the next Congressional apportionment, the said State shall have one representative," clearly shows this, no such provision being contained in the original AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 197 Toombs bill. For wliat other earthlj' purpose could the clause to prevent any other election in Kansas, except that of delegates, till it Avas admitted as a State, have been inserted, except to prevent a submission of the Constitution, when formed, to the people] The Toombs bill did not pass in the exact shape in which Judge Douglas reported it. Several amendments were made to it in the Senate. I am now dealing with the action of Judge Douglas as connected with that bill, and speak of the bill as he re- commended it. The facts I have stated in regard to this matter appear upon the records, which I have here present to show to any man who wishes to look at them. They establish bej^ond the power of controversy all the charges I have made, and show that Judge Douglas was made use of as an instrument by others, or else knowingly was a party to the scheme to have a government put in force over the people of Kansas, without giving them an opportunity to pass upon it. That others high in position in the so-called Democratic party were parties to such a scheme is confessed by Governor Bigler; and the only reason why the scheme was not carried, and Kansas long ago forced into the Uinon as a Slave State, is the fact, that the Republi- cans were sufficiently strong in the House of Representatives to defeat the measure. Extract from jNIr. Douglas's Speech made at Jacksonville, and referred [to by Mr. Lincoln in his opening at Charleston. I have been reminded by a friend behind me that there is another topic upon wdiich there has been a desire expressed that I should speak. I am told that jNIr. Lyman Trundndl, who has tlie good fortune to hold a seat in the United States Senate, in violation of the bargain between him and Liucoln, was here the other day and occupied his time in making certain charges against me, involving, if they be true, moral turpitude. I am also informed that the cliarges he made here were sub- stantially the same as those made by him in the city of Chicago, which were printed in the newspapers of that city. I now propose to answer those charges and to anni- hilate every pretext that an honest man has ever had for repeating them. In order that I may meet these charges fairly, I will read them, as made by Mr. Trumbull, in his Chicago speech, in his own language. He says : — " Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that there was a preconcerted arrangement and plot entered into by the very men who now claim credit for oppos- ing a constitution not submitted to the people, to have a constitution formed and put in force without giving the people an opportunity to pass upon it. This, my friends, is a serious charge, but I charge it to-night that the very men who traverse the country under banners proclaiming popular sovereignty, by design concocted a bill on purpose to force a constitution upon that people." Again, speaking to some one in the crowd, he says : — " And you want to satisfy yourself that he was in the plot to force a constitution upon that people ] I will satisfy you. I will cram the truth down any honest man's throat until he cannot deny it, and to the man wdio does deny it I will cram the lie down his throat till he shall cry, ' Enough ! ' It is preposterous ; it is the most damnable effrontery that man ever put on to conceal a scheme to defraud and cheat the people out of their rights, and then claim credit for it." Tliat is polite and decent language for a senator of the United States. Eemeni- ber tliat that language was used without any provocation whatever from me. I had not alluded to him in any manner in any speech that I had made, hence without provocation. As soon as he sets his foot within the State, he makes the direct charge that I was a party to a plot to force a coTistitntion upon the people of Kansas against their will, and, knowing that it wotdd be denied, he talks about cramming the lie down the throat of any man who shall deny it, until he cries, " Enough." 198 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Why did lie take it for granted that it would be denied, unless he knew it to be false ] Why did he deem it necessary to make a threat in advance that he would "cram the lie" down the throat of any man that should deny iti I have no doubt that the entire Abolition party consider it very polite for Mr. Trumbull to go round uttering calumnies of that kind, bullying, and talking of cramming lies down men's throats ; but if I deny any of his lies by calling him a liar, they are shocked at the indecency of the language ; hence, to-day, instead of calling him a liar I intend to prove that he is one. I wisli, in the Hrst place, to refer to the evidence adduced by Trumbull, at Chicago, to sustain his charge. He there declared that Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, introduced a bill into Congress authorizing the people of Kansas to form a constitution and come into the Union, that when introduced it contained a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted to the people, and that I struck out the words of that clause. Suppose it were true that there was such a clause in the bill, and that I struck it out, is that proof of a plot to force a constitution upon a people against their will 1 Bear in mind that from the days of George Washington to the Administration of Franklin Pierce, there had never been passed by Congress a bill requiring the sub- mission of a constitution to the people. If Trumbull's cliarge, that I struck out that clause, were true, it would only prove that I had reported the bill in the exact shape of every bill of like character that passed under Washington, Jefferson, Madi- son, Monroe, Jackson, or any other President, to the time of the then present Admin- istration. I ask you, would that be evidence of a design to force a constitution on a people against their will 1 If it were so, it would be evidence against Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Van Buren, and every other President. But, upon examination, it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted. Hence no such clause was ever stricken out, by me or anybody else. It is true, however, that the Toombs bill and its au- thors all took it for granted that the constitution would be submitted. There had never been, in the history of this government, any attempt made to force a consti- tution upon an unwilling people, and nobody dreamed that any such attempt would be made, or deemed it necessary to provide for such a contingency. If such a clause was necessary in Mr. Trumbull's opinion, wky did he not offer an amendment to that effect ] In order to give more pertinency to that question, I will read an extract from Trumbull's speech in the Senate, on the Toombs bill, made on the 2d of July, 1856. He said : — " We are asked to amend this bill and make it perfect, and a liberal spirit seems to be manifested on the part of some senators to have a fair bill. . It is difficult, I admit, to frame a bill that will give satisfaction to all, but to approach it, or come near it, I think two things must be done." The first, tlien, 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 say that it was necessary to put in a clause requiring the submission of the constitution. Why, if he thought such a provision necessary, did he not introduce it 1 He says in his speech that he was invited to offer amend- ments. 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 everybody else, took it for granted that the constitution would be submitted. Now for the evidence. In his second speech he says : " The bill in many of its features meets my approbation." So he did not think it so very bad. Further on he says : — " In regard to the measure introduced by the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs], and recommended by the Committee, I regard it, in many respects, as a most excel- lent lull; but we must look at it in the liglit of surrounding circumstances. In the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 199 condition of things now existing in the country, I do not consider it as a safe meas- ure, nor one which will give peace ; and I will give my reasons. First, it allbrds no immediate relief. It provides for taking a census of the voters in the Territory for an election in November, and the assembling of a Convention in December, to form, if it thinks proper, a constitution for Kansas, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State. It is not until December that the Convention is to meet. It would take some time to form a constitution. / snppose that constitution would have to be ratified by the people before it becomes validP He there expressly declared that he supposed, under the bill, the constitution would have to be submitted to the people before it became valid. He went on to say: — *' No provision is made in this bill for such a ratification. This is objectionable to my mind. I do not think the people should be bound by a constitution, without passing upon it directly, themselves." Why did he not offer an amendment providing for such a submission, if he thought it necessary"? Notwithstanding the absence of such a clause, he took it for granted that the constitution would have to be ratified by the people, under the bill. In another part of the same speech, he says : — " There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have discovered, about submitting the constitution which is to be framed, to the people, for their sanction or rejection. Perhaps the Convention would have the right to submit it, if it should think proper ; but it is certainly not compelled to do so, according to the provisions of the bill. If it is to be submitted to the people, it will take time, and it will not be until some time next year that this new constitution, affirmed and ratified by the people, would be submitttKl here to Congress for its acceptance ; and what is to be the condition of that people in the mean time?" You see that his argument then was that the Toombs bill would not get Kansas into the Union quick enough, and was objectionable on that account. He had no fears about this submission, or why did he not introduce an amendment to meet the case? A voice : Why did n't you % You were Chairman of the Committee. Mr. Douglas : I will answer that question for you. In the first place, no such provision had ever before been put in any similar Act passed by Congress. I did not iSuppose that there was an honest man who would pre- tend that the omission of such a clause furnished evidence of a conspiracy or attempt to impose on the people. It could not be expected that such of us as did not think that omission was evidence of such a scheme would offer such an amendment ; but if Trumbull then believed what he now says, why did he not offer the amendment, and try to prevent it, when he was, as he says, invited to do so % In this connection I will tell you what the main point of discussion was : There was a bill pending to admit Kansas whenever she should have a population of 93,420, that being the ratio required for a member of Congress. Under that bill Kansas could not have become a State for some years, because she could not have had the requisite population. Mr. Toombs took it into his head to bring in a bill to admit Kansas then, with only twenty-five or thirty thousand people, and the question Avas whether we would allow Kansas to come in under this bill, or keep her out under mine until she had 93,420 people. The Committee considered that question, and overruled me, by deciding in favor of the immediate admission of Kansas, and I reported accordingly. I hold in my hand a copy of the report which I made at that time. I will read from it : — " The point upon which your Committee have entertained the most serious and grave doubts in regard to the propriety of indorsing the proposition, relates to the fact that, in the absence of any census of the iidiabitants, there is reason to appre- hend that the Territory does not contain sufficient population to entitle them to 200 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN demand admission under the treaty with France, if we take tlie ratio of representation for a member of Congress as the rule." Thus you see that in the written report accompanying the hill, I said that the great difficulty with the Committee was the question of population. In the same report I happened to refer to the question of submission. Now, listen to what I said about that : — " In the opinion of your Committee, whenever a constitution shall be formed in any Territory, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State, justice, the genius of our institutions, the whole theory of our republican system, imperatively demand that the voice of the people shall be fairly expressed, and their will em- bodied in that fundamental law, without fraud, or violence, or intimidation, or any other improper or unlawful influence, and subject to no other restrictions than those imposed by the Constitution of the United States." I read this from the report I made at the time, on the Toombs bill. I will read yet another passage from the same report ; after setting out the features of the Toombs bill, I contrast it with the proposition of Senator Seward, saying : — " The revised proposition of the Senator from Georgia refers all matters in dis- pute to the decision of the present population, witli guarantees of fairness and safe- guards against frauds and violence to which no reasonable man can find iust grounds of exception ; while the Senator from New York, if his proposition is designed to recognize and impart vitality to the Topeka Constitution, proposes to disfranchise, not only all the emigrants who have arrived in the Territory this year, but all the law- abiding men who refused to join in the act of open rebellion against the constituted authorities of the Territory last year, by making the unauthorized and unlawful action of a political party the fundamental law of the whole people." Then, again, I repeat that under that bill the question is to be referred to the present population to decide for or against coming into the Union under the constitu- tion they may adopt. Mr. Trumbull, when at Chicago, rested his charge upon the allegation that the clause requiring submission was originally in the bill, and was stricken out by me. When that falsehood was exposed by a publication of the record, he went to Alton and made another speech, repeating the charge and referring to other and different evidence to sustain it. He saw that he was caught in his first falsehood, so he changed the issue, and instead of resting upon the allegation of striking out, he made it rest upon the declaration that I had introduced a clause into the bill prohibiting the people from voting upon the constitution. I am told that he made the same charge here that he made at Alton, that I had actually introduced and incorporated into the bill a clause which prohibited the people from voting upon their constitu- tion. I hold his Alton speech in my hand, and will read the amendment which he alleges that I offered. It is in these words : — " And until the complete execution of this Act, no other election shall be held in said Territory." Trumbull says the object of that amendment was to prevent the Convention from submitting the constitution to a vote of the people. I will read what he said at Alton on that subject : — " This clause put it out of the power of the Convention, had it been so disposed, to submit the constitution to the people for adoption ; for it absolutely prohibited the holding of any other election than that for the election of delegates, till that Act was completely executed, which would not have been till Kansas was admitted as a State, or, at all events, till her constitution was fully prepared and ready for submission to Congress for admission." Now, do you suppose that Mr. Trumbull supposed that that clause prohibited the Convention from submitting the constitution to the people, when, in his speech in the Senate, he declared that the Convention had a riglit to submit it 1 In his Alton speech, as will be seen by the extract which I have read, he declared that the clause AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 201 put it out of the power of the Convention to submit the constitution, and in his speech in the Senate he said : — " There is nothing said in this hill, so far as I have discovered, about submitting the constitution which is to be formed, to the people, for tlieir sanction or rejection. Perhaps tlie Convention could have the right to submit it, if it should think proper, but it is certainly not compelled to do so according to the provisions of the bill." Thus you see that, in Congress, he declared the bill to be silent on the subject, and a few days since, at Alton, he made a speech and said that there was a provision in tlie bill prohibiting submission. I have two answers to make to that. In the first place, the amendment which he quotes as depriving the people of an opportunity to vote upon the constitution was stricken out on my motion, — absolutely stricken out, and not voted on at all ! In the second place, in lieu of it, a provision was voted in, authorizing the Convention to order an election whenever it pleased. I will read. After Trumbull had made his speech in the Senate, declaring that the constitution would probably be submitted to the people, although the bill was silent upon that subject, I made a few remarks, and offered two amendments, which you may find in the Appendix to the "Congressional Globe," volume thirty-three, first session of the Thirty-fourth Congress, page 795. I quote : — " Mr. Douglas : I have an amendment to offer from the Committee on Territories. On page 8, section II, sti-tke out the words ' until the complete execution of this act no other election shall be held in said Territory,' and insert the amendment which I hold in my hand." The amendment was as follows : — " That all persons who shall possess the other qualifications prescribed for voters under this Act, and who shall have been bona fide inliabitants of said Territory since its organization, and who shall have absented themselves therefrom in consequence of the disturbances therein, and who shall return before the first day of October next, and become bona fide inhabitants of the Territory, with the intent of making it their permanent home, and shall present satisfactory evidence of these facts to the Board of Commissioners, sliall be entitled to vote at said election, and shall have their names placed on said corrected list of voters for that purpose." That amendment was adopted unanimously. After its adoption, the record shows the following : — " Mr. Douglas : I have another amendment to offer from the Committee, to follow the amendment which has been adopted. The bill reads now, ' And until tlie com- plete 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 all conflict in the complete execution of this Act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby postponed until such time as said Convention shall appoint,' so that they can ap)point the day in the event that there should be a failure to come into the Union." This amendment was also agreed to, without dissent. Thus you see that the amendment quoted by 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 knew these facts. He forged his evi- dence from beginning to end, and by falsifying the record he endeavors to bolster up his false charge. I ask you what you think of Trumbull thus going around the coun- try, 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 hereaiter 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. 26 202 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, October 7, 1858. MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. La-DIES and Gentlemen : Four years ago I appeared before the people of Knox County for the purpose of defending my political action upon the Com- promise Measures of 1850 and the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Those of you before me who were present then will remember that I vindi- cated myself for supporting those two measures by the fact that they rested upon the great fundamental 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 wdiich 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 con- sequently, the Kansas and Nebraska bill, based upon the same principle, must necessarily have been right. The Kansas and Nebraska bill declared, in so many words, that it was the true intent and meaning of the Act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof per- fectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. For the last four years I have devoted all my energies, in private and public, to commend that princi- ple to the American people. Whatever else may be said in condemnation or support of my political course, I apprehend that no honest man will doubt the fidelity with which, under all circumstances, I have stood by it. During the last year a question arose in the Congress of the United States whether or not that principle would be violated by the admission of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution. In my opinion, the at- tempt to force Kansas in under that constitution was a gross violation of the principle enunciated in the Compromise Measures of 1850, and Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854, and therefore I led off in the fight against the Lecomp- ton Constitution, and conducted it until the effort to carry that constitution through Congress was abandoned. And I can appeal to all men, friends and foes. Democrats and Republicans, Northern men and Southern men, that during the whole of that fight I carried the banner of Popular Sovereignty aloft, and never allowed it to trail in the dust, or lowered my flag until vic- tory perched upon our arms. When the Lecompton Constitution was defeated, the question arose in the minds of those who had advocated it what they should next resort to in order to carry out their views. They devised a measure known as the English bill, and granted a general amnesty and politi- cal pardon to all men who had fought against the Lecompton Constitution, provided they would support that bill. I for one did not choose to accept the pardon, or to avail myself of the amnesty granted on that condition. The fact that the supporters of Lecompton were willing to forgive all differences of opinion at that time in the event those who opposed it favored the Eng- lish bill, was an admission they did not think that opposition to Lecompton AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 203 impaired a man's standing in the Democratic party. Now, the qnestion arisse, what was that English bill which certain men are now attempting to make a test of political orthodoxy in this country ? It provided, in substance, that the Lecompton Constitution should be sent back to the people of Kansas for their adoption or rejection, at an election which was held in August last, and in case they refused admission under it, that Kansas should be kept out of the Union until she had 93,420 inhabitants. I was in favor of sending the con- stitution back in order to enable the people to say whether or not it was their act and deed, and embodied their will; but the other proposition, that if tliey refused to come into the Union under it, they should be kept out until they had double or treble the population they then had, I never would sanction by my vote. The reason why I could not sanction it is to be found in the fact that by the English bill, if the people of Kansas had only agreed to become a slaveholding State under tlie Lecompton Constitution, they could have done so with 35,000 people, but if they insisted on being a Free State, as they had a right to do, then they were to be punished by being kept out of the Union until they had nearly three times that population. I then said in my place in the Senate, as I now say to you, that whenever Kansas has population enough for a Slave State she has population enough for a Free State. I have never yet given a vote, and I never intend to record one, making an odious and unjust distinction between the different States of this Union. I hold it to be a funda- mental principle in our republican form of government that all the States of this Union, old and new, free and slave, stand on an exact equality. Equality among the different States is a cardinal principle on which all our institutions rest. Wherever, therefore, you make a discrimination, saying to a Slave State that it shall be admitted with 35,000 inhabitants, and to a Free State that it sliall not be admitted until it has 93,000 or 100,000 inhabitants, you are throwing the whole weight of the Federal Government into the scale in favor of one class of States against the other. Nor would I, on tlie other hand, any sooner sanction the doctrine that a Free State could be admitted into the Union with 35,000 people, while a Slave State was kept out until it had 93,000. I have always declared in the Senate my willingness, and I am will- ing now to adopt the rule, that no Territory shall ever become a State until it has the requisite population for a member of Congress, according to the then existing ratio. But while I have always been, and am now, willing to adopt that general rule, I was not willing and would not consent to make an excep- tion of Kansas, as a punishment for her obstinacy in demanding the right to do as she pleased in the formation of her constitution. It is proper that I should remark here, that my opposition to the Lecompton Constitution did not rest upon the peculiar position taken by Kansas on the subject of slavery. I held then, and hold now, that if the people of Kansas want a Slave State, it is their right to make one, and be received into the Union under it ; if, on the contrary, they want a Free State, it is their right to have it, and no man should ever oppose their admission because they ask it under the one or the other. I hold to tliat great principle of self-government which asserts the right of every people to decide for themselves the nature and character of the domes- tic institutions and fundamental law under which they are to live. The effort has been and is now being made in this State by certain post- masters and other Federal office-holders to make a test of faith on the support of the English bill. These men are now making speeches all over the State against me and in favor of Lincoln, either directly or indirectly, because I would not sanction a discrimination between Slave and Free States by voting 204 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN for the English Lilh But while that bill is made a test in Illinois for tlie pur- pose of breaking up the Democratic organization in this State, liow is it in the other States ? Go to Indiana, and there you find English liimself, the author of the English bill, who is a candidate for re-election to Congress, has been forced by public opinion to abandon his own darling project, and to give a promise that he will vote for the admission of Kansas at once, whenever she forms a constitution in pursuance of law, and ratifies it by a majority vote of her people. Not only is this the case with English himself, but I am informed that every Democratic candidate for Congress in Indiana takes the same ground. Pass to Ohio, and there you find that Groesbeck, and Pendleton, and Cox, and all the other anti-Lecompton men who stood shoulder to shoulder with me against the Lecompton Constitution, but voted for the English bill, now repudiate it and take the same ground that I do on that question. So it is with the Joneses and others of Pennsylvania, and so it is with every other Lecompton Democrat in the Eree States. They now abandon even the English bill, and come back to the true platform which I proclaimed at the time in the Senate, and upon which the Democracy of Illinois now stand. And yet, notwithstanding the fact that every Lecompton and anti-Lecompton Democrat in the Free States has abandoned the English bill, you are told that it is to be made a test upon me, while the power and patronage of the Government are all exerted to elect men to Congress in the other States who occupy the same position with reference to it that I do. It seems that my political offence consists in the fact that I first did nob vote for the English bill, and thus pledge myself to keep Kansas out of the L^nion until she has a population of 93,420, and then return home, violate that pledge, repudiate the bill, and take the opposite ground. If I had done this, perhaps the Adminis- tration would now be advocating my re-election, as it is that of the others who have pursued this course. I did not choose to give that pledge, for the reason that I did not intend to carry out that principle. I never will consent, for the sake of conciliating the frowns of power, to pledge myself to do that which I do not intend to perform. I now submit the question to you, as my constituency, whether I was not right, first, in resisting the adoption of the Lecompton Constitution, and, secondly, in resisting the English bilh I repeat that I opposed the Lecompton Constitution because it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will. I denied the right of any power on earth, under our system of government, to force a con- stitution on an unwilling people. There was a time when some men could pretend to believe that the Lecompton Constitution embodied the will of tlie people of Kansas ; but that time has passed. The question was referred to the people of Kansas under the English bill last August, and then, at a fair election, they rejected the Lecompton Constitution by a vote of from eight to ten against it to one in its favor. Since it has been voted down by so over- whelming a majority, no man can pretend that it was the act and deed of that people. I submit the question to you whether or not, if it had not l^een for me, that constitution would have been crammed down the throats of the people of Kansas against their consent. While at least ninety-nine out of every hundred people here present agree that I was right in defeating that project, yet my enemies use the fact that I did defeat it by doing right, to break me down and put another man in the United States Senate in my place. The very men who acknowledge that I was right in defeating Lecompton now form an alliance with Federal office-holders, professed Lecompton men, to defeat me, because 1 did right. My political opponent, Mr. Lincoln, has no AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 205 hope on earth, and has never dreamed that he had a chance of success, were it not for the aid that he is receiving from Federal office-holders, who are using their intluence and the patronage of the Government against me in revenge for my having defeated the Lecompton Constitution. What do you Eepublicans think of a political organization that will try to make an unholy and unnatural combination with its professed foes to beat a man merely because he has done right ? You know such is the fact with regard to your own party. You know that the axe of decapitation is suspended over every man in office in Illinois, and the terror of proscription is threatened every Democrat by the present Administration, unless he supports the Republican ticket in preference to my Democratic associates and myself. I could find an instance in tlie postmaster of the city of Galesburgh, and in every other postmaster in this vicinity, all of whom have been stricken down simply because they discharged the duties of their offices honestly, and supported the regular Democratic ticket in this State in the right. The Republican party is availing itself of every unworthy means in the present contest to carry the election, because its leaders know that if they let this chance slip they will never have another, and their hopes of making this a Republican State will be blasted forever. Now, let me ask you whether the country has any interest in sustaining this organization, known as the Republican party. That party is unlike all other political organizations in this country. All other parties have been national in their character, — have avowed their principles alike in the Slave and Free States, in Kentucky as well as Illinois, in Louisiana as well as in Massachusetts. Such was the case with the old Whig party, and such was and is the case with the Democratic party. Wi]igs and Democrats could pro- claim their principles boldly and fearlessly in the North and in the South, in the East and in the West, wherever the Constitution ruled, and the American flag waved over American soil. But now you have a sectional organization, a party which appeals to the Northern section of the Union against the Southern, a party which appeals to Northern passion, Northern pride, Nortliern ambition, and Northern prejudices, against Southern people, the Southern States, and Southern institutions. The leaders of that party hope tliat they will be able to unite the Northern States in one great sectional party ; and inasmuch as the North is the strongest sec- tion, tliat they will thus be enabled to out-vote, conquer, govern, and control the South. Hence you find that they now make speeches advocating princi- ples and measures which cannot be defended in any slaveholding State of this Union. Is there a Republican residing in Galesburgh who can travel into Kentucky and carry his principles with him across the Ohio ? What Repub- lican from Massachusetts can visit the Old Dominion without leaving his prin- ciples behind him when he crosses Mason and Dixon's line ? Permit me to say to you in perfect good-humor, but in all sincerity, that no political creed is sound which cannot be proclaimed fearlessly in every State of this Union where the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not only is this Republican party unable to proclaim its principles alike in the North and in the South, in the Free States and in the Slave States, but it cannot even proclaim them in the same forms and give them the same strength and mean- ing in all parts of the same State. My friend Lincoln finds it extremely dif- ficult to manage a debate in the centre part of the State, where there is a mixture of men from the North and the South. In the extreme northern part of Illinois he can proclaim as bold and radical Abolitionism as ever Giddings, 206 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Lovejoy, or Garrison enunciated ; but when he r^ets down a little further south he claims that he is an old line Whi,L>-, a disciple of Henry Clay, and declares that he still adheres to the old line Whig creed, and has nothing whatever to do with Abolitionism, or negro equality, or negro citizenship. I once before hinted this of Mr. Lincoln in a public speech, and at Charleston he defied me to show that there was any difference between his speeches in the North and in the South, and that they were not in strict harmony. I will now call your attention to two of them, and you can then say whether you would be apt to believe that the same man ever uttered both. In a speech in reply to me at Chicago in July last, Mr. Lincoln, in speaking of the equality of the negro with the white man, used the following language : — " I should hke to know, if, taking this old Declaration of Lidependence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop] If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man "? If the Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book in which we find it, and tear it out. Who is so bold as to do it] If it is not true, let us tear it out." You find that Mr. Lincoln there proposed that if the doctrine of the Decla- ration of Independence, declaring all men to be born equal, did not include the negro and put him on an equality with the white man, that we should take the statute book and tear it out. He there took the ground that the negro race is included in the Declaration of Independence as the equal of the white race, and that there coi;ld be no such thing as a distinction in the races, making one superior and the other inferior. I read now from the same speech : — " My friends [he says], I have detained you about as long as I desire to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equak" [" That 's right," etc.] Yes, I have no douljt that you think it is right ; but the Lincoln men down in Coles, Tazewell, and Sangamon counties do not tliink it is right. In the conclusion of the same speech, talking to the Chicago Abolitionists, 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." [" Good, good."] Well, you say good to that, and you are going to vote for Lincoln because he holds that doctrine. I will not blame you for supporting him on that ground, but I will show you, in immediate 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, I think, on the 18th of last month, Mr. Lincoln, referring to this subject, used the following language : — " I will say, then, that I am not, nor never 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 never have been, in favor of making voters of the free negroes, or jurors, or qiialifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people. I will say, in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 207 of social and political equality ; and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together tliere must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man." [" Good for Lincoln."] Fellow-citizens, here you find men hurraing for Lincoln, and saying that he did right, when in one part of the State he stood up for negro equality, and in another part, for political effect, discarded the doctrine, and declared that there always must be a superior and inferior race. Abolitionists up North are expected and required to vote for Lincoln because he goes for the equality of the races, holding that by the Declaration of Independence the white man and the negro were created ec[ual, and endowed by the divine law with that equality, and down South he tells the old Whigs, the Kentuckians, Virginians, and Ten- nesseeans, that there is a physical difference in the races, making one superior and the other inferior, and that he is in favor of maintaining the superiority of the white race over the negro. Now, how can you reconcile those two positions of Mr. Lincoln ? He is to be voted for in the South as a pro-slavery man, and he is to be voted for in the North as an Abolitionist. Up here he thinks it is all nonsense to talk about a difference between the races, and says that we must " discard all quibbling about this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position." Down South he makes this " quibble " about tliis race and that race and the other race being inferior as the creed of his party, and declares that the negro can never be elevated to the position of the white man. You find that his political meetings are called by different names in different counties in the State. Here they are called Eepublican meetings ; but in old Tazewell, where Lincoln made a speech last Tuesday, he did not address a Hcpiiblican meeting, but "a grand rally of the Lincoln men." There are very few Republicans there, because Tazewell County is filled with old Virginians and Kentuckians, all of whom are Whigs or Democrats ; and if Mr. Lincoln had called an Aboli- tion or Eepublican meeting there, he would not get many votes. Go down into Egypt, and you find tliat he and his party are operating under an alias there, which his friend Trumbull has given them, in order that they may cheat the people. When I was down in Monroe County a few weeks ago, addressing the people, I saw handbills posted announcing that Mr. Trumbull was going to speak in behalf of Lincoln ; and what do you think the name of his party was there? Why, the "Free Democracy." Mr. Trumbull and Mr. Jehu Baker were announced to address the Free Democracy of Monroe County, and the bill was signed, "Many Free Democrats." The reason that Lincoln and his party adopted the name of "Free Democracy" down there was because Mon- roe County has always been an old-fashioned Democratic county, and hence it was necessary to make the people believe that they were Democrats, sympa- thized with tliera, and were fighting for Lincoln as Democrats. Come up to Springfield, where Lincoln now lives and always has lived, and you find that the Convention of his party which assembled to nominate candidates for Legislature, who are expected to vote for him if elected, dare not adopt the name of Eepublican, but assembled under the title of "all opposed to the Democracy." Thus you find that Mr. Lincoln's creed cannot travel through even one half of the counties of this State, but that it changes its hues and becomes lighter and lighter as it travels from the extreme north, until it is nearly white when it reaches the extreme south end of the State. 208 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN I ask you, my friends, why cannot Eepublicans avow their principles alike everywhere ? I would despise myself if I thought that I was procuring your votes by concealing my opinions, and by avowing one set of principles in one part of the State, and a different set in another part. If I do not truly and honorably represent your feelings and principles, then I ought not to be your senator ; and I will never conceal my opinions, or modify or change them a hair's breadth, in order to get votes. I tell you that this Chicago doctrine of Lincoln's — declaring that the negro and the white man are made equal by the Declaration of Independence and by Divine Providence — is a monstrous heresy. The signers of the Declaration of Independence never dreamed of the negro when they were writing that document. They referred to white men, to men of European birth and European descent, when they declared the equality of all men. I see a gentleman there in the crowd shaking his head. Let me remind him that when Thomas Jefferson wrote that document, he was the owner, and so continued until his death, of a large number of slaves. Did he intend to say in that Declaration that his negro slaves, which he held and treated as property, were created his equals by divine law, and that he was violating the law of God every day of his life by holding them as slaves ? It must be borne in mind that when that Declaration was put forth, every one of the thirteen Colonies were slaveholding Colonies, and every man who signed that instrument represented a slaveholding constituency. Recollect, also, that no one of them emancipated his slaves, much less put them on an equality with himself, after he signed the Declaration. On the contrary, they all continued to hold their negroes as slaves during the Eevolutionary War. Now, do you believe — are you willing to have it said — that every man who signed the Declaration of Independence declared the negro his equal, and then was hypocrite enough to continue to hold him as a slave, in violation of what he believed to be the divine law ? And yet when you say that the Decla- ration of Independence includes the negro, you charge the signers of it with hypocrisy. I say to you, frankly, that in ray opinion this government was made by our fathers on the white basis. It was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and was intended to be administered by white men in all time to come. But while I hold that under our Consti- tution and political system the negro is not a citizen, cannot be a citizen, and ought not to be a citizen, it does not follow by any means that he should be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow that the negro, as an inferior race, ought to possess every right, every privilege, every immunity, which he can safely exercise, consistent with the safety of the society in which he lives. Humanity requires, and Christianity commands, that you shall extend to every inferior being, and every dependent being, all the privileges, immuni- ties, 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 different doctrine. New York holds one different from either, and Maine one different from all. Virginia, in her policy on this question, differs in many respects from the others, and so on, until there are hardly two States whose policy is exactly alike in regard to the relation of the white man and the negro. Nor can you reconcile them and make them alike. Each State must do as it pleases. Illinois had as much right to adopt the policy which we AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 209 have on that .subject as Kentucky had to adopt a different policy. The great principle of this government is, that each State has the right to do as it pleases on all these questions, and no other State or power on earth has the right to interfere with us, or complain of us merely because our system differs from theirs. In the Compromise ]\Ieasures of 1850, Mr. Clay declared that this great principle ought to exist in the Territories as well as in the States, and I reasserted his doctrine in the Kansas and Nebraska bill in 1854. But Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to understand, and those who are deter- mined 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 impartial men. Chief Justice Taney has said, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, that a negro slave, being property, stands on an equal footing with other property, and that the owner may carry them into United States territory the same as he does other property. Suppose any two of you, neighbors, should conclude to go to Kansas, one carrying $100,000 worth of negro slaves, and the other $100,000 worth of mixed merchandise, including quantities of liquors. You both agree that under that decision you may carry your property to Kansas ; but when you get it there, the merchant who is possessed of the liquors is met by the Maine liquor law, which pro- hibits the sale or use of his property, and the owner of the slaves is met by equally unfriendly legislation, which makes his property worthless after he gets it there. What is the right to carry your property into the Territory worth to either, when unfriendly legislation in the Territory renders it worthless after you get it there ? The slaveholder when he gets his slaves there finds that there is no local law to protect him in holding them, no slave code, no police regulation maintaining and supporting him in his right, and he discovers at once that the absence of such friendly legislation excludes his property from the Territory just as irresistibly as if there was a positive Constitutional prohibi- tion excluding it. Thus you find it is with any kind of property in a Terri- tory : it depends for its protection on the local and numicipal law. If the people of a Territory want slavery, they make friendly legislation to introduce it ; but if they do not want it, they withhold all protection from it, and then it cannot exist there. Such was the view taken on the subject by different Southern men when the Nebraska bill passed. See the speech of Mr. Orr, of South Carolina, the present Speaker of the House of Kepresentatives of Con- gress, made at that time ; and there you will find this whole doctrine argued out at full length. Read the speeches of other Southern Congressmen, Sena- tors and Representatives, made in 1854, and you will find that they took the same view of the subject as Mr. Orr, — that slavery could never be forcetl on a people who did not want it. I hold that in this country there is no power on the face of the globe that can force any institution on an unwilling people. The great fundamental principle of our government is that the people of each State and each Territory shall be left perfectly free to decide for themselves what shall be the nature and character of their institutions. When this gov- ernment was made, it was based on that principle. At the time of its forma- tion there were twelve slaveholding States and one free State in this Union. Suppose this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln and the Republicans, of uniformity of laws of all the States on the subject of slavery, had prevailed ; suppose Mr. Lincoln himself had been a member of the Convention which framed the Constitution, and that he had risen in that august body, and, addressing the 27 210 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN father of his country, had said as he did at Springfield : " A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure per- manently, half slave and half free I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, I do not expect the house to fall ; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It "will become all one thing or all the other." "What do yon think would have been the result? Suppose he had made that Convention believe that doctrine, and they had acted upon it, what do you think would have been the result ? Do you believe that the one Free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus abolish slavery ? On the contrary, would not the twelve slaveholding States have outvoted the one Free State, and under his doctrine have fastened slavery by an irrevocable constitutional provision upon every inch of the American Eepublic ? Thus you see that the doctrine he now advocates, if proclaimed at the beginning of the government, would have established slavery everywhere throughout the American continent ; and are you willing, now that we have the majority section, to exercise a power which we never would have submitted to when we were in the minority ? If the Southern States had attempted to control our institutions, and make the States all slave, when they had the power, I ask would you have submitted to it ? If you would not, are you willing, now that we have become the strong- est under that great principle of self-government that allows each State to do as it pleases, to attempt to control the Southern institutions ? Then, my friends, I say to you that there is but one path of peace in this Eepublic, and that is to administer this government as our fathers made it, divided into Free and Slave States, allowing each State to decide for itself whether it wants slavery or not. If Illinois will settle the slavery question for herself, and mind her own business and let her neighbors alone, we will be at peace with Ken- tucky and every other Southern State. If every other State in the Union will do the same, there will be peace between the North and the South, and in the whole Union. MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY. My Fellow-Citizexs : A very large portion of the speech whicli Judge Douglas has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in print. I do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all. If I had not been inter- rupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I was able to make to a very large portion of it, had already been more than once made and pub- lished. There has been an opportunity afforded to the public 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 the purpose of excus- ing myself for not passing over the entire ground that the Judge has trav- ersed. I however desire to take up some of the points tliat he has attended to, and ask your attention to them, and I shall follow him backwards upon some notes which I have taken, reversing the order, by beginning where he concluded. The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and insisted that negroes are not included in that Declaration ; and that it is a slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that negroes were meant therein ; and he asks you : Is it possible to believe that Mr. Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have supposed himself applying the Ian- AND STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 211 guage 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 ? I only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech (and that, too, very brietly, for I shall not detain myself, or you, upon that point for any great length of time), that I believe the entire records of the world, from the date of the Declaration of Independence np to within three years ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single man, that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence ; I think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any member of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present policy of the Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that affirmation. And I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience that while Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly be was, in speak- ing upon this very subject he used the strong language that " he trembled for his country when he remembered that God was just;" and I will offer the highest premium in my power to Judge Douglas if he will show that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson. The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's comments upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call our public meetings as Eepublican meetings ; and he instances Tazewell county as one of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called a public meeting and have not dared to name it a Eepublican meeting. He instances Monroe County as another, where Judge Trumbull and Jehu Baker addressed the persons whom the Judge assumes to be the friends of Lincoln, calling them the " Free Democracy." I have the honor to inform Judge Douglas that he spoke in that very county of Tazewell last Saturday, and I was there on Tuesday last ; and when he spoke there, he spoke under a call not venturing to use the word " Democrat." [Turning to Judge Douglas.] What think you of this ? So, again, there is another thing to wdiich I would aslc the Judge's atten- tion upon this subject. In the contest of 1856 his party delighted to call themselves together as the " National Democracy ; " but now, if there should be a notice put up anywhere for a meeting of the " National Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not come. They would not suj)pose themselves invited. They would understand that it was a call for those hate- ful postmasters whom he talks about. Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine which Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in very great con- trast to each other. Those speeches have been before the public for a con- siderable time, and if they have any inconsistency in them, if there is any conflict in them, the public have been able to detect it. When the Judge says, in speaking on this subject, that I make speeches of one sort for the people of the northern end of the State, and of a different sort for the south- ern people, he assumes that I do not understand that my speeches will be put in print and read north and south. I knew all the while that the speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at Jonesboro and the one at Charles- ton, would all be put in print, and all the reading and intelligent men in the community would see them and know all about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will have it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality between the white and black races which justifies us in making them slaves, we must then insi.st that there is a degree of equality 212 DEBATES BETWEEN ABKAHAM LINCOLN that requires us to make them onrwives. Now, I have all the while taken a broad distinction in regard to that matter ; and that is all there is in these different speeches which he arrays here ; and the entire reading of either of the speeches will show that that distinction was made. Perhaps by taking two parts of the same speech he could have got up as much of a couliict as the one he has found. I liave all the while maintained that in so far as it should be insisted that there was an equality between the white and black races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility. This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have said that in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as pro- claimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our equals. And these declarations I have constantly made in reference to the abstract moral ques- tion, to contemplate and consider when we are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed with the actual presence of the evil, — slavery. I have never manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence of slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have insisted that, in legislating for new countries where it does not exist, there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract right ! With reference to those new countries, those maxims as to the right of a people to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " were the just rules to be constantly referred to. There is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested to misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an intelligent and reading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge whether I advance improper or unsound views, or whether I advance hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions of the country. 1 believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free from all error in the opinions I advance. The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction between his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national party, — ours a sectional one. He does this in asking the question whether this country has any interest in the maintenance of the Eepublican party ? He assumes that our party is altogether sectional, — that the party to which he adheres is national ; and the argument is, that no party can be a rightful party — can be based upon rightful principles — unless it can announce its principles every- where. I presume that Judge Douglas could not go into Paissia and announce the doctrine of our national Democracy ; he could not denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Paissia ; and it may be true of this country that in some places we may not be able to proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of Democracy, because there is a section so directly opposed to it that they will not tolerate us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of a doctrine that in some places people won't let you proclaim it ? Is that the way to test the truth of any doctrine ? Why, I understood that at one time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a certain favorite doctrine of his. I commend to his consideration the question, whether he takes that as a test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little while on this occasion. What has always been the evidence brought forward to prove that the Kepublican party is a sectional party ? The main one was that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did not let the Ptepublicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That has been the main evidence AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 213 brought forward, — that they had no supporters, or substantially none, in the Slave States. The South have not taken hold of our principles as we announce them ; nor does Judge Douglas now grapple with those principles. We have a Eepublican State Platform, laid down in Springfield in June last, stating our position all the way tlirough the questions before the country. We are now far advanced in this canvass. Judge Douglas and I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have now for the fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I have not found either Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of the Eepublican platform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is wrong. I ask you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away from the platform of principles to the fact that he can find people somewhere who will not allow us to announce those principles. If he had great confidence that our principles were wrong, he would take hold of them and demonstrate them to be wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he has of their being wrong is in the fact that there are people who won't allow us to preach them. I ask again, is that the way to test the soundness of a doctrine ? I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality he is him- self fast becoming sectional. I ask his attention to the fact that his speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio Eiver as they have formerly gone there. I ask his attention to tlie fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all the Democrats of the Free States are agreeing with him, while he omits to tell us that the Democrats of any Slave State agree with liim. If he has not thought of this, I commend to his consideration the evidence in his own declaration, on this day, of his becoming sectional too. I see it rapidly approaching. Whatever may be the result of this ephemeral contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day rapidly approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has been thrusting down the throats of Eepublicans for years past, will be crowded down his own throat. Nov,', in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his speech) about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principle of the Nebraska bill, although I have often presented my views upon that subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you please, detain you a little with them. I have always maintained, so far as I was able, that there was nothing of the principle of the Nebraska bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all, — nothing whatever. Where can you find the principle of the Nebraska bill in that Compromise ? If anywhere, in the two pieces of the Compromise organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was expressly provided in these two Acts that when they came to be admitted into the Union, they should be admitted with or without slavery, as they should choose, by their own con- stitutions. Nothing was said in either of those Acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery during the Territorial existence of those Territories, while Henry Clay constantly made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control that question during the Territorial existence, and that these old Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can that be used as a principle for declaring that during the Territorial existence as well as at the time of framing the constitu- tion, the people, if you please, might have slaves if they wanted them ? I am not discussing the question whether it is right or wrong ; but how are the New Mexican and Utah laws patterns for the Nebraska bill ? I maintain that the organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general principle at all. It had no feature of establishing a general principle. The 214 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Acts to which I liave referred were a part of a general system of Compromises. They did not lay down what was proposed as a regular policy for the Terri- tories, only an agreement in this particular case to do in that way, because other things were done that were to be a compensation for it. They were allowed to come in in that shape, because in another way it was paid for, — considering that as a part of that system of measures called the Compromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen Acts. It included the admission of California as a Free State, wliich was kept out of the Union for half a year because it had formed a free constitution. It included the settlement of the boundary of Texas, which had been undefined before, which was in itself a slavery question ; for if you pushed the line farther west, you made Texas larger, and made more slave territory ; while, if you drew the line toward the east, you narrowed tlie boundary and diminished the domain of slavery, and by so much increased free territory. It included the abolition of the slave- trade in the District of Columbia. It included the passage of a new Fugitive Slave law. All these things were put together, and though passed in separate Acts, were nevertheless, in legislation (as the speeches at the time will show), made to depend upon each other. Each got votes, with the understanding that the other measures were to pass, and by this system of Compromise, in that series of measures, those two bills — the New Mexico and Utah bills — were passed : and I say for that reason they could not be taken as models, framed upon their own intrinsic principle, for all future Territories. And I have the evidence of this in the fact tliat Judye DouQ-las, a year afterward, or more than a year afterward, perhaps, when he first introduced l)ills for the purpose of framing new Territories, did not attempt to follow these bills of New Mexico and Utah ; and even wdien he introduced this Nebraska bill, I think you will discover that he did not exactly follow them. But I do not wish to dwell at great length upon this branch of the discussion. My own opinion is, that a thorough investigation will show most plainly that the New Mexico and Utah bills were part of a system of compromise, and not designed as patterns for future Territorial legislation ; and that this Nebraska bill did not follow them as a pattern at all. The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any odious distinctions between Free and Slave States. I am altogether unaware that the Eepublicans are in favor of making any odious distinctions between the Free and Slave States. But there is still a difference, I think, between Judge Dousz- las and the Piepublicans in this. I suppose tliat the real difference between Judge Douglas and his friends, and the Piepublicans on the contrary, is, that the Judge is not in favor of making any difference between slavery and lib- erty ; that he is in favor of eradicating, of pressing out of view, the questions of preference in this country for free or slave institutions ; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the idea that there is any wrong in slav- ery. Everything that emanates from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully excludes the thought tliat there is anything wrong in slavery. All their arguments, if you will consider them, will be seen to exclude the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in slavery. If you will take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him, — as his 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 adndt that slaverv is wrong. If you do admit that it is wronsf. Judge Douglas cannot logically say lie don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas declares that if any community want slavery they have a right to AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 215 have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no wrong in slav- ery ; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot logically say that anybody lias a right to do wrong. He insists that, upon the score of equality, the owners of slaves and owners of property — of horses and every other sort of property — should be alike, and hold them alike in a new Territory. That is perfectly logical if the two species of property are alike and are equally founded in right. But if you admit that one of them is wrong, you cannot institute any equality between right and wrong. And from this difference of sentiment, — the belief on the part of one that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that belief wliich looks to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong ; and this other sentiment, that it is no wrong, and a policy sprung from that sentiment, which will tolerate no idea of preventing the wrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end of it through all the existence of things, — arises the real difference between Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand, and the Eepublicans on the other. Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satis- factory 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, tlie fifth time, if not tlie seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or combination between the National Democrats and Eepublicans. What evidence Judge Douglas has upon this subject I know not, inasmuch as he never favors us with any. I have said upou 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 him- self. 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 quarrelled 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 tliat division. Don't you remember how two years ago the opponents 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 Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. 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 call 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 a set of resolutions which he declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken part in that Convention. It turned out 216 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN that although a few men calling themselves an anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So apparent had it become that the resolutions which he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by a State Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days afterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the " State Eegister," and Thomas L. Harris, member of Congress in that District, and he promised in that speech that when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter. Since then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made the investigation ; but a month has passed since he has been there, and, so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of his investigation. I have waited as I think sufficient time for the report of that investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A fraud, an absolute forgery was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced to the three, — Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed in any way so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's report would probably show. It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were published in the Illinois "State Eegister " on the 16th of October, 1854, as being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention which had sat in that same month of October, at Springfield. But it is also true that the publication in the " Eegister " was a forgery tlien, and the question is still behind, which of the three, if not all of them, committed that forgery ? The idea that it was done by mistake, is absurd. The article in the Illinois " State Eegister " contains part of the real proceedings of that Springfield Convention, showing that the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him, and purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the Convention, and fraudulently sub- stituted the others. Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of the " Eegister," so that there seems to be but little room for his escape. But then it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the other two. The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to Congress, and that object was known to be exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and Douglas were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, and although they both left before the fraud appeared in the " Eegister," subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon that Convention. The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put it to new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband was brought home with his body full of eels, said when she was asked, " What was to be done with him ?" " Take the eels out and set Mm again" so Harris and Douglas have shown a disposition to take the eels out of that stale fraud by which they gained Harris's election, and set the fraud again more than once. On the 9th of July, 1856, Douglas attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the Senate of the United States, as will appear from the appendix of the " Congressional Globe " of that date. On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton in the House of Eepresentatives, as will appear by the same documents, — the appendix to the " Congressional Globe" of that date. On the 21st of August last, all three — Lanphier, Douglas, and Harris — reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. It has been clung to and played out again and again as an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio. And now that it has been discovered publicly AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 217 to be a fraud, we find that Judge Douglas manifests no surprise at it at all. He makes no complaint of Lanphier, who must have known it to be a fraud from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as cosey now, and just as active in the concoction of new scliemes as they were before the general discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is very natural if they are all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any one of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honor among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself, and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difiicult to make a satisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the three are agreed that each is "ht or wrona; in enslaving a nesjro, I am still in favor of our new Terri- tories being in such a condition that white men may find a home, — may find some spot where they can better their condition ; where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this, not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people evcryiohere, the world over, — in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all tlie world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life. I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the Free and the Slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy. There is no founda- tion in truth for the charge that I maintain either of these propositions. The real issue in this controversy — the one pressing upon every mind — is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a torong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican party. It is tlie sentiment around which all their actions, all their arguments, circle, from which all their propo- 35 274 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN sitions radiate. They look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while they contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more danger. They insist that it should, as far as may be, le treated as a wrong ; and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. They also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some time, as being wrong. These are the views they entertain in regard to it as I understand them ; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are brought within this range. I have said, and I repeat it here, that if there be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he is misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obliga- tions thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly with us. On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let me say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union save and except this very institution of slavery ? What is it that we hold most dear amongst us ? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threat- ened our liberty and prosperity, save and except this institution of slavery ? If this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery, — by spreading it out and making it bigger ? You may have a wen or cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out, lest you bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and spread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of treating what you regard a wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing with it as a wrong, — restrict- ing 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 which treats it as not being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean to say that every man who stands 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 Douglas, treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either rioht or wrong. These two classes of men fall within the general class of those who do not look upon it as a wrong. And if there be among you anybody who supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself " as much opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you consider as a wrong do you deal with as you deal with that ? Perhaps you say it is wrong, but your leader never does, and you quarrel with anyhody who says it is wrong. Although you pre- tend to say so yourself, you can find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You must not say anything about it in the Free States, because it is not here. You must not say anything about it in the Slave States, because it is there. You must not say anything about it in the pulpit, because that is religion, and has nothing to do with it. You must not say anything about it in politics, because that will disturb the security of " my place" There is no AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 275 place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. But, finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the Slave States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation 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 they could for the system 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 hnrrahccl for Democracy. More than that, take all the argument made in favor of the system you have pro- posed, and it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in the institution of slavery. The arguments to sustain that policy carefully excluded it. Even here to-day you heard Judge Douglas quarrel with me because I uttered a wisli 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 uttering a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the merest breath, the shghtest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he " don't care whether it is voted up or voted down " in the Territories. I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the subject, or only 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 slavery ; but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He may say he don't care whetlier an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever com- munity wants slaves has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality, slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no dif- ference between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, his argument is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments, — it everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — through- out the world. They are tlie two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, " You work and toil and earn bread, and I '11 eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride 276 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving anotlier race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I was glad to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, to Judge Douglas, — that he looks to no end of the instittdion of slavery. That will help the people to see where the struggle really is. It will hereafter place with us all men who really do wish the wrong may have an end. And whenever we can get rid of the fog which obscures the real question, when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to avow a policy looking to its perpetu- ation, — we can get out from among that class of men and bring them to the side of those who treat it as a wrong. Then there will soon be an end of it, and that end will be its " ultimate extinction." Whenever the issue can be distinctly made, and all extraneous matter thrown out so that men can fairly seethe real difference between the parties, this controversy will soon be settled, and it will be done peaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. It will be placed again where the wisest and best men of the world placed it. Brooks of South Carolina once declared that when this Constitution was framed, its framers did not look to the institution existing until this day. When he said this, I think he stated a fact that is fully borne out by tlie history of the times. But he also said they were better and wiser men than tlie men of these days ; yet the men of tliese days had experience which they had not, and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this country that slavery should be perpetual I now say that, willingly or unwillingly, purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been the most prominent instrument in changing the position of the institution of slavery which the fathers of the government expected to come to an end ere this, — and putting it npon Brooks's cotton-gin basis ; placing it where he openly confesses he has no desire there shall ever be an end of it. I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying some- thing about this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains the Dred Scott decision, that the people of the Territories can still somehow exclude slavery. The first thing I ask attention to is the fact that Judge Douglas constantly said, before the decision, that whether they could or not, was a question for the Supreyne Court. But after the court has made the decision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme Court, but for the people. And how is it he tells us they can exclude it ? He says it needs " police regulations," and that admits of " unfriendly legislation." Although it is a right established by the Constitution of the United States to take a slave into a Territory of the United States and hold him as property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation, and, more especially, if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can practically exclude him. Xow, without meeting this proposition as a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to swear that he will support the Constitution of the United States. His neighbor by his side in the Terri- tory has slaves and needs Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional right. Can he withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Constitution of the United States which he has sworn to support ? Can he withhold it with- out violating his oath ? And, more especially, can he pass unfriendly legis- lation to violate his oath ? Why, this is a monstrous sort of talk about the Constitution of the United States ! Thei^e has never been as outlandish or AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 277 Imvlcss a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable man on earth. I do not believe it is a constitutional right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States. I believe the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision. But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself stands. I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law, — that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a " barren right," which needs legislation before it can become efhcient and valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional, I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it, — and that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no taste for running and catch- ing niggers, — at least, I profess no taste for that job at all. Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law ? Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can be supported without it. And if I believed that the right to hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution with the right to reclaim fugitives, I sliould be bound to give it the legislation necessary to support it. I say that no man can deny his obligation to give the necessary legislation to support slavery in a Terri- tory, who believes it is a constitutional right to have it there. No man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a Fugitive State law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a constitu- tional right witli the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in spite of that constitutional right, slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argu- ment by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such an argument may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive, and the constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct. I defy any man to make an argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all. 278 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. Me. Lincoln has concluded his remarks by saying that there is not such an Abolitionist as I am in all America. If he could make the Abolitionists of Illinois believe that, he would not have much show for the Senate. Let him make the Abolitionists believe the truth of that statement, and his political back is broken. His first criticism upon me is the expression of his hope that the war of the Administration will be prosecuted against me and the Democratic party of this State with vigor. He wants that war prosecuted with vigor ; I have no doubt of it. His hopes of success and the hopes of his party depend solely upon it. They have no chance of destroying the Democracy of this State except by the aid of Federal patronage. He has all the Federal office-hohlers here as his allies, running separate tickets against the Democracy to divide the party, although the leaders all intend to vote directly the Abolition ticket, and only leave the greenhorns to vote this separate ticket who refuse to go into the Abolition camp. There is sometliing really refreshing in the thought that Mr. Lincoln is in favor of prosecuting one war vigorously. It is the first war I ever knew him to be in favor of prosecuting. It is the first war tliat I ever knew him to believe to be just or constitutional. When the Mexican war was being waged, and the American army was surrounded by the enemy in Mexico, he tliought that war was unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust. He thought it was not commenced on the right spot. When I made an incidental allusion of that kind in the joint discussion over at Charleston some weeks ago, Lincoln, in replying, said that I, Douglas, had charged him with voting against supplies for the Mexican war, and then he reared up, full length, and swore that he never voted against the supplies ; that it was a slander ; and caught hold of Ficklin, who sat on the stand, and said, " Here, Ficklin, tell the people that it is a lie." Well, Ficklin, who had served in Congress with him, stood up and told them all that he recollected about it. It was that when George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, brought for- ward a resolution declaring the war unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust, that Lincoln had voted for it. " Yes," said Lincoln, " I did." Thus he con- fessed that he voted that the war was wrong, that our country was in the w^rong, and consequently tliat the Mexicans were in the right ; but charged that I had slandered him by saying that he voted against the supplies. I never charged him with voting against the supplies in my life, because I knew that he was not in Congress when they were voted. The war was commenced on the 13th day of May, 1846, and on that day we appropriated in Congress ten millions of dollars and fifty thousand men to prosecute it. During the same session we voted more men and more money, and at the next session we voted more men and more money, so that by the time Mr. Lincoln entered Congress we had enough men and enough money to carry on the war, and had no occasion to vote for any more. When he got into the House, being opposed to the war, and not being able to stop the supplies, because they had all gone forward, all he could do was to follow the lead of Corwin, and prove that the war was not begun on the right spot, and that it was unconstitutional, unneces- sary, and wrong. Eemember, too, that this he did after the war had been begun. It is one thing to be opposed to the declaration of a war, another and very different thing to take sides with the enemy against your own country after the war has been commenced. Our army was in Mexico at the time, many battles had been fought ; our citizens, who were defending the honor of theit AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 279 country's flag, were surrounaed by the daggers, the guns, and the poison of the enemy. Then it was that Corwin made his speech in which he declared tliat the American soldiers ought to be welcomed by the Mexicans with bloody hands and hospitable graves; then it was that Ashmun and Lincoln voted in the House of Eepresentatives that the war was unconstitutional and unjust ; and Ashmun's resolution, Corwin's speech, and Lincoln's vote were sent to Mexico and read at the head of the Mexican army, to prove to them that there was a Mexican party in the Congress of the United States who were doing all in their power to aid them. That a man who takes sides with the common enemy against his own country in time of war should rejoice in a war being made on me now, is very natural. And, in my opinion, no other kind of a man would rejoice in it. Mr. Lincoln has told you a great deal to-day about his being an old line Clay Whig. Bear in mind that there are a great many old Clay Whigs down in this region. It is more agreeable, therefore, for him to talk about the old Clay Whi^' party than it is for him to talk Abolitionism. We did not hear much about the old Clay Whig party up in the Abolition districts. How much of an old line Henry Clay Whig was he ? Have you read General Singleton's speech at Jacksonville ? You know that General Singleton was for twenty-five years the confidential friend of Henry Clay in Illinois, and he testified that in 1847, when the Constitutional Convention of this State was in session, the Whig nrembers were invited to a Whig caucus at the house of Mr. Lincoln's brother-in-law, where Mr. Lincoln proposed to throw Henry Clay overboard and take up General Taylor in his place, giving as his reason that if the Whigs did not take up General Taylor, the Democrats would. Singleton testifies that Lincoln in that speech urged as another reason for throwing Henry Clay overboard, that the Whigs had fought long enough for principle, and ought to begin to fight for success. Singleton also testifies that Lincoln's speech did have the effect of cutting Clay's throat, and that he (Singleton) and others withdrew from the caucus in indignation. He further states that when they got to Philadelphia to attend the National Convention of the Whig party, that Lincoln was tliere, the bitter and deadly enemy of Clay, and that he tried to keep him (Singleton) out of the Convention because he insisted on voting for Clay, and Lincoln was determined to have Taylor. Singleton says that Lincoln rejoiced with very great joy when he found the mangled remains of the murdered Whig statesman lying cold before him. Now, Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is an old line Clay Whig ! General Singleton testifies to the facts I have narrated, in a public speech which has been printed and circulated broadcast over the State for weeks, yet not a lisp have we heard from Mr. Lincoln on the subject, except that he is an old Clay Whig. What part of Henry Clay's policy did Lincoln ever advocate ? He was in Congress in 1848-9, when the Wilmot Proviso warfare disturbed the peace and harmony of the country, until it shook the foundation of the Eepublic from its centre to its circumference. It was that agitation that brought Clay forth from his retirement at Ashland again to. occupy his seat in the Senate of the United States, to see if he could not, by his great wisdom and experience, and the renown of his name, do something to restore peace and quiet to a disturbed country. Who got up that sectional strife that Clay had to be called upon to quell ? I have heard Lincoln boast that he voted forty-two times for the Wilmot Proviso, and that he would have voted as many times more if he could. Lincoln is the man, in connection with Seward, Chase, Giddings, and 280 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN other Abolitionists, who got up that strife that I helped Clay to put down. Henry Clay came back to the Senate in 1849, and saw that he must do some- thing to restore peace to the country. The Union Whigs and the Union Democrats welcomed him, the moment he arrived, as the man for the occa- sion. We believed that he, of all men on earth, had been preserved by Divine Providence to guide us out of our difficulties, and we Democrats rallied under Clay then, as you Whigs in Nullification time rallied under the banner of old Jackson, foi'getting party when the country was in danger, in order that we might have a country first, and parties afterward. And this reminds me that Mv. Lincoln told you that the slavery question was the only thing that ever disturbed the peace and harmony of the Union. Did not Nullification once raise its head and disturb the peace of this Union in 1832 ? Was that the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln ? Did not disunion raise its monster head during the last war with Great Britain ? Was that the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln ? The peace of this country has been disturbed three times, once during the war with Great Britain, once on the tariff ques- tion, and once on the slavery question. His argument, therefore, that slavery is the only question that has ever created dissension in the Union falls to the ground. It is true that agitators are enabled now to use this slavery question for the purpose of sectional strife. He admits that in regard to all things else, the principle that I advocate, making each State and Territory free to decide for itself, ought to prevail. He instances the cranberry laws and the oyster laws, and he might have gone through the w^hole 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. Mr. Lincoln tries to avoid the main issue by attacking the truth of my prop- osition, 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 unitino- them toirether as thev 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 government, 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 every- where. I look forward to a time when each State shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own ; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business, — not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government, the right of the people to rule, than I do for all the negroes in Christendom. I would not endanger the perpetuity 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 AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 281 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 of our government ? They did not probably foresee the tele- graph that transmits intelligence by lightning, nor did they foresee the rail- roads that now form the bonds of union between the different States, or the thousand mechanical inventions that have elevated mankind. But do these things change the principles of the government ? Our fathers, I say, made this government on the principle of the right of each State to do as it pleases in its own domestic affairs, subject to the Constitution, and allowed the people of each to apply to every new change of circumstances such remedy as they may see fit to improve their condition. This right they have for all time to come. Mr. Lincoln went on to tell you tliat 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 extinction everywhere, if he does not intend to interfere with it in the States where it exists ? He says that he will prohibit 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 say whether or not he would vote to admit Kansas with slavery or not, as her people might apply (he forgot that, as usual, etc.) ; he did not say whether or not he was in favor of bringing the Territories now in existence into the Union on the principle of Clay's Compromise Measures on the slavery question. I told you that he would not. His idea is that he will prohibit slavery in all the Territories, and thus force them all to become Free States, surrounding the Slave States with a cordon of Free States, and hem- ming them in, keeping the slaves confined to their present limits whilst they go on multiplying, until the soil on which they live will no longer feed them, and he will thus be able to put slavery in a course of ultimate extinction by starvation. He will extinguish slavery in the Southern States as the French general exterminated the Algerines when he smoked them out. He is going to extinguish slavery by surrounding the Slave States, hemming in the slaves, and starving them out of existence, as you smoke a fox out of his hole. He intends to do that in the name of liumanity and Christianity, in order that we may get rid of the terrible crime and sin entailed upon our fathers of holding slaves. Mr. Lincoln makes out that line of policy, and appeals to the moral sense of justice and to the Christian feeling of the com- munity to sustain him. He says that any man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the position of the king who claimed to govern by divine right. Let us examine for a moment and see what principle it was 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 concerning our property 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 representation. Now, Mr. Lincoln proposes to govern the Territories without giving them a representation, and calls on Congress to pass 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 Ke volution. 36 282 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN I ask you to look into these things, and then tell me whether the Democ- racy 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 Accept- ance), have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall or sliall 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 equal footing with other property, and consequently that the owner has the same right to carry tliat property into a Territory that he has any other, sub- ject 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 Illinois and sell it. If you take negroes to Kansas, as Colonel Jefferson Davis said in his Bangor speech, from which 1 have quoted to-day, you must take them there subject to the local law. If the people want the institution of slavery, they will protect and encourage it ; but if they do not want it, they will withhold that protection, and the absence of local legislation protecting slavery excludes it as completely as a positive prohibi- tion. You slaveholders of Missouri might as well understand what you know practically, that you cannot carry slavery where the people do not want it. All you have a right to ask is that the people shall do as they please : if they want slavery, let them have it ; if they do not want it, allow them to refuse to encourage it. My friends, if, as I have said before, we will only live up to this great fun- damental principle, there will be peace between 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 have we to interfere w-ith slavery any more than we have to inter- fere with any other question ? He says that this slavery question is now the bone of contention. Why ? Simply because agitators have combined in all the Free States to make war upon it. Suppose the agitators in the States should combine in one half of the Union to make war upon the railroad system of the other half ? They would thus be driven to the same sectional strife. Suppose one section makes war upon any other peculiar institution of the opposite section, and the same strife is produced. The only remedy and safety is that we shall stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, obey the laws as they are passed, while they stand the proper test, and sustain the decisions of the Supreme Court and the constituted authorities. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 283 SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, At Columbus, Ohio, September, 1859. Fellow-Citizens of the State of Ohio : I cannot fail to remember that I appear for the first time before 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 renowned 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 your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, therefore, that you will com- mence with very moderate expectations ; and perhaps, if you 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 somewhat embarrassed for a topic by way of introduction to my speech ; but I have been relieved from that embarrassment by an introduction which the " Ohio States- man " 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 attempted to defend that vile concep- tion against the Little Giant." -O"' I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the purpose 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 opportunity to correct it. In the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. I have found that it is not entirely safe, when one is misrepresented under his very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontradicted. I therefore propose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is a misrepresentation, but to show con- clusively 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 year, to which tliis newspaper refers. In the first pitched battle which Senator Douglas and myself had, at the town of Ottawa, I used the language which I will now read. Having been previously reading an extract, I continued as follows : — " Now, gentlemen, I don't 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 black race. This is the whole of it; and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement 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 introduce 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 forbid their ever living together upon the footing of perfect equality ; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge 284 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong liaving the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world wliy the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, — tlie rigid to life, liberty, and the pursuit of liappiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas, he is not mj' equal in many respects, — certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he, is my equal, and the equal of Judge Dotiglas, and the equal of every living many Upon a subsequent occasion, when the reason for making a statement like this recurred, I said : — " While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet, as the question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am not, 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 ofiice, or intermarry with the 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 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. 1 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 fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child, who was in favor of producing perfect equalit}', social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distin- guished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be satisfied of its correctness, — and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend. Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes, if there was no law to keep them from it ; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they miglit, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give liim the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of the State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes." There, my friends, you have briefly what I have, upon former occasions, said upon this subject to which this newspaper, to the extent of its ability, has drawn the public attention. In it you not only perceive, as a probability, that in that contest I did not at any time say I was in favor of negro suffrage, but the absolute proof that twice — once substantially, and once expressly — I declared against it. Having shown you this, tliere remains but a word of comment upon that newspaper article. It is this : that I presume the editor of that paper is an honest and truth-loving man, and that he will be greatly obliged to me for furnishing him thus early an opportunity to correct the misrepresenta- tion he has made, before it has run so long that malicious people can call hitn a liar. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 285 The Giant himself has been here recently. I have seen a brief report of his speech. If it were otherwise unpleasant to me to introduce the subject of the negro as a topic for discussion, I might be somewhat relieved by the fact that he dealt exclusively in that subject while he was here. I shall, therefore, without much hesitation or diffidence, enter upon this subject. The American people, on the first day of January, 1854, found the African slave-trade prohibited by a law of Congress. In a majority of the States of this Union, they found African slavery, or any other sort of slavery, prohibited by State constitutions. They also found a law existing, supposed to be valid, by which slavery was excluded from almost all the territory the United States then owned. This was the condition of the country, with reference to the institution of slavery, on the first of January, 1854. A few days after that, a bill was introduced into Congress, which ran through its regular course in the two branches of the National Legislature, and finally passed into a law in the month of May, by which the Act of Congress prohibiting slavery from going into the Territories of the United States was repealed. In connection with the law itself, and, in fact, in the terms of the law, the then existing pro- hibition was not only repealed, but there was a declaration of a purpose on the part of Congress never thereafter to exercise any power that they might have, real or supposed, to prohibit the extension or spread of slavery. This was a very great change ; for the law thus repealed was of more than thirty years' standing. Following rapidly upon the heels of this action of Congress, a deci- sion 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, lias no consti- tutional power to do so. Not only so, but that decision lays down principles which, if pushed to their logical conclusion, — I say pushed to their logical conclusion, — would decide that the constitutions of Free States, forbidding slavery, are themselves unconstitutional. Mark me, I do not say the Judge said this, and let no man say I affirm tlie Judge used these words ; but I only say it is my opinion that what they did say, if pressed to its logical conclusion, will inevitably result thus. Looking at these things, the Eepublican party, as I understand its principles and policy, believe that there is great danger of the institution of slavery being- spread out and extended until it is ultimately made alike lawful in all the States of this Union ; so believing, to prevent that incidental and ultimate consummation is the original and chief purpose of the Eepublican organization. I say " chief purpose " of the Eepublican organization ; for it is certaiidy true that if the National House shall fall into the hands of the Eepublicans, they will have to attend to all the other matters of National House-keeping, as well as this. The chief and real purpose of the Eepublican party is eminently con- servative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change in reference to it than that which the original framers of the Government themselves expected and looked forward to. The chief danger to this purpose of the Eepublican party is not just now the revival of the African slave-trade, or the passage of a Congressional slave- code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott decision, making slavery lawful in all the States. These are not pressing us just now. They are not quite ready yet. The authors of these measures know that we are too strong for them ; but they will be upon us in due time, and we will be grappling with them hand to hand, if they are not now headed off'. They are not now the chief danger to the purpose of the Eepublican organization ; but the most imminent danger 286 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN that now threatens that purpose is that insidious Douglas Popular Sovereignty. This is the miner and sapper. While it does not propose to revive the African slave-trade, nor to pass a slave-code, nor to make a second Dred Scott decision, it is preparing us for the onslaught and charge of these ultimate enemies when they shall be ready to come on, and the word of command for them to advance shall be given. I say this " Douglas Popular Sovereignty ; " for there is a broad distinction, as I now understand it, between that article and a genuine Popular Sovereignty. I believe there is a genuine popular sovereignty. I think a definition of " genuine popular sovereignty," in the abstract, would be about this : That each man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively concern him. Applied to government, this principle would be, that a general government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do precisel}'' as they please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them. I understand that this government of the United States, under which we live, is based upon this principle ; and I am misunderstood if it is supposed that I have any war to make upon that principle. Now, what is Judge Douglas's Popular Sovereignty ? It is, as a principle, no other than that, if one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that other man nor anybody else has a right to object. Applied in government, as he seeks to apply it, it is this : If, in a new Territory into which a few people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits or to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or tlie infinitely greater number of persons who are afterward to inhabit that Territory, or the other members of the families of communities, of which they are but an incipient member, or the general head of the family of States as parent of all, — however their action may affect one or the other of these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas's popular sovereignty applied. He has a good deal of trouble with popular sovereignty. His explana- tions explanatory of explanations explained are interminable. The most lengthy, and, as I suppose, the most maturely considered of his long series of explanations is his great essay in " Harper's ]\Iagazine." I will not attempt to enter on any very thorough investigation of liis argument as there made and presented. I will nevertheless occupy a good portion of your time here in drawing your attention to certain points in it. Such of you as may have read this document will have perceived that the Judge, early in the document quotes from two persons as belonging to the Eepublican party, without nam- ing them, but who can readily be recognized as being Governor Seward of New York and myself. It is true that exactly fifteen months ago this day, I believe, I for the first time expressed a sentiment upon this subject, and in such a manner that it should get into print, that the public might see it beyond the circle of my hearers ; and my expression of it at that time is tlie quotation that Judge Douglas makes. He has not made the quotation with accuracy, but justice to him requires me to say that it is sufficiently accurate not to change its sense. The sense of that quotation condensed is this : that this slavery element is a durable element of discord among us, and that we shall probably not have perfect peace in this country with it until it either masters the free principle in our government, or is so far mastered by the free principle as for the public AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 287 mind to rest in the belief that it is going to its end. This sentiment, which I now express in this way, was, at no great distance of time, perhaps in differ- ent language, and in connection with some collateral ideas, expressed by Governor Seward. Judge Douglas has been so much annoyed by the expres- sion of that sentiment tlmt he has constantly, I believe, in almost all his speeches since it was uttered, been referring to it. I find he alluded to it in his speech here, as well as in the copyright essay. I do not now enter upon this for the purpose of making an elaborate argument to show that we were right in the expression of that sentiment. In other words, I shall not stop to sa}^ all that might properly be said upon this point, but I only ask your attention to it for the purpose of making one or two points upon it. If you will read the copyright essay, you will discover that Judge Douglas himself says a controversy between the American Colonies and the Govern- ment of Great Britain began on the slavery question in 1699, and continued from that time until the Revolution ; 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 himself that slavery began to be an element of discord among the white people of this country as far back as 1699, or one liundred and sixty years ago, or five 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 sometliing in the nature of that thing, slavery, somewhat durable for mischief and discord. 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 eiglity 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 acquies- cing 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 coming 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 lair-minded men, here and else- where, 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 com- parative peace we have had about it was when that policy prevailed in this government, which he now wars upon, — he might then, perhaps, have been brought to a more just appreciation of what I said fifteen months ago, — that " a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe that this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, I do not expect the Union to dissolve ; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it 288 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ulti- mate extinction, or its advocates will pusli it forward until it shall become alike lawful 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 inaugurated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of the policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented." I now say to you here that we are advanced still farther into the sixth year since that policy of Judge Douglas — that Popular Sovereignty of his — for quieting the slavery question was made the national policy. Fifteen months more have been added since I nttered that senti- ment ; and I call upon you and all other right-minded men to say whether that fifteen months have belied or corroborated my words. While I am here upon this subject, I cannot but express gratitude that this true view of this element of discord among us — as I believe it is — is attractinrf more and more attention. I do not believe that Governor Seward nttered that sentiment because I had done so before, but because he reflected upon this subject and saw the truth of it, Nor do I believe, because Gov- ernor Seward or I uttered it, that Mr. Hickman of Pennsylvania, in different language, since that time, has declared his belief in the utter antagonism which exists between tlie principles of liberty and slavery. You see we are multiplying. Now, while I am speaking of Hickman, let me say, I know but little about him. I have never seen him, and know scarcely anything about the man ; but I will say this much of him : Of all the anti-Lecompton Democ- racy that have been brought to my notice, he alone has the true, genuine ring of the metal. And now, without indorsing anything else he has said, I will ask this audience to give three cheers for Hickman. [The audience responded with three rousing cheers for Hickman.] Another point in the copyright essay to which I 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 general feature of that document, and, indeed, of all of Judge Douglas's discussions of this question, that the Ter- ritories of the United States and the States of this Union are exactlv 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 altogether upon the proposition that the States must, without the interference 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 Govern- ment. 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 whether 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 settlement, 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, cannot be dug out by the millions of men who will come AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 289 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 com- posing these States, nor any way endangers the General Government. Judo-e 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 thinf, Mdiich he chooses to regard as only upon a par with onions and potatoes. Turn it, and contemplate it in another view. He says that, according to his Popular Sovereignty, the General Government may give to the Territories governors, judges, marshals, secretaries, and all the otlier chief men to govern them, but they must not touch upon this other question. Why ? The ques- tion of who sliall be governor of a Territory for a year or two, and pass away, without his track being left upon the soil, or an act which he did for good or for evil being left behind, is a question of vast national magnitude ; 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 be eradicated by the succeeding millions who have as much right there as the first comers, or, if eradicated, not without infinite difficulty and a long struggle, — he considers the power to prohibit it as one of these little local, trivial things that the nation ought not to say a word about ; that it affects nobody save the few men who are there. Take these two things and consider them together, present the question of planting a State with the institution of slavery by the side of a question of who shall be Governor 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 question is the little one, and the slavery question is the great one ? I ask any honest Demo- crat if the small, the local, and the trivial and temporary question is not, Who shall be governor ? While the durable, the important, and the mischievous 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. I 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 the build of the man, and consequently he looks upon the matter of slavery in this unim- portant light. Judge Douglas ought 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 remember that there was once in this country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a Democrat, — a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalent amongst Democrats to-day, it is true ; but that man did not take exactly this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery which our friend Judge Douglas does. In contempla- tion of this thing, we all know he was led to exclaim, " I tremble for ray country when I remember that God is just ! " We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself. There was danger to this country, — danger of the avenging justice of God, — in that little unimportant Popular Sovereignty question of Judge Douglas. He supposed there was a question of God's eternal justice wrapped up iii the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so braved the arm of Jehovah ; that when a nation thus dared the Almighty, every friend of that nation had cause to dread his wrath. Clioose ye between Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element among; us. 37 290 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN There is another little difficulty about this matter of treating the Territories and States alike in all things, to which I ask your attention, and I shall leave this branch of tlie case. If there is no difference 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 Douglas's 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 ? Oh, 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, wdiich 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 copyright essay, the Judge, I think, comes very near kickimr 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 shows conclusively that the authors of the Compromise Measures of 1850 and of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, as well as the members of the Continental Congress of 1774, and the foundei's of our system of government subsequent to the Revolution, regarded the people of the Territories and Colonies as political communities which were entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their provisional legislatures, wdiere their repre- sentation 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 pass in some quarters, and which he hopes will pass with the reading community for the same thing. " This right pertains to the people collectively, as a law-abiding and peace- ful community, and not in the isolated individuals wdio may wander upon the public domain in violation of the law. It can only be exercised where there are inhabitants sufficient to constitute a government, and capable of perform- ing its various functions and duties, — a fact to be ascertained and determined by " — who do you think ? Judge Douglas says " By Congress ! " " Whether the number shall be fixed at ten, fifteen or twenty thousand inhabitants, does not afi'ect the principle." Now, I have only a few comments to make. Popular Sovereignty, by his own words, does not pertain to the few persons who wander upon the public domain in violation of law. We have his words for that. Wlien it does pertain to them, is when they are sufficient to be formed into an organized political community, and he fixes the minimum for that at ten thousand, and the maximum at twenty thousand. Now, I would like to know wdiat 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 AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 291 out, but remained there as trespassers upon the public land in violation of the law, can they establish slavery tliere ? No ; the Judtje says Popular Sov- ereignty don't pertain to them then. Can they exclude it then ? No ; Popular Sovereignty don'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 ? But the main point I wish to ask attention to is, that the question as to when they shall have reached a sufficient number to be formed into a regular organized community is to be decided " by Congress." Judge Douglas says so. Well, gentlemen, that is al)out all we want. No, that is all the Southern- ers want. That is what all those who are for slavery want. They do not want Congress to ])rohibit slavery from coming into the new Territories, and they do not want Popular Sovereignty to hinder it ; and as Congress is to say when they are ready to be organized, all that the South has to do is to get Congress to hold off. Let Congress hold off until they are ready to be admitted as a State, and the Soutli has all it wants in taking slavery into and planting it in all the Territories that we now have, or hereafter may have. In a word, the whole thing, at a dash of the pen, is at last put in the power of Congress ; for if they do not have this Popular Sovereignty until Congress organizes them, I ask if it at last does not come from Congress ? If, at last, it amounts to anything at all. Congress gives it to them. I submit this rather for your reflection than for comment. After all that is said, at last, by a dash of the pen, everything that has gone before is undone, and he puts the whole question under the control of Congress. After fighting through more than three hours, if you undertake to read it, he at last places the whole matter under the control of that power which he had been contending against, and arrives at a result directly contrary to what he had been laboring to do. He at last leaves the whole matter to the control of Congress. There are two main objects, as I understand it, of this Harper's Magazine essay. One was to show, if possible, that the men of our Eevolutionary times were in favor of his Popular Sovereignty, and the other was to show that the Dred Scott decision had not entirely squelched out this Popular Sovereignty. I do not propose, in regard to this argument drawn from the history of former times, to enter into a detailed examination of the historical statements he has made. I have the impression that they are inaccurate in a great many instances, — sometimes in positive statement, but very much more inaccurate by the suppression of statements that really belong to the history. But I do not propose to affirm that this is so to any very great extent, or to enter into a very minute examination of his historical statements. I avoid doing so upon this principle, — that if it were important for me to pass out of this lot in the least period of time possible, and I came to that fence, and saw by a calcula- tion of my known strength and agility that I could clear it at a bound, it would be folly for me to stop and consider whether I could or not crawl through a crack. So I say of the whole history contained in his essay where he endeavored to link the men of the, Revolution to Popular Sovereignty. It only requires an effort to leap out of it, a single bound to be entirely success- ful. If you read it over, you will find that he quotes here and there from documents of the Revolutionary times, tending to show that the people of the colonies were desirous of regulating their own concerns in their own way, that the British Government should not interfere ; that at one time they struggled with the British Government to be permitted to exclude tlie African slave- trade, — if not directly, to be permitted to exclude it indirectly, by taxation 292 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN sufficient to discourage and destroy it. From these and many things of this sort, Judge Douglas argues that they were in favor of the people of our own Territories excluding slavery if they wanted to, or planting it there if they wanted to, doing just as they pleased from the time they settled upon the Territory. Now, however his history may apply ; and whatever of his argu- ment there may be that is sound and accurate or unsound and inaccurate, if we can find out what these men did themselves do upon this very question of slavery in the Territories, does it not end the whole thing ? If, after all this labor and effort to show that the men of the Eevolution were in favor of his Popular Sovereignty and his mode of dealing with slavery in the Territories, we can show that these very men took hold of that subject, and dealt with it, we can see for ourselves lioto they dealt with it. It is not a matter of argument or inference, but we know what they thought about it. It is precisely upon that part of the history of the country that one impor- tant omission is made by Judge Douglas. He selects parts of the history of the United States upon the subject of slavery, and treats it as the whole, omitting from his historical sketch the legislation of Congress in regard to the admission of Missouri, by which the Missouri Compromise was established, and slavery excluded from a country half as large as the present United States. All this is left out of his history, and in nowise alluded to by him, so far as I can remember, save once, when he makes a remark, that upon his principle the Supreme Court were authorized to pronounce a decision that the Act called the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. All that history has been left out. But this part of the history of the country was not made by the men of the Eevolution. There was another part of our political history, made by the very men who were the actors in the Revolution, which has taken the name of the Ordinance of '87. Let me bring that history to your attention. In 1784, I believe, this same Mr. Jefferson drew up an ordinance for the government of the country upon which w^e now stand, or, rather, a frame 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 Eiver, Mr. Jefferson expressly 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 government of this Northwest Territory, not contemplating territory south of the river, for the States owning that territory had hitherto refrained from giving it to the General Government ; lience they made the ordinance to apply only to what the Government owned. In that, the provi- sion excluding slavery loas inserted and passed unanimously, 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 you were a Territory, then an enabling Act was passed, authorizing you to form a constitution and State Government, provided it was republican and not in conflict with the Ordinance of '87. When you framed your constitution and presented it for admission, I think you will find the legislation upon the subject will show that, " whereas you had formed a constitution that was republican, and not in conflict with the Ordinance of AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 293 '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 when- ever 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 throughout the history of this country. Begin with the men of the ITevolution, and go down for sixty entire years, and until the last scrap of that Territory comes into the Union in the form of the State of Wisconsin, everything was made to conform with the Ordinance of '87, excluding slavery from that vast extent of country. I omitted to mention in the right place that the Constitution of the United States was in process of being framed when that Ordinance was made by the Congress of the Confederation ; and one of the 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 officers under the Con- stitution, in the place of the old ones, who had been legislated out of existence by the change in the Government from the Confederation to the Constitution. Not only so, but I believe Indiana once or twice, if not Ohio, petitioned the General Government for the privilege of suspending that provision and allowing them to have slaves. A report made by Mr. Eandolph, of Virginia, himself a slaveholder, was directly against it, and the action was to refuse them the privilege of violating the Ordinance of '87. This period of history, which I have run over briefly, is, I presume, as familiar to most of this assembly as any other part of the history of our country. I suppose that few of my hearers are not as familiar with that part of history as I am, and I only mention it to recall your attention to it at this time. And hence I ask how extraordinary a thing it is that a man who has occupied a position upon the floor of the Senate of the United States, who is now in his third term, and who looks to see the government of this whole country fall into his own hands, pretending to give a truthful and accurate history of the slavery question in this country, should so entirely ignore the whole of that portion of our history, — the most important of all. Is it not a most extraordinary spectacle that a man should stand up and ask for any con- fidence in his statements who sets out as he does with portions of history, calling upon the people to believe that it is a true and fair representation, when the leading part and controlling feature of the whole history is carefully suppressed ? But the mere leaving out is not the most remarkable feature of this most remarkable essay. His proposition is to establish that the leading men of the Revolution were for his great principle of non-intervention by the government in the question of slavery in tlie Territories, while history shows that they decided, in the cases actually brought before them, in exactly the contrary way, and he knows it. Not only did they so decide at that time, but they stuck to it during sixty years, through thick and thin, as long as there was one of the Eevolutionary heroes upon the stage of political action. Through their whole course, from first to last, they clung to freedom. And now he asks the com- munity to believe that the men of the Eevolution were in favor of his great principle, when we have the naked history that they themselves dealt with 294 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN this very subject-matter of his principle, and utterly repudiated his principle, acting upon a precisely contrary ground. It is as impudent and absurd as if a prosecuting attorney should stand up before a jury and ask them to convict A as the murderer of B, while B was walking alive before them. I say, again, if Judge Douglas asserts that the men of the Eevolution acted upon principles by which, to be consistent with themselves, they ought to have adopted his popular sovereignty, then, upon a consideration of his own argument, he had a right to make you believe that they understood the principles of government, but misapplied them, — that he has arisen to enlighten the world as to the just application of this principle. He has a right to try to persuade you that he understands their principles better than they did, and, therefore, he will apply them now, not as they did, but as they ought to have done. He has a right to go before the community and try to convince them of this, but he has no right to attempt to impose upon any one the belief that these men themselves approved of his great principle. There are two ways of establishing a proposition. One is by trying to demon.strate it upon reason, and the other is, to show that great men in former times have thought so and so, and thus to pass it by tlie weight of pure authority. Now, if Judge Douglas will demonstrate somehow^ that this is popular sovereignty, — the right of one man to make a slave of another, without any right in that other, or any one else to object, — demonstrate it as Euclid demonstrated propositions, — there is no objection. But when he comes forward, seeking to carry a principle by bringing to it the authority of men who themselves utterly repudiate that principle, I ask that he shall not be permitted to do it. I see, in the Judge's speech here, a short sentence in these words : "Our fathers, when they formed this government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better than, we do now." That is true ; I stick to that. I will stand by Judge Douglas in that to the bitter end. And now. Judge Douglas, come and stand by me, and truthfully show how they acted, understanding it better than we do. All I ask of you, Judge Douglas, is to stick to the proposition that the men of tlie Eevolution undei-stood this subject better than we do now, and with that better understanding they acted letter than you are trying to act now. I wish to say something now in regard to the Dred Scott decision, as dealt with by Judge Douglas. In that " memorable debate " between Judge Douglas and myself, last year, the Judge thought fit to commence a process of catechising me, and at Freeport I answered his questions, and propounded some to him. Among others propounded to him was one that I have here now. The substance, as I remember it, is, " Can the people of a United States Territory, under the Dred Scott decision, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits, prior to the formation of a State constitution ? " He answered that they could lawfully exclude slavery from the United States Territories, notwith- standing the Dred Scott decision. There was something about that answer that has probably been a trouble to the Judge ever since. The Dred Scott decision expressly gives every citizen of the United States a right to carry his slaves into the United States Territories. And now there was some inconsistency in saying that the decision was right, and saying, too, that the people of the Territory could lawfully drive slavery out again. When all the trash, the words, the collateral matter, was cleared away from it, all the chaff was fanned out of it, it was a bare absurdity, — no less than that a thing AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 295 may he lawfully driven away from where it has a laioful right to he. Clear it of all the verbiage, and that is the naked truth of his proposition, — that a thing may be lawfully driven from the plai'.e where it has a lawful right to stay. Well, it was because the Judge could n't lielp seeing this that he has had so much trouble with it ; and what I want to ask your especial attention to, just now, is to remind you, if you have not noticed the fact, that the Judge does not any longer say that the people can exclude slavery, lie does not say so in the copyright essay ; he did not say so in the speech that he made here ; and, so far as I know, since his re-election to the Senate he has never said, as he did at Freeport, that the people of the Territories can exclude slavery. He desires that you, who wish the Territories to remain free, should believe that he stands by that position ; but he does not say it himself. He escapes to some extent the absurd position I have stated, by changing his language entirely. What he says now is something different in language : and we will consider whether it is not different in sense too. It is now that the Dred Scott decision, or rather the Constitution under that decision, does not carry slavery into the Territories beyond the power of the people of the Territories to control it as other ^''^^ojjerty. He does not say the people can drive it out, but they can control it as other property. The language is different; we should consider whether the sense is different. Driving a horse out of this lot is too plain a proposition to be mistaken about ; it is putting him on the other side of the fence. Or it might be a sort of exclusion of him from the lot if you were to kill him and let the worms devour him ; but neither of these things is the same as " controlling him as other property." That would be to feed him, to pamper him, to ride him, to use and abuse him, to make the most money out of him, "as other property ;" but please you, what do the men who are in favor of slavery want more than this ? What do they really want, other than that slavery, being in the Territories, shall be controlled as other property ? If they want anything else, I do not comprehend it. I ask your attention to this, first, for the purpose of pointing out the change of ground the Judge has made; and, in the second place, the importance of the change, — that that change is not such as to give you gentlemen who w^ant his popular sovereignty the power to exclude the institution or drive it out at all. I know the Judge sometimes squints at the argument that in controlling it as other property by unfriendly legislation they may control it to death, as you might, in the case of a horse, perhaps, feed him so lightly and ride him so much that he would die. But when you come to legislative control, there is something more to be attended to. I have no doubt, myself, that if the Territories should under- take to control slave property as other property, — that is, control it in such a way that it would be the most valuable as property, and make it bear its just proportion in the way of burdens as property, — really deal with it as property, — the Supreme Court of the United States will say, " God speed you, and amen." But I undertake to give the opinion, at least, that if the Territories attempt by any direct legislation to drive the man with his slave out of the Territory, or to decide that his slave is free because of his being taken in there, or to tax him to such an extent that he cannot keep him there, the Supreme Court will unhesitatingly decide all such legislation un- constitutional, as long as that Supreme Court is constructed as the Dred Scott Supreme Court is. The first two things they have already decided, except that there is a little quibble among lawyers between the words " dicta " and "decision." They have already decided a negro cannot be made free by Territorial legislation. 296 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN What is that Dred Scott decision ? Judge Douglas labors to show that it is one thing, while I think it is altogether different. It is a long opinion, but it is all embodied in this short statement : " The Constitution of the United States forbids Congress to deprive a man of his property, without due process of law ; the right of property in slaves is distinctly and expressly affirmed in that Constitution : therefore, if Congress shall undertake to say that a man's slave is no longer his slave when he crosses a certain line into a Territory, that is depriving him of his property without due process of law, and is unconstitu- tional." There is the whole Dred Scott decision. They add that if Congress cannot do so itself. Congress cannot confer any power to do so ; and hence any effort by the Territorial Legislature to do either of these things is absolutely decided against. It is a foregone conclusion by that court. Now, as to this indirect mode by " unfrieneily legislation," all lawyers here will readily understand that such a proposition cannot be tolerated for a moment, because a legislature cannot indirectly do that which it cannot accomplish directly. Then I say any legislation to control this property, as property, for its benefit as property, would be hailed by this Dred Scott Supreme Court, and fully sustained ; but any legislation driving slave prop- erty out, or destroying 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 Territories, beyond the power of the people of the Territories to control it as other prop- erty, then it follows logically that every one who swears to support the Con- stitution of the United States must give that support to that property which it needs. And if the Constitution carries slavery into the Territories, beyond the power of the people to control it as other property, then it also carries it into the States, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Now, gentlemen, if it were not for my excessive modesty, I would say that I told that very thing to Judge Douglas quite a year ago. This argument is here in print, and if it were not for my modesty, as I said, I might call your attention to it. If you read it, you will find that I not only made that argument, but made it better than he has made it since. There is, however, this difference. I say now, and said then, there is no sort of question that the Supreme Court has decided that it is the right of the slave- holder to take his slave and hold him in the Territory ; and saying this, Judge Douglas himself admits the conclusion. He says if that is so, this consequence will follow; and because this consequence would follow, his argument is, the decision cannot, therefore, be that way, — "that would spoil my Popular Sover- eignty ; and it cannot be possible that this great principle has been squelched out in this extraordinary way. It might be, if it were not for the extraordinary consequences of spoiling my humbug." Another feature of the Judge's argument about the Dred Scott case is, an effort to show that that decision deals altogether in declarations of negatives ; that tlie Constitution does not affirm anything as expounded by the Dred Scott decision, but it only declares a want of power — a total absence of power — in reference to the Territories. It seems to be his purpose to make the whole of that decision to result in a mere negative declaration of a want of power in Congress to do anything in relation to this matter in the Territories. I know the opinion of the Judges states that there is a total absence of power ; but that is, unfortunately, not all it states : for the Judges add that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. It does not stop at saying that the right of property in a slave is recognized in the Constitution, is declared to exist somewhere in the Constitution, but says it is AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 297 affirmed in the Constitution. Its language is equivalent to saying that it is embodied and so woven in that instrument that it cannot be detached without breaking the Constitution itself. In a word, it is part of the Constitution. Douglas is singularly unfortunate in his effort to make out that decision to be altogether negative, when the express language at the vital part is that this is distinctly affirmed in the Constitution. I think myself, and I repeat it here, that this decision does not merely carry slavery into the Territories, but by its logical conclusion it carries it into the States in which we live. One provision of that Constitution is, that it shall be the supreme law of the land, — I do not quote the language, — any constitution or law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. This Dred Scott decision says that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, any State constitution or law notwithstanding. Then I say that to destroy a thing which is distinctly affirmed and supported by the supreme law of the land, even by a State constitution or law, is a violation of that supreme law, and there is no escape from it. In my judgment there is no avoiding that result, save that the American people shall see that constitutions are better construed than our Constitution is construed in that decision. They must take care that it is more faithfully and truly carried out than it is there expounded. I must hasten to a conclusion. Near the beginning of my remarks I said that this insidious Douglas Popular Sovereignty is the measure that now threatens the purpose of the Republican party to prevent slavery from being nationalized in the United States. I propose to ask your attention for a little while to some propositions in affirmance of that statement. Take it just as it stands, and apply it as a principle ; extend and apply that principle elsewhere ; and consider where it will lead you. I now put this proposition, that Judge Douglas's Popular Sovereignty applied will reopen the African slave-trade; and I will demonstrate it by any variety of ways in which you can turn the subject or look at it. The Judge says that the people of the Territories have the right, by his principle, to have slaves, if they want them. Then I say that the people in Georgia have the right to buy slaves in Africa, if they want them ; and I defy any man on earth to show any distinction between the two things, — to show that the one is either more wicked or more unlawful ; to show, on original principles, that one is better or worse than the other ; or to show, by the Con- stitution, that one differs a whit from the other. He will tell me, doubtless, that there is no constitutional provision against people taking slaves into the new Territories, and I tell him that there is equally no constitutional provision against buying slaves in Africa. He will tell you that a people, in the exer- cise of popular sovereignty, ought to do as they please about that thing, and have slaves if they want them; and I tell you that the people of Georgia are as much entitled to popular sovereignty and to buy slaves in Africa, if they want them, as the people of the Territory are to have slaves if they want them. I ask any man, dealing honestly with himself, to point out a distinction. I have recently seen a letter of Judge Douglas's in which, without stating that to be the object, he doubtless endeavors to make a distinction between the two. He says lie 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 popular sovereignty in the Territories. What is that reason ? "The abolition of the African slave-trade is a compromise of the Constitu- 38 298 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN tion ! " I deny it. There is no truth in the proposition that the abolition of the African slave-trade is a compromise of the Constitution. 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 assertion, 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 be 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 foreign 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 slavery 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 more committed against the spread of slavery 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 interest involved in it, and extensive capital in that branch of trade. There were 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 suiiicient time for the capital and commerce engaged in it to be transferred to other channels. They made no provision that it should be abolished in twenty years ; I do not doubt that they expected it would be, but they made no bargain about it. The public sentiment left no doubt in the minds of any that it would be done away. I repeat, there is nothing in the history of those times in favor of that matter being a com- ^romise of the Constitution. It was the public expectation at the time, manifested in a thousand ways, that the spread of slavery should also be restricted. Then I say, if this principle is established, that there is no wrong in slavery, and whoever wants it has a right to have it, — is a matter of dollars and cents, a sort 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 ques- tion is between the negro and the crocodile. That is all. It is a mere matter of policy ; there is a perfect right, according to interest, to do just as you please, — when this is done, where tliis doctrine prevails, the miners and sappers will have formed public opinion for the slave trade. They will be ready for Jeff. Davis and Stephens and other leaders of that company to sound the bugle for the revival of the slave-trade, for the second Dred Scott decision, for the flood of slavery to be poured over the Free States, while we shall be here tied down and helpless and run over like sheep. It is to be a part and parcel of this same idea, to say to men who want to adhere to the Democratic party, who have always belonged to that party, and are only looking about for some excuse to stick to it, but nevertheless hate slavery, that Douglas's popular sovereignty is as good a way 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 AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 299 opposing 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 being called negro worshippers. We can do that without being subjected to the jibes and sneers that are so readily thrown out in place of argument where no argument can be found. So let us stick to this popular sovereignty, — this insidious popular sovereignty. Now let me call your attention to one thing that has really happened, which shows this gradual and steady debauching of public opinion, this course of preparation for the revival of the slave-trade, for the Territorial slave code, and the new Dred Scott decision that is to carry slavery into the Free States. Did you ever, five years ago, liear of anybody in the world saying that the negro had no share in the Declaration of National Inde- pendence ; that it did not mean negroes at all ; and when " all men " were spoken of, negroes were not included ? I am satisfied that five years ago that proposition was not put upon paper by any living being anywhere. I have been 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 sovereign in Illinois who did not say it. Is there one in Ohio but declares his firin 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 estima- tion, 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 sovereignty 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 anybod}^ 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 prepared 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 popular sover- eignty. You need but one or two turns further, until your minds, now ripen- ing 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. This, I must say, is but carrying out those words prophetically spoken by Mr. Clay, — many, many years ago, — I believe more than thirty years, — when he told an audience that if they would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation, they must go back to the era of our independence, and muzzle the cannon which thundered its annual joyous return on the Fourth of July ; they must blow out the moral lights around us ; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the love of liberty : but until they did these things, and others 300 DEBATES BETWEEN ABliAHAM LINCOLN 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 sover- eigns are at this work, blowing out the moral lights around us ; teaching that the negro is no longer a man, but a brute ; that the Declaration has nothing to do with him ; that he ranks with the crocodile and the reptile ; that man, with body and soul, is a matter of dollars and cents. I suggest to this portion of the Ohio liepublicans, or Democrats, if there be any present, the serious con- sideration of this fact that there is now going on among you a steady process of debauching public opinion on this subject. "With this, my friends, I bid you adieu. SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, At Cincinnati, Ohio, September, 1859. My Fellow-Citizens of the State of Ohio : This is the first time in my life that I have appeared before an audience in so great a city as this. I therefore — though I am no longer a young man — make this appearance under some degree of embarrassment. But I have found that when one is embarrassed, usually the shortest way to get through with it is to quit talking or thinking about it, and go at something else. I understand that you have had recently with you my very distinguished friend, Judge Douglas, of Illinois, and I understand, without having had an opportunity (not greatly sought, to be sure) of seeing a report of the speech that he made here, that he did me the honor to mention my humble name. I suppose that he did so for the purpose of making some objection to some sentiment at some time expressed by me. I should expect, it is true, that Judge Douglas had reminded you, or informed you, if you had never before heard it, that I had once in my life declared it as my opinion- that this government cannot " endure permanently, half slave and half free ; that a house divided against itself cannot stand," and, as I had expressed it, I did not expect the house to fall, that I did not expect the Union to be dissolved ; but that I did expect that it would cease to be divided, that it would become all one thing, or all the other, that either the opposition of slavery would arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind would rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction, or the friends of slavery will push it forward until it becomes alike lawful in all the States, old or new, free as well as slave. I did, fifteen months ago, express that opinion, and upon many occasions Judge Douglas has denounced it, and has greatly, intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresented my purpose in the expression of that opinion. I presume, without having seen a report of his speech, that he did so here. I presume that he alluded also to that opinion, in different language, having been expressed at a subsequent time by Governor Seward of New York, and that he took the two in a lump and denounced them ; that he tried to point out that there was something couched in this opinion which led to the making of an entire uniformity of the local institutions of the various States of the Union, in utter disregard of the different States, which in their nature would AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 301 seem to require a variety of institutions and a variety of laws, conforming to the differences in the nature of the different States. Not only so, I presume he insisted that this was a declaration of war between tlie Free and Slave States, — that it was the sounding to the onset of continual war between the different States, the Slave and Free States. This charge, in this form, was made by Judge Douglas on, I believe, the 9th of July, 1858, in Chicago, in my hearing. On the next evening, I made some reply to it. I informed him that many of the inferences he drew from that expression of mine were altogether foreign to any purpose entertained by me, and in so far as he should ascribe these inferences to me, as my purpose, he was entirely mistaken ; and in so far as he might argue that whatever might be my purpose, actions, conforming to my views, would lead to these results, he might argue and establish if he could ; but, so far as purposes were concerned, he was totally mistaken as to me. Wlien I made that reply to him, when I told him, on the question of declaring war between the different States of the Union, that I had not said that I did not expect any peace upon this question until slavery was exter- minated ; that I had only said I expected peace when that institution was put where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in course of ultimate extinction ; that I believed, from the organization of our government until a very recent period of time, the institution had been placed and con- tinued upon such a basis ; tliat we had had comparative peace upon that question througli a portion of that period of time, only because the public mind rested in that belief in regard to it, and that when we returned to that position in relation to that matter, I supposed we should again have peace as we previously had. I assured him, as I now assure you, that I neither then had, nor have, or ever had, any purpose in any way of interfering with the institution of slavery, where it exists. I believe we have no power, under the Constitution of the United States, or rather under the form of government under which we live, to interfere with the institution of slavery, or any other of the institutions of our sister States, be they Free or Slave States. I declared then, and I now re-declare, that I have as little inclination to interfere with the institution of slavery where it now exists, through the instrumentality of the General Government, or any other instrumentality, as I believe we have no power to do so. I accidentally used this expression : I had no purpose of entering into the Slave States to disturb the institution of slavery ! So, upon the first occasion that Judge Douglas got an opportunity to reply to me, he passed by the whole body of what I had said upon that subject, and seized upon the particular expression of mine that I had no purpose of entering into the Slave States to disturb the institution of slavery. " Oh, no," said he, " he [Lincoln] won't enter into the Slave States to disturb the institution of slavery, — he is too prudent a man to do such a thing as that ; he only means that he will go on to the line between the Free and Slave States, and shoot over at them. This is all he means to do. He means to do them all the harm he can, to disturb them all he can, in such a way as to keep his own hide in perfect safety." Well, now, I did not think, at that time, that that was either a very dignified or very logical argument ; but so it was, I had to get along with it as well as I could. It has occurred to me here to-night that if I ever do shoot over the line at the people on the other side of the line into a Slave State, and pur- pose to do so, keeping my skin safe, that I have now about the best chance I 302 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN shall ever have. I should not wonder that there are some Kentuckians about this audience ; we are close to Kentucky ; and whether that be so or not, we are on elevated ground, and, by speaking distinctly, I should not wonder if some of the Kentuckians would hear me on the other side of the river. For that reason I propose to address a portion of what I have to say to the Kentuckians. I say, then, in the first place, to the Kentuckians, that I am what they call, as I understand it, a " Black Eepublican." I think slavery is wrong, morally and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union. While I say this for myself, I say to you Kentuckians that I understand you differ radically with me upon this proposition ; that you believe slavery is a good thing ; that slavery is right ; that it ought to be extended and perpetuated in this Union. Now, there being this broad differ- ence between us, I do not pretend, in addressing myself to you Kentuckians, to attempt proselyting you ; that would be a vain effort. I do not enter upon it. I only propose to try to show you that you ought to nominate for the next Presidency, at Charleston, my distinguished friend Judge Douglas. In all that there is a difference between you and him, I understand he is sincerely for you, and more wisely for you than you are for yourselves. I will try to demonstrate that proposition. Understand, now, I say that I believe he is as sincerely for you, and more wisely for you, than you are for yourselves. What do you want more than anything else to make successful your views of slavery, — to advance the outspread of it, and to secure and perpetuate the nationality of it ? What do you want more than anything else ? What is needed absolutely ? What is indispensable to you ? Why ! if I may be allowed to answer the question, it is to retain a hold upon the North, — it is to retain support and strength from the Free States. If you can get this support and strength from the Free States, you can succeed. If you do not get this support and this strength from the Free States, you are in the minor- ity, and you are beaten at once. If that proposition be admitted, — and it is undeniable, — then the next thing I say to you is, that Douglas, of all the men in this nation, is the only man that affords you any hold upon the Free States ; that no other man can give you any strength in the Free States. This being so, if you doubt the other branch of the proposition, 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 to be extended and perpetuated. [A voice, " Oh, Lord."] That is my Ken- tuckian I am talking to now. I now proceed to try to show you that Douglas is as sincerely for you and more wisely for you than you are for yourselves. In the first place, we know that in a government like this, in a government of the people, where the voice of all the men of the country, substantially, enters into the execution — or administration, rather — of the government, — in such a government, what lies at the bottom of all of it is public opinion. I lay down the proposition, that Judge Douglas is not onl}^ the man that promises you in advance a hold upon the North, and support in the North, but that he constantly moulds public opinion to your ends; that in every AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 303 possible way he can, be constantly moulds tbe public opinion of the North to your ends ; and if there are a few things in which he seems to be against you, — a few things which he says that appear to be against you, and a few that he forbears to say which you would like to have him say, — you ought to remember that the saying of the one, or the forbearing to say the other, would lose his hold upon the North, and, by consequence, would lose his capacity to serve you. Upon this subject of moulding public opinion I call your attention to the fact — for a well-established fact it is — that the Judge never says your insti- tution of slavery is wrong ; he never says it is right, to be sure, but he never says it is wrong. There is not a public man in the United States, I believe, with the exception of Senator Douglas, who has not, at some time in his life, declared his opinion whether the thing is right or wrong ; but Senator Douglas never declares it is wrong. He leaves himself at perfect liberty to do all in your favor which he would be hindered from doing if he were to declare the thing to be wrong. On the contrary, he takes all the chances that he has for inveigling the sentiment of the North, opposed to slavery, into your support, by never saying it is right. This you ought to set down to his credit. You ought to give him full credit for this mucli, little though it be, in comparison to the whole which he does for you. Some other things I will ask your attention to. He said upon the floor of the United States Senate, and he has repeated it, as I understand, a great many times, that he does not care whether slavery is " voted up or voted down." This again shows you, or ought to show you, if you would reason upon it, that he does not believe it to be wrong ; for a man may say, when he sees nothing wrong in a thing, that he does not care whether it be voted up or voted down, but no man can logically say that he cares not whether a thing goes up or goes down, which to him appears to be wrong. You therefore have a demonstration in this that to Judge Douglas's mind your favorite insti- tution, which you would have spread out and made perpetual, is no wrong. Another thing he tells you, in a speech made at Memphis, in Tennessee, shortly after the canvass in Illinois, last year. He there distinctly told the people that there was a "line drawn by the Almighty across this continent, on the one side of which the soil must always be cultivated by slaves ; " that he did not pretend to know exactly where that line was, but that there was such a line. I want to ask your attention to that proposition again : that there is one portion of this continent where the Almighty has designed the soil shall always be cultivated by slaves ; that its being cultivated by slaves at that place is right; that it has the direct sympathy and authority of the Almighty. Whenever you can get these Northern audiences to adopt the opinion that slavery is right on the other side of the Ohio ; whenever you can get them, in pursuance of Douglas's views, to adopt that sentiment, they will very readily make the other argument, which is perfectly logical, that that wdiich is right on that side of the Ohio cannot be wrong on this, and that if you have that property on that side of the Ohio, under the seal and stamp of the Almighty, when by 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 to say that the thing is right in your State over the Ohio Eiver, 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, are themselves wrong, and ought to be repealed and abrogated. He will tell you, men of Ohio, that if you choose here to have laws against 304 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN slavery, it is in conformity to the idea that your climate is not suited to it, that your climate is not suited to slave labor, and therefore you have constitu- tions and laws against it. Let us attend to that argument for a little while, and see if it be sound. You do not raise sugar-cane (except the new-fashioned sugar-cane, and you won't 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 don't suit it. They do raise it in Louisiana, because there it is profitable. Now, Douglas will tell you that is precisely the slavery question : that they do have slaves there, because they are profitable ; and you don't have them here, because they are not profitable. If that is so, then it leads to dealing with the one precisely as with the other. Is there, then, anything 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 raise sugar- cane in Ohio, but if any man did desire to do so, you would say it was a tyrannical law that forbids his doing so ; and whenever you shall agree with Douglas, whenever your minds are brought to adopt his argument, as surely you will have reached the conclusion that although slavery is not profitable in Ohio, if any man wants it, it is wrong to him not to let him have it. In this matter Judge Douglas is preparing the public mind for you of Kentucky to make perpetual that good thing in your estimation, about which you and I differ. In this connection, let me ask your attention to another thing. I believe it is safe to assert that five years ago no living man had expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration of Independence. Let me state that again : five years ago no living man had expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration of Independence. If there is in this large audience any man who ever knew of that opinion being put upon paper as much as five years ago, I wall be obliged to him now or at a subse- quent time to show it. If that be true I wish you then to note the next fact : that within the space of five years Senator Douglas, in the argument of this question, has got his entire party, so far as I know, without exception, to join in saying that the negro has no share in the Declaration of Independence. If there be now in all these United States one Douizlas man that does not sav this, I have been unable upon any occasion to scare him up. Now, if none of you said this five years ago, and all of you say it now, that is a matter that you Ken- tuckians ought to note. That is a vast change in the Northern public senti- ment upon that question. Of what tendency is that change ? The tendency of that change is to bring the public mind to the conclusion that when men are spoken of, the negro is not meant ; that when negroes are spoken of, brutes alone are con- templated. That change in public sentiment has already degraded the black man in the estimation of Douglas and his followers from the condition of a man of some sort, and assigned him to the condition of a brute. Now, you Kentuckians ought to give Douglas credit for this. That is the largest pos- sible stride that can be made in regard to the perpetuation of your thing of slavery. A voice : Speak to Ohio men, and not to Kentuckians ! Mr. Lincoln : I beg permission to speak as I please. lu Kentucky perhaps, in many of the Slave States certainly, you are trying to establish the rightfulness of slavery by reference to the Bible. You are AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 805 trying to show that slavery existed in the Bible times by divine ordinance. Now, Douglas is wiser than you, for your own benefit, upon that subject. Doughas knows that whenever you establish that slavery was right by the Bible, it will occur that that slavery was the slavery of the white man, — of men without reference to color ; and he knows very well that you may enter- tain that idea in Kentucky as much as you please, but you will never win any Northern support upon it. He makes a wiser argument for you : he makes the argument that the slavery of the hlack man, the slavery of the man who has a skin of a different color from your own, is right. He thereby brings to your support Northern voters who could not for a moment be brought by your own arg[ument of the Bible-right of slaverv. Will vou not give him credit for that ? Will you not say that in this matter he is more wisely for you than you are for yourselves ? Now, having established with his entire party this doctrine, having been entirely successful in that branch of his efibrts in your behalf, he is ready for another. At this same meeting at Memphis he declared that while in all contests between the nec^ro and the white man he was for the white man, but that in all questions between the negro and the crocodile he was for the negro. He did not make that declaration accidentally at Memphis. He made it a great many times in the canvass in Illinois last year (though I don't know that it was reported in any of his speeches there), but he frequently made it. I believe he repeated it at Columbus, and I should not wonder if he repeated it here. It is, then, a deliberate way of expressing himself upon that subject. It is a matter of mature deliberation with him thus to express himself upon that point of his case. It therefore requires some deliberate attention. The first inference seems to be that if you do not enslave the negro, you are wronging the white man in some way or other, and that whoever is opposed to the negro being enslaved, is, in some way or other, against the white man. Is not that a falsehood ? If there was a necessary conflict between the white man and the negro, I should be for the white man as much as Judge Douglas ; but I say there is no such necessary conflict. I say that there is room enough for us all to be free, and that it not only does not wrong the white man that the negro should be free, but it positively wrongs the mass of the white men that the negro should be enslaved ; that the mass of w^hite men are really injured by the effects of slave labor in the vicinity of the fields of their own labor. But I do not desire to dwell upon this branch of the question more than to say that this assumption of his is false, and I do hope that that fallacy will not long prevail in the minds of intelligent white men. At all events, you ought to thank Judge Douglas for it ; it is for your benefit it is made. The other branch of it is, that in a struggle between the negro and the ci'ocodile, he is for the negro. Well, I don't know that there is any struggle between the negro and the crocodile, either. I suppose that if a crocodile (or, as we old Ohio River boatmen used to call them, alligators) should come across a white man, he would kill him if he could, and so he would a negro. But what, at last, is this proposition ? I believe that it is a sort of proposition in proportion, which may be stated thus : " As the negro is to the white man, so is the crocodile to the negro ; and as the negro may rightfully treat the croco- dile as a beast or reptile, so the white man may rightfull}^ treat the negro as a beast or a reptile." That is really the " knip " of all that argument of his. Now, my brother Kentuckians, who believe in this, you ought to thank 39 306 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Judge Douglas for having put that in a much more taking way than any of yourselves have done. Again, Douglas's great principle, "Popular Sovereignty," as he calls it, gives you, by natural consequence, the revival of the slave-trade whenever you want it. If you question this, listen awhile, consider awhile what I shall advance in support of that proposition. He says that it is the sacred riglit of the man who goes into the Territories to have slavery if he wants it. Grant that for argument's sake. Is it not the sacred right of the man who don't go there equally to buy slaves in Africa, if he wants them ? Can you point out the difference ? The man who goes into the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, or any other new Territory, with the sacred right of taking a slave there which belongs to him, would certainly have no more right to take one there than I would, who own no slave, but who would desire to buy one and take him there. You will not say — you, the friends of Judge Douglas — but that the man who does not own a slave has an equal right to buy one and take him to the Territory as the other does ? A voice : I want to ask a question. Don't foreign nations interfere with the slave-trade ? Mr. Lincoln : Well ! I understand it to be a principle of Democracy to whip foreign nations whenever they interfere with us. Voice : I only asked for information. I am a Eepublican myself. Mr. Lincoln : You and I will be on the best terms in the world, but I do not wish to be diverted from the point I was trying to press. I say that Douglas's Popular Sovereignty, establishing his sacred right in the people, if you please, if carried to its logical conclusion gives equally the sacred right to the people of the States or the Territories themselves to buy slaves wherever they can buy them cheapest ; and if any man can show a distinction, I should like to hear hira try it. If any man can show how the people of Kansas have a better right to slaves, because they want them, than the people of Georgia have to buy them in Africa, I want him to do it. I think it cannot be done. If it is " Popular Sovereignty " for the people to have slaves because they want them, it is Popular Sovereignty for them to buy them in Africa because they desire to do so. I know that Douglas has recently made a little effort, — not seeming to notice that he had a different theory, — has made an effort to get rid of that. He has written a letter, addressed to somebody, I believe, who resides in Iowa, declaring his opposition to the repeal of the laws that prohibit the African slave-trade. He bases his opposition to such repeal upon the ground that these laws are themselves one of the compromises of the Constitution of the United States. Now, it would be very interesting to see Judge Douglas or any of his friends turn to the Constitution of the United States and point out that compromise, to show where there is any compromise in the Constitution, or provision in the Constitution, express or implied, by which the adminis- trators of that Constitution are under any obligation to repeal the African slave-trade. I know, or at least I think I know, that the framers of that Con- stitution did expect that the African slave-trade would be abolished at the end of twenty years, to which time their prohibition against its being abolished extended. I think there is abundant cotemporaneous history to show that the framers of the Constitution expected it to be abolished. But while they so expected, they gave nothing for that expectation, and they put no provision in the Constitution requiring it should be so abolished. The migration or importa- AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 307 tion of sucli persons as the States shall see fit to admit shall not be prohibited, but a certain tax might be levied upon such importation. But what was to be done after that time ? The Constitution is as silent about that as it is silent, personally, about myself. There is absolutely nothing in it about that subject ; there is only the expectation of the framers of the Constitution that the slave-trade would be abolished at the end of that time ; and they expected it would be abolished, owing to public sentiment, before that time ; and they put that provision in, in order that it should not be abolished before that time, for reasons which I suppose they thought to be sound ones, but which 1 will not now try to enumerate before you. But while they expected the slave-trade would be abolished at that time, they expected that the spread of slavery into the new Territories should also be restricted. It is as easy to prove that the framers of the Constitution of the United States expected that slavery should be prohibited from extending into the new Territories, as it is to prove that it was expected that the slave- trade should be abolished. Both these things were expected. One was no more expected than the other, and one was no more a compromise of the Constitution than the other. There was nothing said in the Constitution in regard to the spread of slavery into the Territory. I grant that ; but there was something very important said about it by the same generation of men in the adoption of the old Ordinance of '87, through the influence of which you here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, we in Illinois, our neighbors in Michigan and Wisconsin, are happy, prosperous, teeming millions of free men. That generation of men, though not to the full extent members of the Convention that framed the Constitution, were to some extent members of that Convention, holding seats at the same time in one body and the other, so that if there was any compromise on either of these subjects, the strong evidence is that that compromise was in favor of the restriction of slavery from the new Territories. But Douglas says that he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of those laws ; because, in his view, it is a compromise of the Constitution. You Kentuckians, no doubt, are somewhat offended with that ! You ought not to be ! You ought to be patient ! You ought to know that if he said less than that, he would lose the power of " lugging" the Northern States to your sup- port. Eeally, what you would push him to do would take from him his entire power to serve you. And you ought to remember how long, by precedent. Judge Douglas holds himself obliged to stick by compromises. You ought to remember that by the time you yourselves think you are ready to inaugurate measures for the revival of the African slave-trade, that sufficient time will have arrived, by precedent, for Judge Douglas to break through that com- promise. He says now nothing more strong than he said in 1849 when he declared in favor of the Missouri Compromise, — that precisely four years and a quarter after he declared that Compromise to be a sacred thing, which " no ruthless hand would ever dare to touch," he himself brought forward the measure ruthlessly to destroy it. By a mere calculation of time it will only be four years more until he is ready to take back his profession about the sacredness of the Compromise abolishing the slave-trade. Precisely as soon as you are ready to have his services in that direction, by fair calculation, you may be sure of having them. But you remember and set down to Judge Douglas's debt, or discredit, that he, last year, said the people of Territories can, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, exclude' your slaves from those Territories ; that he declared, by 308 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN " unfriendly legislation " the extension of your property into the new Terri- tories may be cut off, in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. He assumed that position at Freeport on the 27th of August, 1858. He said that the people of the Territories can exclude slavery, in so many words. You ouccht, however, to bear in mind that he has never said it since. You may liuut in every speech that he has since made, and he has never used that expression once. He has never seemed to notice that he is stating his views differently from what he did then ; but by some sort of accident, he has always really stated it differently. He has always since then declared that " the Constitution does not carry slavery into the Territories of the United States beyond the power of the people legally to control it, as other property." Now, there is a difference in the language used upon that former occasion and in this latter day. There may or may not be a difference in the meaning, but it is worth while considering whether there is not also a difference in meaning. What is it to exclude ? Why, it is to drive it out. It is in some way to put it out of the Territory. It is to force it across the line, or change its character so that, as property, it is out of existence. But what is the con- trolling of it " as other property " ? Is controlling it as other property the same thing as destroying it, or driving it away ? I should think not. I should think the controlling of it as other property would be just about what you in Kentucky should want. I understand the controlling of property means the controlling of it for the benefit of the owner of it. While I have no doubt the Supreme Court of the United States would say " God speed " to any of the Territorial Legislatures that should thus control slave property, they would sing quite a different tune if, by the pretence of controlling it, they were to undertake to pass laws which virtually excluded it, — and that upon a very well known principle to all lawyers, that what a Legislature cannot directly do, it cannot do by indirection ; that as the Legislature has not the power to drive slaves out, they have no power, by indirection, by tax, or by imposing bur- dens in any way on that property, to effect the same end, and that any attempt to do so would be held by the Dred Scott court unconstitutional. Douglas is not willing to stand by his first proposition that they can exclude it, because we have seen that that proposition amounts to nothing more nor less than the naked absurdity that you may lawfully drive out that which has a lawful right to remain. He admitted at first that the slave might be lawfully taken into the Territories under the Constitution of the United States, and yet asserted that he might be lawfully driven out. That being the proposition, it is the absurdity I have stated. He is not willing to stand in the face of that direct, naked, and impudent absurdity ; he has, therefore, modified his language into that of being " controlled as other pro'perty." The Kentuckians don't like this in Douglas ! I will tell you where it will go. He now swears by the court. He was once a leading man in Illinois to break down a court, because it had made a decision he did not like. But he now not only swears by the court, the courts having got to working for you, but he denounces all men that do not swear by the courts, as unpatriotic, as bad citizens. When one of these acts of unfriendly legislation shall impose such heavy burdens as to, in effect, destroy property in slaves in a Territory, and show plainly enough that there can be no mistake in the purpose of the Legislature to make them so burdensome, this same Supreme Court will decide that law to be unconstitutional, and he will be ready to say for your benefit AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. C09 " I swear by the court ; I give it up ; " and while that is going on he has been getting all his men to swear by the courts, and to give it up with him. In this again he serves you faithfully, and, as I say, more wisely than you serve yourselves. Again : I have alluded in the beginning of these remarks to the fact that Judge Douglas has made great complaint of my having expressed the opinion that this government " cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free." He has complained of Seward for using different language, and declaring that there is an " irrepressible conflict " between the principles of free and slave labor. [A voice : He says it is not original with Seward. That is original with Lincoln.] I will attend to that immediately, sir. Since that time, Hick- man of Pennsylvania expressed the same sentiment. He has never denounced Mr. Hickman : why ? There is a little chance, notwithstanding that opinion in the mouth of Hickman, that he may yet be a Douglas man. That is the difference ! It is not unpatriotic to hold that opinion if a man is a Douglas man. But neither I, nor Seward, nor Hickman is entitled to the enviable or unen- viable distinction of having first expressed that idea. That same idea was expressed by the Eichmond "Enquirer" in Virginia, in 1856, — quite two years before it was expressed by the first of us. And while Douglas was pluming himself that in his conflict with my humble self, last year, he had " squelched out" that fatal heresy, as he delighted to call it, and had suggested that if he only had had a chance to be in New York and meet Seward he would have "squelched" it there also, it never occurred to him to breathe a word against Pryor. I don't ihiuk that you can discover that Douglas ever talked of going to Virginia to " squelch " out that idea there. No. More than that. That same Ptoger A. Pryor was brought to Washington City and made the editor of the par excellence Douglas paper, after making use of that expression, which, in us, is so unpatriotic and heretical. From all this, my Kentucky friends may see that this opinion is heretical in his view only when it is expressed by men suspected of a desire that the country shall all become free, and not when expressed by those fairly known to entertain the desire that the whole country shall become slave. When expressed by that class of men, it is in nowise offensive to him. In this again, my friends of Kentucky, you have Judge Douglas with you. There is another reason why you Southern people ought to nominate Douglas at your Convention at Charleston. That reason is the wonderful capacity of the man, — the power he has of doing what would seem to be impossible. Let me call your attention to one of these apparently impossible things. Douglas had three or four very distinguished men of the most extreme anti-slavery views of any men in the Republican party expressing their desire for his re-election to the Senate last year. That would, 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 Wise, Mr. Breckinridge, the Vice-President, and of your own State, was also agreeing with the anti- slavery men in the North that Douglas ought to be re-elected. Still, to heighten the wonder, a senator from Kentucky, who I have always loved with an affection as tender and endearing as I have ever loved any man ; who was opposed to the anti-slavery men for reasons which seemed sufficient 310 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN 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 con- flicting elements should be brought, 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, by the re-election of Douglas, their peculiar views would gain something : it is probable that the anti-slavery men thought their views would gain something ; that Wise and Breckinridge thought so too, as regards their opinions ; that Mr. Critten- den thought that his views would gain something, although he was opposed to both these other men. It is probable that each and all of them thought that they were using Douglas ; and it is yet an unsolved problem whether he was not using them all. If he was, then it is for you to consider whether that power to perform w^onders is one for you lightly to throw away. 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 opinion 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 Eepub- licans and others forming the opposition of the country, intend to " stand by our guns," to be patient and firm, and in the long run to beat you, whether you 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 altogether, and we expect to do it. We don'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 resolved as it is possible for men to be. When we do as we say, — beat you, — you perhaps want to know what we will do with you. I will tell you, so far as I am authorized to speak for the opposition, 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 interfere with your institution ; to abide by all and every compromise of the Constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the original proposition, to treat you, so far as degenerated men (if we have de- generated) may, according to the examples of those noble fathers, — Washing- ton, Jefferson, and Madison. We mean to remember that you are as good as we ; that there is no difference between us other than the difference of circum- stances. We mean to recognize and bear in mind always that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people, 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 you what we mean to do. I want to know, now, when that thing takes place, what do you mean to do. I often hear it intimated that 3'ou mean to divide the Union whenever a Eepublican, 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 out- rageous 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 of your losing it ? Do you think you can better yourselves,, on that subject, by leaving us here under no obligation whatever to AND STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 311 return those specimens of your movable property that come hither ? You have divided the Union because we woukl not do right with you, as you think, upon that subject ; when we cease to be \inder obligations to do anything for you, how much better off do you think you will be ? Will you make war upon us and kill us all? Why, gentlemen, I think you are as gallant and as brave men as live; that you can fight as bravely in a good cause, man for man, as any other people living; that you have shown yourselves capable of this upon various occasions : but, man for man, you are not 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 tliat you could whip us ; if we were equal, it would likely be a drawn battle ; but, being inferior in numbers, you will make nothing by attempting to master us. But perhaps I have addressed myself as long, or longer, to the Kentuckians than I ought 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 discussing with them the best means of keeping that promise that I have in good faith made. It may appear a little episodical for me to mention the topic of which I shall speak now. It is a favorable proposition of Douglas's that the inter- ference of the General Government, through the Ordinance of '87, or through any other act of the General Government, never has made or ever can make a Free State ; that the Ordinance of '87 did not make Free States of Ohio, Indi- ana, or Illinois. That these States are free upon his " great principle " of Popular Sovereignty, because the people of those several States have chosen to make them so. At Columbus, and probably here, he undertook to compli- ment 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 audjudgment, but let the facts be remembered. In 1802, I believe, it was you who 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 — speaking of you as one people — that you did so unembarrassed by the actual presence of the institution amongst you ; 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 you had sought to make a Free State, you would not know what to do with. If they had been among you, embarrassing difticulties, most probably, 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 Ohio should be a 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 sepa- rated by this Eiver Ohio, not a mile wide. A portion of Kentucky, by reason 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 difference ? 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 312 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN labor than the other. It was not climate or soil that caused one side of the line to be entirely 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 coujecture, if there be anything you can conceive of that made that difference, otlier 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 power to conceive of it. This, then, I offer to combat the idea that that Ordinance has never made any State free. I don't stop at this illustration. I come to the State of Indiana ; 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 Territorial 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 Revolution, refused Indiana that privilege. And so we have the evidence 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 Ordin- ance 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 Wisconsin, was acquired first, I believe, by the British Government, in part, at least, from the French. Before the establishment of our independence it becomes a part of Virginia, enabling Virginia afterward 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 country that was not purchased till about 1803. In these French settlements negro slavery had existed for many years, — perhaps more than 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 Ordinance 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 filling up with American 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 Mis- souri and Illinois are, to a certain extent, in the same parallel of latitude ; that the northern 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, — AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 813 there being none of tliose natural causes to produce a difference in filling them, and yet ihere being a broad difference in their filling up, we are led again to inquire 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 decreased 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 my friend Judge Douglas's proposition, that the Ordinance of '87, or the national restriction of slavery, never had a tendency to make a Free State, is a fallacy, — a proposi- tion without the shadow or substance of truth about it. Douglas sometimes says that all the States (and it is part of this same proposition I have been discussing) that have become free have become so upon his "great principle;" that the State of Illinois itself came into the Union as a Slave State, and that the people, upon the " great principle " of Popular Sovereignty, have since made it a Free State. Allow me but a little while to state to you what facts there are to justify him in saying that Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State. I have mentioned to you that there were a few old French slaves there. They numbered, I think, one or two hundred. Besides that, there had been a Territorial law for indenturing black persons. Under that law, in violation of the Ordinance of '87, but without any enforcement of the Ordinance to over- throw the system, there had been a small number of slaves introduced as indentured persons. Owing to this, the clause for the prohibition of slavery was slightly modified. Instead of running like yours, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime, of which the party shall have been duly convicted, should exist in the State, they said that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should thereafter be introduced, and that the children of indentured servants should be born free ; and nothing was said about the few old French slaves. Out of this fact, that the clause for prohibiting slavery was modified because of the actual presence of it, Douglas asserts again and again that Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State. How far the facts sustain the conclusion that he draws, it is for intelligent and impartial men to decide. I leave it with you, with these remarks, worthy of being remem- bered, that that little thing, those few indentured servants being there, was of itself sufficient to modify a constitution made by a people ardently desiring to have a free constitution ; showing the power of the actual presence of the institution of slavery to prevent any people, however anxious to make a Free State, from making it perfectly so. I have been detaining you longer, perhaps, than I ought to do. I am in some doubt whether to introduce another topic upon which I could talk awhile. [Cries of " Go on," and " Give us it."] It is this, then : Douglas's Popular Sovereignty, as a principle, is simply this : If one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that man nor anybody else has a right to object. Apply it to government, as he seeks to apply it, and it is this : If, in a new Territory into which a few people are beginning to enter for the pur- pose of making their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits, or to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of persons who are afterward to inhabit that Territory, or the other members of the family of communities of which they are but an incipient member, or the general head of the family 40 314 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN of States as parent of all, — liowever their action may affect one or the other of these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas's*. Popular Sovereignty applied. Now, I think that there is a real Popular Sovereignty in the world. I think a definition of Popular Sovereignty, in the abstract, would be about this : that each man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things wliich exclusively concern him. Applied in government, this principle would be : that a general government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to those matters wliich exclusively concern them. Douglas looks upon slavery as so insignificant that the people must decide that question for tliemselves ; and yet they are not fit to decide who shall be their governor, judge or secretary, or who shall be any of their officers. These are vast national matters, in his estimation ; but the little matter in his estima- tion is that of planting slavery there. That is purely of local interest, which nobody should be allowed to say a word about. Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn. There is a difference in opinion about the elements of labor in society. Some men assume that there is a necessary connection between capital and labor, and that connection draws within it the whole of the labor of the community. They assume that nobody works unless capital excites them to work. They begin next to consider what is the best way. The}^ say there are but two ways : one is to hire men, and to allure them to labor by their consent ; the other is to buy the men, and drive them to it ; and that is slavery. Having assumed that, they proceed to discuss the ques- tion of whether the laborers themselves are better off in the condition of slaves or of hired laborers, and they usually decide that they are better off in the condition of slaves. In the first place, I say that the whole thing is a mistake. That there is a certain relation between capital and labor, I admit. That it does exist, and rightfully exists, I think is true. That men who are industrious, and sober, and honest in the pursuit of their own interests should after a while accumu- late capital, and after that should be allowed to enjoy it in peace, and also, if they should choose, when they have accumulated it, to use it to save them- selves from actual labor, and hire other people to labor for them, is right. In doing so they do not wrong the man they employ, for they find men who have not of their own land to work upon, or shops to work in, and who are bene- fited by working for others, hired laborers, receiving their capital for it. Thus a few men, that own capital, hire a few others, and these establish the relation of capital and labor rightfully. A relation of which I make no complaint. But I insist that that relation, after all, does not embrace more than one-eighth of the labor of the country. [The speaker proceeded to argue that the hired laborer, with his ability to become an employer, must have every precedence over him who labors under the inducement of force. He continued :] I have taken upon myself, in the name of some of you, to say that we expect upon these principles to ultimately beat them. In order to do so, I think we want and must have a national policy in regard to the institution of slavery, that acknowledges and deals with that institution as being wrong. Whoever desires the prevention of the spread of slavery and the nationaliza- tion of that institution, yields all, when he yields to any policy that either AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. " 315 recognizes slavery as being right, or as being an indifferent thing. Nothing 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 Government is cliarged with the duty of redressing or preventing all the wrongs in the world, but I do think that it is charged with preventing 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 threatened 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 pro- viding for the general welfare. Our friends in Kentucky differ from us. We DO " need not make our argument for them, but we who tliink 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 say 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 Fugi- tive 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 enacting by Congress of a Territorial slave-code. We must prevent each of these things being done by either congresses or courts. The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We must hold con- ventions ; we must adopt platforms, if we conform to ordinary 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 any- thing that stands adverse to our purpose. If we shall adopt a platform that fails to recognize or express our purpose, or elect a man that declares himself inimical to our purpose, we not only take nothing by our success, but we tacitly admit that we act upon no other principle than a desire to have "the loaves and fishes," by which, in the end, our apparent success is really an injury to us. I know that this is very desirable with me, as with everybody else, that all the elements of the opposition shall unite in the next Presidential election and in all future time. 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. But suppose we shall take up some man, and put him 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 nose 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 ? Why, he will get no Slave States, after all, — he has tried that already until being beat is the rule for him. If we nominate him upon that ground, he will not carry a Slave State ; and not only so, but that portion of our men who are high- strung 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 State of Maryland. There is no use in saying to us that we are stubborn and obstinate because we 316 DEBATES BETWEEN LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS. 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 by fifty thousand. 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 profess their sym- pathy with our purpose, and will place themselves on the ground that our men, upon principle, 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 himseK upon the right ground, I am for his occupying one place upon the next Eepublican or opposition ticket. I will heartily go for him. But unless he does so place himself, I think it a matter of perfect nonsense to attempt to bring about a union upon any other basis ; that if a union be made, the elements will scatter so that there can be no success for such a ticket, nor anything like success. The good old maxims of the Bible are applicable, and truly applicable, to human affairs, and in this, as in other things, we may say here that he who is not for us is against us ; he who gathereth not with us, scattereth. I should be glad to have some of the 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 enable us to teach them that, inasmuch as we select one of their own number to carry out our prin- ciples, we are free from the charge that we mean more than we say. But, my friends, I have detained you much longer than I expected to do. I believe I may do myself the compliment to say that you have stayed and heard me with great patience, for which I return you my most sincere thanks. THE END. I ! wMM t!-{:;-^;^;-i f^ni 'i rrutr::.";;:;:;: i::;:i;;t: :;:; ::::;nt::