EVENING JOURNAL TRACTS.-No. 14- 
 
 SeJiSd 
 
 OF 
 
 / in l* in /(can) 
 
 CARL SCHXJR 
 
 jut cooper institute, 
 
 NEW YORK, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1800. 
 
 -- 
 
 Douglasism Exposed and Republicanism Vindicated, 
 
 * 
 
 •-- 
 
 Fellow-Citizens: This meeting is called to 
 ratify the nominations of your State Convention. 
 
 I am a stranger among you, and have no imme¬ 
 diate interest in the affairs of your State; hut 
 nevertheless I can tell you that the citizens of 
 my State ratify your nominations as heartily as 
 you do. [Cheers.] In the nomination of Morgan 
 and Campbell they see the guaranty of a glorious 
 victory in November. [Applause.] You do not 
 expect me to speak about State affairs. I will, 
 therefore, at once turn your attention to national 
 topics. [Cheers.] I may draw heavily upon your 
 patience. I hope you will bear with me. [Cheers.] 
 
 A Voice —We’ll stand it three hours. [Laugh¬ 
 ter.] 
 
 In a contest of great principles, like that which 
 is now agitating the country, I am little inclined 
 to discuss the personal qualities of candidates; 
 but, when the individual merits of a man are set 
 up as his principal claim to the highest and most 
 responsible office in the Republic, it is natural 
 that we should feel obliged to examine his history 
 and character with more than ordinary care. 
 
 It is a notorious fact that the friends of Judge 
 Douglas in the Northern States solicit the vote 
 of the people on the ground that he has done 
 more for the freedom of the Territories, and that 
 he is a truer champion of free labor, and besides, 
 a greater statesman, than any living individual. 
 Thus a personal issue is urged upon us, and we 
 are ready to accept it. This will be the subject 
 of my remarks to-night. I shall not transgress 
 the limits of propriety, but I am determined to 
 call things by their right names. 
 
 What is it that entitles Judge Douglas to the 
 high-sounding appellation, “the Champion of 
 Freedom,” or “ the greatest of living statesmen'?” 
 Is it his past career, or is it his present position 1 
 You can survey the history of this “Champion 
 
 of Freedom ” at a single glance. The Judge has 
 his Free-Soil record—what Northern Pro-Slavery 
 man has not 1 But there is hardly a prominent 
 man in political life who has taken more pains 
 than he to disclaim and apologize for his early 
 Anti-Slavery sentiments. So we may drop this 
 subject. What follows is more instructive. 
 
 In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was framed 
 as a sacred compact between the two sections of 
 the Union. By virtue of that Compromise, Mis¬ 
 souri was admitted as a Slave State, and Arkan¬ 
 sas as a Slave State ; and thus the free North, as 
 one party to the contract, paid down its price for 
 the Slavery prohibition north of 36° 30'. Was 
 Mr. Douglas ever heard to express any doubt as 
 to the constitutionality of the Missouri Compro¬ 
 mise so long as it served to augment the number 
 of Slave States ? It was to him, as to all others, 
 “ a sacred and inviolable compact”—as sacred 
 and inviolable as the Constitution itself; and he 
 cursed the “ ruthless hand” that would dare to 
 break it down. When, after the Mexican war, 
 the Territories acquired for this Union were to 
 be organized, he was among the first and fore¬ 
 most who advocated the extension of the Mis¬ 
 souri line across the whole continent. What 
 wmuld have been the result of that measure ? In 
 the Territories acquired from Mexico Slavery 
 was abolished and prohibited by local legisla¬ 
 tion, but the extension of the Missouri line was 
 calculated to admit Slavery into all that part of 
 it which lies south of 3G° 30'. Mark well: So 
 long as the Missouri Compromise served to intro¬ 
 duce Slave States, he did not dream of its un¬ 
 constitutionality. When by the extension of the 
 Missouri line free territory could be converted 
 into slave territory, he found it so eminently con¬ 
 venient, so excellent an arrangement, that he not 
 only proposed to preserve it in its origiual ex- 
 
 |^"For Sale at toe Office of toe Albany Evening Journal. Price, per Single Copy, 2c.; 
 per Dozen Copies, 20c. ; per Hundred, $1; per Thousand, $8. 
 
2 
 
 tent, but to run it across the whole continent to 
 the shores of the Pacific Ocean. 
 
 But now the time arrives when Free States are 
 to grow up under the guaranties of the same 
 Missouri Compromise. A new light dawns upon 
 Judge Douglas. He rises in the Senate Cham¬ 
 ber, and asserts that the Territory north of the 
 Missouri line can no longer be exempted from 
 Slavery, because the exclusion of Slavery from 
 it—the very condition on which Missouri was 
 admitted as a Slave State—was at war with the 
 fundamental principles of the Constitution. The 
 same man who had cursed as ruthless, the hand 
 that would violate the Missouri Compromise, as 
 long as that compact was beneficial to Slavery, 
 tore it down with his own hands as soon as it 
 was to serve the interests of Free Labor. And he 
 is the truest “ Champion of Freedom !” How 
 wonderful a change ! At the time when he pro¬ 
 posed the extension of the Missouri line to the 
 Pacific Ocean, he was cither convinced of the un- 
 constitutionality of that compromise, or he was 
 not. If he w y as, how could he conscientiously 
 propose the extension and perpetuation of a 
 measure which he considered a crime against 
 the Constitution I Were his conscience and his 
 convictions hushed into silence by the interests 
 of Slavery ? Or if he was not, how did it come 
 to pass that he became so suddenly convinced of 
 that unconstitutionality the very moment that 
 the preservation and execution of that Compro¬ 
 mise would have advanced the interests of free 
 labor ? How did it happen that his convictions, 
 in all their prompt and wonderful transforma¬ 
 tions, always coincided so admirably with the 
 interests of Slavery I This is indeed a most as¬ 
 tonishing coincidence, and I leave it to your 
 sagacity to draw your conclusions. 
 
 But Mr. Douglas is still the “True Champion 
 of Free Labor; ” for it is asserted that the Ne¬ 
 braska bill—the same measure which breaks 
 down the barriers to Slavery—will by that very 
 operation introduce Free Labor into the Territo¬ 
 ries. The thing is speedily brought to a practi¬ 
 cal test. No sooner is the Nebraska bill enacted 
 and the Missouri restriction struck down, than 
 Emigrant Aid Societies are organized in the 
 Slave States, especially in Missouri, for the pur¬ 
 pose of introducing Slavery into Kansas. The his¬ 
 tory of the Blue Lodges is familiar to you. Law¬ 
 less bands of armed invaders pour into Kansas, 
 take possession of the ballot-boxes, bowie-knife 
 and revolver in hand, and control the elections by 
 fraud and violence. Did Mr. Douglas ever utter 
 a word of reproach or condemnation against the 
 Border Ruffians of Missouri I Did he not most 
 tenderly excuse their atrocities on the plea of self- 
 defense, while it was a notorious fact that thoir 
 organization had preceded that of the Free-State 
 men I And, mark well , that immigration was 
 Pro-Slavery. 
 
 Other Emigrant Aid Societies are organized in 
 the Northern States. Large numbers of men go 
 to Kansas, armed, indeed, for self-defense, as 
 every pioneer will be, but with the bona fide 
 intention of settling down upon the soil of that 
 territory as permanent inhabitants; and while 
 burning houses and trails of blood mark the track 
 of the Border Ruffians, flourishing farms and 
 industrious towns spring up under the hands of 
 the Free-State men. Do you remember how 
 often Judge Douglas emptied the vials of his 
 wrath, and cast denunciations upon the heads of 
 
 Free Labor immigratioa ? And , mark well, that 
 immigration was Anti Slavery. 
 
 A Legislature is set up by a band of lawless 
 invaders—mostly Missourians—set up by the 
 most atrocious violations of the ballot-box, set 
 up in defiance of all the rules of constitutional 
 government; that Legislature adopts the slave- 
 code of Missouri as the laws of Kansas, and adds 
 to them laws so outrageous in their nature that 
 even Northern Democrats quailed under the op¬ 
 probrium. Do you remember that Judge Doug¬ 
 las recognized that Legislature, although its cri¬ 
 minal origin was manifest to all, as the highest 
 law-giving authority of the Territory, and the 
 laws enacted by them, although known to be the 
 offspring of fraud and violence, as the valid laws 
 of Kansas 1 Do you remember how he denoun¬ 
 ced every one who w T ould not submit as a rebel 
 and a traitor I And, mark well, that Legislature 
 and those laws were Pro-Slavery. The Free 
 State settlers of Kansas, then evidently a large 
 majority of the population, go to work and frame 
 a Constitution. That Constitution was gotten up 
 in a way hardly more irregular than the Consti¬ 
 tutions of many States. It was submitted to a 
 vote of the people, and adopted by a large majo¬ 
 rity. So it was presented to Congress. Do you 
 remember that Judge Douglas found no term of 
 denunciation too vile to use it against that Con¬ 
 stitution, and that he stigmatized those who had 
 framed it as traitors who must be struck down I 
 And, mark well, that Constitution, the choice of 
 the people of Kansas, was Anti-Slavery. 
 
 What a series of wonderful coincidences ! So 
 far, whatever Avas calculated to benefit Slavery 
 in Kansas, Judge Douglas Avas sure to approve; 
 whatever Avas calculated to serve the cause of 
 Free Labor, Judge Douglas was sure to denounce. 
 But I must not forget that he brought forward 
 other reasons for his acts than the interest of 
 Slavery. Ah, indeed! Is it so extraordinary 
 that a man of ability, Avho stoops to do a mean 
 act, should haA r e wit enough to disguise it 1 
 Compare his plausibilities with these coinciden¬ 
 ces, and you Avill with me come to the conclusion 
 that this “ Champion of Free Labor,” if he really 
 was an enemy to Slavery, loved his enemies much 
 better than a good Christian ought to do. 
 
 But AA 7 e will be just to him. Now we arrive 
 at a period in his history in which he seems to 
 have acquired some title to the esteem of his 
 countrymen. We are so little accustomed to see 
 that kind of statesmen do a fair thing, that our 
 surprise is apt to stimulate our gratitude. I al¬ 
 lude to the position assumed by Judge Douglas 
 in the struggle about the Lecompton Constitu¬ 
 tion. A packed Convention has framed a Con¬ 
 stitution, fastening Slavery upon Kansas, and 
 refuses to submit it to a vote of the people. The 
 President, in a message, urges the admission of 
 Kansas as a State, under that Constitution as it 
 stands. Judge Douglas, together with the Re¬ 
 publicans, resists the measure; not, indeed, be¬ 
 cause he is opposed to Slaver} 7 —for he solemnly 
 ! and emphatically protests that he “ does not care 
 whether Slavery be voted up or voted down 
 but because it is uncertain Avhether the Lecomp¬ 
 ton Constitution embodies the will of the people. 
 The slaA 7 e power is arrayed against him, and for 
 the first time in his life the claim of his being a 
 “Champion of Freedom ” seems to rise from the 
 level of a ridiculous absurdity. I should feel 
 little tempted to detract from the credit he gained 
 
3 
 
 by his attitude on that occasion, if the facts 
 which preceded and followed it were not of so un¬ 
 mistakable a nature as to open our eyes to the pe¬ 
 culiar concatenation of circumstances which made 
 it almost impossible for him to act otherwise. 
 
 And here again we notice a series of most strik¬ 
 ing coincidences. It so happened that just about 
 the time when the Leeompton question was be¬ 
 fore Congress, Douglas’s term as a United States 
 Senator was about to expire. He knew well that 
 his popularity at home rested upon the popular 
 belief that he really did work for the cause of 
 Free Labor. IIow stupid must the man have bqpn 
 not to see that, saddled with the Leeompton Con¬ 
 stitution, it would have been impossible for him 
 to keep up that delusion. So he assumed the 
 mask of an advocate of popular rights, coquetted 
 with the Republicans in order to disarm their 
 opposition, and went before the people of Illinois 
 as a candidate for re-election to the Senate. What 
 right have I to speak of his assuming a mask 1 
 I have that right, if I can show that he threw it 
 off as soon as his object was gained. 
 
 Review his acts in connection with the Kansas 
 struggle. Slavery and Free Labor had for years 
 waged their fierce war about that unfortunate 
 Territory with doubtful success. Now at last no 
 sane man could any longer close his eyes against 
 the fact, that when the Leeompton outrage was 
 perpetrated, the Free State men outnumbered 
 their opponents almost ten to one. Their victory 
 might be delayed, but was no longer doubtful. 
 How had Douglas acted so long as Slavery had 
 a chance to gain the preponderance I Need I 
 remind you of the unwavering solicitude with 
 which he defended the Border Ruffians; of the 
 fierceness with which he denounced the Free 
 State immigration; of the virulence with which 
 he upheld the Border Ruffian code of laws; of 
 the promptness with which he put his foot, upon 
 the law of the people expressed in the Free State 
 Constitution; of his brutal, cynic sneer at the 
 agonies of a people in distress 1 Was the elec¬ 
 tion of the Border Ruffian Legislature, the enact¬ 
 ment of the Border Ruffian code of laws, a less 
 flagrant violation of popular rights than the Lc- 
 compton Constitution 1 How could he uphold 
 the former, and claim any credit for opposing the 
 latter 1 ? Here is another most wonderful coinci¬ 
 dence. Just so long as Slavery had a chance in 
 Kansas, Douglas stood upon the side of Slavery. 
 But no sooner was the victory of Freedom sure, 
 than Douglas was sure to stand upon the strong¬ 
 est side. 
 
 And now he is held up to our admiration as 
 the “ True Champion of Freedom.” After having 
 done more than any other man in perpetrating 
 the outrage, what merit is there in helping to 
 prevent its final consummation, when it has be¬ 
 come manifest that, in spite of him , that con¬ 
 summation has become impossible I Look at it. 
 The Nebraska bill, as 1 heard my friend Grim- 
 shaw in Illinois illustrate it, had set fire to the 
 edifice of Territorial Liberty. The Republican 
 fire companies are vigorously at work ; the Repub¬ 
 lican engines are playing with full force, and then 
 comes the very incendiary, Douglas, with a little 
 tea-spoonful of Anti-Leeompton water, throws it 
 into the flames, and then swells himself up and 
 claims to have extinguished the conflagration— 
 and so he goes before the people of Illinois as 
 the “ True Champion of Freedom.” 
 
 And this he would hardly have had the cour¬ 
 age to do, had not, as is now known to all of us, 
 
 the indignant threats of the gallant Broderick 
 overawed him when he was about to compromise 
 with Buchanan. 
 
 I repeat, I would never stoop to question the 
 motives which actuated him in the Leeompton 
 struggle, had not the acts which preceded it 
 made his honesty doubtful; and had not those 
 that followed it precluded all belief in the sin¬ 
 cerity of his repentance. If he was honest, you 
 will be obliged to confess, it is exceedingly hard 
 to prove it on him. 
 
 On the strength of this exploit he succeeded 
 in carrying his point in Illinois ; not indeed by a 
 popular majority, for that was against him, but 
 by an old Gerrymandering apportionment. It was 
 one of those lugubrious victories, which consist 
 in a narrow escape from total annihilation. But 
 his seat is regained ; and now he throws a wist¬ 
 ful eye upon a higher seat; and remembers at 
 once that the Democratic road to the White 
 House leads through the slaveholding States. So 
 he turns his face Southward without delay, and 
 sets out on a trip down the Mississippi. He is 
 at once betrayed into making a few remarks, 
 here and there, to spontaneous gatherings. Sud¬ 
 denly we find the man who had tried to delude 
 the people of Illinois into the belief that under 
 the Kansas and Nebraska bill, the people had a 
 right to exclude slavery, in the South busily apo¬ 
 logising for it; and now behold the old Douglas 
 again wielding the weapon of sophistry with un¬ 
 blushing boldness, and endeavoring to make his 
 doctrine of Popular Sovereignty palatable to tho 
 Southern stomach. 
 
 The development of the Popular Sovereignty 
 doctrine is one of the most instructive chapters 
 in the history of our days. It shows how easily 
 the popular mind can be obfuscated by a so¬ 
 phistical plausibility, and how easily correct 
 principles are lost sight of in the confused strug¬ 
 gle of interests and aspirations. Future genera¬ 
 tions will scrutinize, with curious astonishment 
 the history of our days, and wonder at the tem¬ 
 porary success of so transparent a fraud. Per¬ 
 mit me a brief digression. 
 
 Popular Sovereignty, in the true sense of the 
 term, means the sovereignty of all individuals, 
 so regulated by law as to protect the rights and 
 liberties of any one against the encroachments 
 of any other, and so organized by political in¬ 
 stitutions as to give a common expression to the 
 collective will. Its natural basis is the equality 
 of the rights of all men. Its natural end is the 
 protection of all individuals in the exercise of 
 their rights and in the enjoyment of their liber¬ 
 ties. Hence it precludes the idea of Slavery 
 in all its forms. Apply this true Popular 
 Sovereignty to the Territories, and we are will¬ 
 ing to accept it—nay, it is the very thing which 
 we are contending for. But is this what Doug¬ 
 las, in the Nebraska bill, contemplated ? By no 
 means, llis Popular Sovereignty is based upon 
 the assumption that one class of men has the 
 power—has the right—to strip another class of 
 .heir natural rights, and to hold them as slaves. 
 
 For argument sake, let us follow him in his 
 course of reasoning, and suppose the white pop¬ 
 ulation of the Territories had the right to hold a 
 portion of the inhabitants as property. So, we 
 iave to lower the standard of Popular Sove¬ 
 reignty one degree ! Listen to the language of 
 the Kansas and Nebraska bill: 
 
 “ It is the true intent and meaning of this act not to 
 legislate Slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude 
 
4 
 
 it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free 
 to form and regulate their institutions in their own way, 
 subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” 
 
 At first, one would suppose this bill gave the 
 people of the Territories the sovereign l ight to 
 introduce Slavery, provided, always, that Sla¬ 
 very could not go there unless introduced by a 
 positive act of Territorial legislation. Is that 
 what Douglas’s principle of Popular Sovereignty 
 contemplated ? By no means ! For, according 
 to him, a slaveholder may introduce his slave 
 propei ty, and thereby introduce and establish 
 Slavery in a Territory without that positive act 
 of Territorial legislation. 
 
 We have, therefore, to lower the standard of 
 Popular Sovereignty another degree ! One would 
 suppose that, Slavery so being admitted at first, 
 the people of the Territory would have at least 
 the sovereign right to remove and exclude it by 
 a positive act of Territorial legislation. Is that 
 what Judge Douglas’s principle of Popular 
 Sovereignty contemplated ? By no means ! He 
 told you at first that this was a question to be 
 decided by the Supreme Court, then he told you 
 that the sovereignty of a Territory remains in 
 abeyance, suspended in the United States ; in 
 trust for the people until they shall be admitted 
 into the Union as a State ; and, at last, after the 
 Illinois campaign, he dropped the expression, 
 “ excluding Slavery,” altogether. It is signifi¬ 
 cant that the attempts of the people of Nebraska 
 and Kansas to exclude Slavery by law, were 
 promptly put down by the vetoes of the Gov¬ 
 ernors of those Territories; vetoes exercised by 
 virtue of the power conferred on the Territorial 
 Governments by Douglas’s own Nebraska bill. 
 
 Thus we have descended two great steps from 
 the true idea of Popular Sovereignty, without 
 having reached Judge Douglas’s great principle ; 
 and you will perceive that the true Popular Sove¬ 
 reignty has already disappeared long ago. But 
 let us lower the standard of Popular Sovereignty 
 still another degree, and we may hope that the 
 deeper we sink the closer we may approach Judge 
 Douglas’s position. At last we find him not 
 with a principle but with an assumption. It 
 matters not, said he in his Freeport speech in 
 August, 1858: 
 
 “ It matters not what way the Supreme Court may here¬ 
 after decide as to the abstract question, whether Slavery may 
 go or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution, 
 the people have the lawful means to introduce it. or ex¬ 
 clude 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 peo¬ 
 ple are opposed to Slavery they will elect representatives 
 to that body who will, by unfriendly legislation, prevent 
 the introduction of it into their midst.” 
 
 This then is the great principle of Popular 
 Sovereignty. It contemplates, not the general 
 exercise and enjoyment of equal rights; not that 
 Slavery cannot go into a Territory unless the 
 people introduce it by law; not that the people 
 have the sovereign right to exclude it by a direct 
 act of Territorial legislation; but that they may 
 annoy and embarrass the slaveholder in the enjoy¬ 
 ment of his slave property, so as to tease Slavery 
 out of the Territory if they can. If, ten years ago, 
 a man had undertaken to call this Popular Sov¬ 
 ereignty, the people would have suspected him 
 of serious mental derangement. Is not really 
 this kind of Popular Sovereignty, according to 
 Mr. Lincoln’s striking illustration, “ as thin as the 
 “homoeopathic soup that was made by boiling 
 “ the shadow of a pigeon that had been starved 
 
 to death ?” It would seem impossible to make 
 
 it any thinner, and yet Mr. Douglas undertakes 
 this incredible task. After having tried to de¬ 
 lude the voters of Illinois into the belief that 
 consistently with his position, tbe people of the 
 Territory may, in some round-about way, remove 
 Slavery, this “ True Champion of Freedom ” goes 
 South and proves there that Slavery has a legal 
 existence in the Territories. We find him at 
 New Orleans, and the same man who at Freeport 
 had told the people of Illinois that it mattered not 
 what, the Supreme Court might decide, as to tbe 
 abstract question, whether Slavery may or may 
 ndt go into a Territory — the same man speaks to 
 tbe people of Louisiana as follows : 
 
 “ I, in common with the Democracy of Illinois, accept 
 pie decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
 tbe case of Dred Scott, as an authoritative interpretation of 
 the Constitution In accordance with that decision we 
 hold that slaves are property: and hence on an equal footing 
 with other property, and the owner of the slave has the same 
 right to move i: to a Territory, and carry his slave property 
 with him, as the owner of any other property has logo 
 there and carry his property.” 
 
 If there could be any misunderstanding as to 
 the meaning of this sentence, he has removed 
 the possibility of it by an expression he used in 
 debate in the Senate on the 23d of February* 
 1859: 
 
 “Slaves, according to the Dred Scott decision, being 
 property, stand on an equal footing with all other kinds of 
 property ; and there is just as much obligation on the part 
 of the Territorial Legislature to protect slaves, as every 
 other species of property, as there is to protect horses, 
 cattle, dry goods and liquors.” 
 
 And mark well, Judge Douglass never forgets 
 tbe liquors! There is Douglas, tbe candidate 
 for the Senatorship of Illinois, who does not care 
 what way tbe Supreme Court may decide; and 
 here is Douglas, tbe candidate for the Presidency, 
 who declares the decision of the Supreme Court 
 to be the authoritative interpretation of the Con¬ 
 stitution. 
 
 What then did tbe Supreme Court in the Dred 
 Scott case decide ? Let me quote from Howard’s 
 official report some of the points laid down in 
 that case: • 
 
 “Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Ter¬ 
 ritory any article of property which the Constitution oi'tho 
 United States recognizes as property.” 
 
 “ The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves 
 as property, and pledges the Federal Government to de¬ 
 fend it.” 
 
 “That act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen 
 of the United States taking with him his slaves when he 
 removes into the Territory in question to reside, is an act 
 of authority over the private property which is thus war¬ 
 ranted by the Constitution.” 
 
 “While it remains a Territory Congress may legisla'e 
 over it within the scrpe of its constitutional powers in 
 relation to citizens of the United States, and may establish 
 a Territorial Government, and the form of the local govern¬ 
 ment must be regulated by the direction of Congress, but 
 with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by 
 «the Constitution, is authorized to exercise over the citizens 
 of the United States in respect to the rights of property.” 
 
 If this needs any illustration, I may furnish it 
 by quoting a few more sentences from the deci¬ 
 sion : 
 
 “No word can be found in the Constitution which gives 
 Congress power over slave property, or entitles property 
 of that kind to lei-s protection than property of any other 
 description ; only the power conferred is the poicer coupled 
 with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his 
 j rights .” 
 
 This, then, is what Dougins calls the authori¬ 
 tative interpretation of the Constitution, and be 
 j well understands what it means; for did be not 
 j say that there is just as much obligation on the 
 part of tbe Territorial Legislature to protect pro¬ 
 perty in slaves as there is to protect any other 
 species of property I Well, but what becomes 
 i of his great principle of Popular Sovereignty? 
 
5 
 
 
 What becomes even of that homoeopathic dilution 
 called unfriendly legislation 1 Congress can, ac¬ 
 cording to the Dred Scott decision, which Doug¬ 
 las acknowledges to be “ the authoritative inter¬ 
 pretation of the Constitution,” confer no power 
 which itself does not possess. The only power 
 it possesses in regard to slave property is the 
 power of guarding and protecting the owner in 
 his rights, and that power is coupled with the 
 duty to do so. Hence the only power Congress 
 can confer upon the Territorial Government, in 
 relation to slave property, is the power coupled 
 with the duty of guarding and protecting the 
 owner in his rights. 
 
 Thus we are obliged to lower the standard of 
 Popular Sovereignty still another degree, in or¬ 
 der to reach Douglas’s great principle. It does 
 not even consist in the right of the people to 
 tease Slavery out of a Territory; it consists in 
 the power of a Territorial Legislature, coupled 
 with the duty, to pass acts for the protection of 
 Slavery, but by no means against it. The as¬ 
 sumed power to pass unfriendly laws seems to be 
 changed into the duty to pass friendly laws. I 
 call this Popular Sovereignty with a vengeance! 
 It is like mock turtle soup—there is soup enough, 
 but not a particle of turtle. 
 
 It is true, Judge Douglas was in the habit of 
 quibbling a little about the meaning of the Dred 
 Scott decision; and the Wickliffe resolution adopt¬ 
 ed by his friends at Baltimore has helped him 
 over his difficulties. It is to the following effect: 
 
 “ Resolved , That it is in accordance with the true inter¬ 
 pretation of the Cincinnati platform, that, during the ex¬ 
 istence of a Territorial Government, the measure of re¬ 
 striction, whatever it may be, imposed by the Federal 
 Constitution on the powers of the Territorial Legislatures, 
 over the subject of domestic relations, as the same has been 
 or may hereafter be finally determined by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, shall be respected by good 
 citizens and enforced with promptness and fidelity by eve¬ 
 ry branch of the Federal Government.’’ 
 
 To all of which Judge Douglas, in his letter 
 of acceptance, most graciously assents. 
 
 We hear no longer of the “ rights of the people 
 “of the Territories to form and regulate their 
 “domestic institutions in their own way,” but 
 now, “ of the measure of restrictions imposed 
 “ upon the Territorial Legislatures over the sub- 
 “ ject of domestic relations.” The change is very 
 significant; whatever these restrictions, they are, 
 or may hereafter be, finally determined by the 
 Supreme Court /ff the United States. Let me 
 remind you that previous to the election of Mr. 
 Buchanan, whenever the question was put as to 
 the right of property in slaves under the new 
 Territorial Government, Judge Douglas’s regular 
 reply was “ that is a question for Congress to 
 “ decide.” That answer was the forerunner of 
 the Dred Scott decision. We are now told “ as 
 “ shall hereafter be finally determined by the Su- 
 “ preme Court of the United States.” What will 
 follow 1 The restriction, already finally deter¬ 
 mined, we know; it is, that Government cannot 
 impair the right of property, in slaves; but has 
 the power, coupled with the duty, to protect and 
 guard the owner in his rights. “ Restrictions 
 which may hereafter be “ finally determined 1” 
 Heaven knows what they will be. But, “ what¬ 
 ever they may be” Douglas is pledged to en¬ 
 force them “ with promptness and fidelity.” 
 
 So it turns out that his Popular Sovereignty 
 fastens Slavery more irremovable upon a Terri 
 torv as such, than it is fastened upon South 
 Carolina herself. The people of South Carolina 
 iu their sovereign capacity mav abolish Slavery 
 
 whenever they see fit. The people of Kansas in 
 their Territorial condition cannot. The people 
 of South Carolina have the right to discourage 
 Slavery by unfriendly legislation; the people of 
 Kansas are bound to guard and protect the slave¬ 
 owner in his rights, and are restricted from pass¬ 
 ing laws violating that obligation. The Federal 
 Government has no power to interfere in South 
 Carolina, but as soon as Kansas dares to disregard 
 the “ restriction,” Judge Douglas, if lie should 
 become President of the United States, would 
 stand pledged to enforce that restriction “ with 
 “ promptness and fidelity.” And after having 
 struck down the freedom of the Territories, this 
 “ Champion of Freedom” will sneak behind the 
 judicial despotism of the Supreme Court, and 
 like the murderer of Banquo, tell you that “ Thou 
 canst not say I did it 1” 
 
 But I say he did doit. The character of his 
 doctrine of Popular Sovereignty was determined 
 by the decision of the question, whether or not 
 slave property, as such, could be introduced into 
 a Territory before Slavery was established there 
 by a positive act of Territorial legislation. If 
 this question was decided in the affirmative the 
 doctrine that Slavery, as the creature of local 
 law, was totally abandoned. If Slavery could 
 exist in a Territory without being established by 
 local law, then it existed there by a law higher 
 than local law, and that could be no other than 
 the Constitution of the United States. In this 
 case every sane man must see that then Slavery 
 cannot be removed from a Territory by a mere 
 act of the Territorial legislature, whether direct 
 or indirect; and Mr. Douglas need not affect any 
 surprise at the doctrines his Southern opponents 
 hold. They are the natural, the legitimate, the 
 logical offspring of bis own position. When he 
 conceded that all-important point—and he did 
 concede it—this “ Champion of Freedom” was 
 either aware of the consequence, or he was not 
 If he was not, lie is liable to the charge of gross 
 stupidity ; if he was, he is liable to the charge of 
 deliberate betrayal of the cause of Free Labor, 
 covered with the grossest hypocrisy. In what 
 character do you like your “Champion of Free¬ 
 dom” best ? As one who has not sagacity enough 
 to defend it, or as one who deliberately betrays 
 it? There are cases where stupidity is no less 
 criminal than hypocrisy. 
 
 This, then, is the “ great principle of Popular 
 Sovereignty.” This is “leaving the people to 
 *' form and regulate their own domestic institu- 
 “ tions in their own way.” I am warranted in 
 saying that, if ever a gigantic, unscrupulous, 
 shameless fraud was attempted upon a free peo¬ 
 ple—if history ever furnished an example of 
 unblushing, scandalous, revolting hypocrisy, it 
 is this “True Champion of Freedom ;” to fasten 
 Slavery irremovably upon the Territories, and 
 calling it “ leaving the people perfectly free to 
 “ regulate their own domestic institutions !”—to 
 strip the people of every right to regulate their 
 own affairs, and to call it Popular Sovereignty! 
 Strike the word “ demagoguism” out of your 
 dictionaries if you do not want to apply it here. 
 But, although we may understand how inordi¬ 
 nate, desperate ambition should resort to such 
 frauds, it remains truly wonderful that so many 
 thousands have suffered themselves to be deceiv¬ 
 ed by them. 
 
 Is it surprising that the “ Champion of Free¬ 
 dom ” who defends such theories should be fouud 
 a little unreliable in practice? How clamorous 
 
he was against the Lecompton Constitution! 
 What a terrible idea, that a Territory should be 
 forced into the Union as a State with a Constitu¬ 
 tion not approved by the people! At last the 
 people of Kansas frame a new Constitution; it is 
 submitted to the people; it is approved by a 
 large majority. All conditions of admission ri¬ 
 gorously complied with, they knock at the Union, 
 and we expect to see our “ True Champion of 
 Freedom ” rush to the rescue with unabated zeal 
 —for his great point is gained. But where is 
 Douglas ! The House of Representatives votes 
 in favor of the admission; the decision of the 
 question depends upon the action of the Senate. 
 The matter is referred to the Committee on 
 Territories. That Committee consists of seven 
 members. Douglas is one of them ; but he does 
 not attend their meetings. The vote of the Com¬ 
 mittee stands 3 to 3. Douglas’s vote can decide 
 the question in the Committee, in favor of the 
 admission of Kansas. It is well known how far 
 the action of a Committee goes to determine the 
 action of the Senate; but Douglas does not vote ! 
 The question remains in this suspended state for 
 some time. The country looks for the action of 
 the Committee; the action of the Committee is 
 blocked by a tie; but Douglas does not vote! 
 Douglas who had declared so fiercely against 
 the admission under a Constitution which the 
 people did not want , does not vote when the ad¬ 
 mission is applied for with a Constitution which 
 the people do want. Douglas, the “ True Cham¬ 
 pion of Freedom,” holding the fate of Free Kan¬ 
 sas in that Committee in his hands, Douglas does 
 not vote ! How is this I When he opposed the 
 Lecompton Constitution he was a candidate for 
 reelection to the Senate. But things have chang¬ 
 ed since. Douglas now acts as a candidate for 
 the Presidency. The same man who in 1857 had 
 to propitiate the Free people of Illinois, has now 
 to propitiate the people of the South ; and instead 
 of deciding the report of the Committee in favor 
 of the admission of Kansas as a Free State, he 
 is busily engaged in preparing his 15th of May 
 speech, which is to convince the slaveholders 
 that his great principle of Popular Sovereignty 
 is working favorably for the introduction of Slave 
 States—the Free State of Kansas is kept out of 
 the Union once more and he is held up as the 
 “ True Champion of Freedom.” Poor Freedom 
 —then the Champion’s belt lies like a halter 
 around her neck. 
 
 Here I will stop. I might go on for hours, 
 piling fact upon fact, conclusion upon conclusion, 
 argument upon argument, until the putrid accu¬ 
 mulation of fraud and hypocrisy, exposed to the 
 sunlight, would torture your very nostrils. It is 
 enough. I will dismiss Mr. Douglas, “the True 
 Champion of Freedom,” and devote a few remarks 
 to Mr. Douglas, “the greatest of livingstatesmen.” 
 
 True statesmanship can rest upon no other ba¬ 
 sis but an intimate familiarity with the philoso¬ 
 phy of Government, and a thorough knowledge 
 of the sources and effects of political institutions. 
 It can have no other aim and end but the con¬ 
 servation of sound constitutional principles and 
 their application most favorable to the develop¬ 
 ment of popular liberty. Let us see how ‘‘the 
 greatest of living statesmen” stands the test. I 
 shall confine myself to a few facts of vital im¬ 
 portance. 
 
 It is one of the striking peculiarities of our 
 Federal polity that the different branches of our 
 General Government enjoy a certain independence 
 
 in the exercise of the functions respectively as¬ 
 signed to them. In order to guard against the 
 danger and abuses which might arise from that 
 independence, the power necessary for the exer¬ 
 cise of those functions had to be carefully limi¬ 
 ted and strictly defined. Thus a system of checks 
 and balances was established in our Constitution, 
 which is calculated to render usurpation impos¬ 
 sible. It is, indeed, said that the Executive 
 branch of our Government is responsible to the 
 people, but that responsibility consists only in its 
 being liable to impeachment. For the Secieta- 
 ries of the President do not, like the Ministers 
 of the Crown of England, sit upon the benches 
 of the Legislature, subject to the immediate con¬ 
 trol of the parliamentary majority. Our Execu¬ 
 tive, unlike that of every constitutional govern¬ 
 ment, is stable for a term of four years, remova¬ 
 ble only on the conviction of treason, bribery, 
 and other high crimes and misdemeanors. But 
 already Jefferson told you that impeachment is a 
 mere scare-crow. So the Executive moves inde¬ 
 pendently within the circle of its own powers. 
 It is, therefore, of vital importance that this cir¬ 
 cle should be strictly drawn, and those powers 
 of the Legislature which form a necessary sup¬ 
 plement to the powers of the Executive be jeal¬ 
 ously preserved. 
 
 If this system of checks and balances is of a 
 general necessity, it is doubly indispensable in all 
 matters relating to the administration of our 
 foreign policy. It is natural and proper that in 
 all diplomatic transactions with foreign govern¬ 
 ments, our Executive should be intrusted with a 
 certain discretion. But the Cabinet of the Pre¬ 
 sident, not being subject to our Legislature in 
 the same manner as the British Ministry is to 
 Parliament, it is essentia] that in the absence of 
 immediate control, another system of checks 
 should be placed around the Executive power. 
 This was done in the Constitution by making, 
 not, indeed, the diplomatic transactions them¬ 
 selves, but their ends and results, immediately 
 dependent upon the direct action of Congress. 
 Thus, no treaty can be made and consummated 
 without the approval of the Senate by a two- 
 thirds vote. And Congress alone shall have 
 power to declare war. Why was the war-making 
 power not intrusted to the Executive! It is 
 hardly necessary to describe to you the part 
 which wars have played in the history of the 
 world—the blood of millions spilled, not seldom, 
 for paltry causes; the happiness of generations 
 destroyed ; the prosperity of countries blighted 
 for centuries ; the rights of men trodden under 
 foot; the progress of civilization set back for 
 ages ! Is it wonderful that the framers of our 
 Constitution should not have intrusted a single 
 officer with ’.he formidable power of bringing all 
 these calamities upon the Republic!—an officer, 
 too, who, for a certain time, does not stand under 
 the immediate control of the representatives of 
 the people. The war-making power—one most 
 extensive, involving the interests of a nation—is 
 certainly one of the highest attributes of sove¬ 
 reignty, and it was mostly reserved to that branch 
 of the government in which the sovereignty of 
 the people is most comprehensively represented. 
 The power to declare war being withheld from 
 the Executive, and expressly lodged in Congress, 
 it follows that the Executive can have no autho¬ 
 rity to use warlike measures, unless specially au¬ 
 thorized by Congress; for what would the exclu¬ 
 sive power to declare war be worth to Congress, 
 
* 
 
 \ 
 
 7 
 
 if the power to use belligerent measures without 
 special authority—that is, to bring on or make 
 war —were vested in the Executive! This is 
 one of the distinguishing features of our consti¬ 
 tutional system. It cannot be changed without 
 breaking down the safeguards of our national 
 security. No man who understands the spirit 
 of American institutions, will fail to see this, and 
 he who does not, may be said not to comprehend 
 the tendency of our fundamental laws. Is it not 
 surprising that we should find such a man in him 
 who is held up to us as “ the greatest of living 
 statesmen V’ For a number of years, wherever 
 there was a difficulty between this and a foreign 
 government, Mr. Douglas endeavored again and 
 again to invest the President with the power of 
 using warlike measures at his own discretion, 
 without waiting for the action of Congress. 
 Here is a bill introduced by Douglas on the 24th 
 of May, 1858: 
 
 “ Be it enacted , 4*c., That in case of flagrant violations 
 of the laws of nations by outrage upon the flag, or soil, or 
 citizens of the United States, or upon their property, under 
 circumstances requiring prompt redress, and when, in the 
 opinion of the President , delay would be incompatible 
 with the honor and dignity of the Republic, the Presidi nt 
 is hereby authorized to employ such force as he may 
 deem necessary to prevent the perpetration of such out¬ 
 rages, and to obtain just redress and satisfaction for the 
 same when perpetrated ; and it shall be his duty to lay the 
 facts of each case, with the reasons for his action in the 
 premises, before Congress at the earliest practicable mo¬ 
 ment for such further action thereon as Congress may 
 direct.” 
 
 This bill was introduced at a time when ves¬ 
 sels belonging to the British navy, in the Gulf of 
 Mexico, undertook to stop and search American 
 merchantmen on the suspicion of their being 
 slavers. The bill did not pass; but whenever 
 there was an opportunity, be it in a discussion on 
 appropriations for the navy, or on the occasion 
 of some foreign difficulty, he again and again 
 has tried to bring about a fatal transfer of power. 
 It was on the 18lh of August, 1859, when he 
 disclosed his views more fully and emphatically 
 than ever before. The President, in a special 
 message, asked for special authority to protect 
 American citizens on the Transit route. Then 
 Mr. Douglas expressed himself as follows : 
 
 “I think the President ought to have the power to re¬ 
 dress sudden injuries upon our citizens, or outrages upon 
 our flag without waiting for the action of Congress. The 
 Executive of every other nation on earth has that authori¬ 
 ty, under their respective forms of government. * * * * 
 I go further, Sir. I would entrust the Executive with the 
 authority, when an outrage is perpetrated upon our ships 
 ami commerce, to punish it instantly, when he thinks the 
 interest and the honor of the nation require prompt action. 
 
 I wou d make this principle general in its application. I 
 desire the President of the United States to have as much 
 authority to protect American citizens and the American 
 flag abroad as the Executive of every other civilized na¬ 
 tion on earth possesses. * * * * I was willing to adopt 
 the principle that this authority shall be vested in the 
 President of the United States as a rightful authority and 
 a permanent rule of action, applicable all over the world 
 whenever he thinks American interests and American 
 honor require it to be exerted. * * * * When it is 
 known that our Executive has the same authority outside 
 of the United States that the British Premier and the 
 French Kmperor , or the head of any other nation pos¬ 
 sesses, you will And there will be a less number of out¬ 
 rages,” &c. 
 
 If Mr. Douglas had brought forward proposi¬ 
 tions like this in the heat of debate, aroused by 
 warlike excitement, we might excuse him on the 
 plea that his temper ran away with his judgment. 
 But the frequent, deliberate, persistent reitera¬ 
 tion of his views, must urge the conviction upon 
 us that they have become with him a settled po¬ 
 litical doctrine. Did he ever consider the extent 
 and consequences of the change he demands! 
 
 Does he know what it means, that the President 
 shall have the power, without waiting for the ac¬ 
 tion of Congress, to use the army and navy when 
 he—not when Congress, but when he thinks the 
 interests of the country require it 1 Suppose the 
 President be a man of excitable temper—of more 
 valor than discretion—or a man of inordinate 
 ambition—or a wily politician, unscrupulous 
 enough to involve the country in war in order to 
 divert popular attention from home difficulties. 
 Suppose such a President has the power to use 
 the armed forces of the United States when he 
 thinks fit. Will not our peace and security be 
 entirely at the mercy of his temper, his ambition, 
 or his unscrupulousness! 
 
 This is not so dangerous, says Mr Douglas, for 
 “ not every belligerent act leads to war." No, 
 certainly not; but if there is anything in the 
 world apt to lead to war it is a belligerent act. 
 It is true, according to Mr. Douglas’s bill, the 
 President will have to report to Congress “ at the 
 “ earliest practicable momentbut will not the 
 President be able, by an indirect use of the army 
 or navy, to involve the country in war, to array 
 nation against nation, long before that “earliest 
 “practicable moment” arrives ! It is true Con¬ 
 gress will, after a while, have power to stop the 
 war; but are you not aware that ours is a Gov¬ 
 ernment which depends not always on a calm 
 public opinion, but sometimes also on the pas¬ 
 sions of the people ! If once, by the measures 
 of the President, we are in active hostilities—if 
 once the intoxicating music of artillery has start¬ 
 ed the warlike enthusiasm of the people—if once 
 the fighting spirit of the masses is aroused by the 
 sight of blood, will not then what was com¬ 
 menced against the judgment of the people be 
 pushed by their passions ! 
 
 Mr. Douglas urged his proposition as often as 
 there was a speck of war in the horizon. But 
 those difficulties with Great Britain and the Cen¬ 
 tral American Republics, for the prosecution 
 of which he demanded that the Executive be 
 invested with power to adopt warlike measures, 
 have been settled by diplomatic transactions. 
 Our peaceful relations with foreign Governments 
 were hardly disturbed. Net a drop of blood was 
 shed. The honor of the Republic remains intact, 
 the Constitution inviolate. Suppose Mr. Douglas’ 
 notions had prevailed, and he had been Presi¬ 
 dent of the United States, clothed with the dis¬ 
 cretionary power he demanded. I ask you most 
 seriously, and invite you to ponder the question, 
 what would have been the result then ? How 
 many outrages, real or imaginary, would he have 
 punished with the army or navy, “ without wait¬ 
 ing for the action of Congress ?” How often 
 would he, unrestrained by Congress, have deemed 
 instant redress necessary ? Into how many fol¬ 
 lies would his childish hatred of Great Britain 
 have betrayed him ? Into how many wars would 
 his sensation policy have involved us within these 
 last few years ? With the blood of your sons 
 you would have paid the price of his indiscre¬ 
 tions. Let the President have the power that 
 Mr. Douglas demands for him, and the question 
 of peace or war, of prosperity or desolation, will 
 depend upon the temper of a single individual. 
 Put Mr. Douglas in the Presidential chair, and 
 give him, as he demands, the power of the French 
 Emperor, and he will furnish not the prudence, 
 but certainly the arbitrariness. 
 
 But he contends that our Executive must have 
 the power, because the Executive of every other 
 
8 
 
 nation has it. Indeed! Does lie not know that 
 just there is the difference between our system 
 of Government and those of other countries ? 
 Did it never occur to him that the establishment 
 o/ imperial power in this Republic would require 
 the entire overthrow of our checks and balances? 
 Does he not know that even in the hands of a 
 British Premier, this power is less formidable 
 than it would be in the hands of a President, 
 since the British Premier is subject to the imme¬ 
 diate control of a parliamentary majority, and 
 liable to be voted down and dismissed at any 
 moment, which the President and his Secretary 
 of State are not ? Oh, “ greatest of living states¬ 
 men!” if thou dost not know that, every sweet 
 little school-boy can tell thee. But there you 
 see him, “ in the fullness of his ignorance of this 
 “ vast subject, in the maturity of his incapacity 
 “ to apprehend its merits,” as Lord Brougham 
 would style it, attempting to trample down the 
 constitutional safeguards which surround the 
 liberties, and the security of the nation. Such 
 ignorance is dangerous when coupled with such 
 pretensions. Let that “greatest of living states¬ 
 men ” study awhile the peculiar features which 
 distinguish the republican government of Amer¬ 
 ica from the monarchical governments of the old 
 world. Give him an opportunity to learn that 
 an American President or Secretary of State was 
 never intended to-be a British Premier or a French 
 Emperor. Let him learn to appreciate that sys¬ 
 tem of nice balances of power in our Constitu¬ 
 tion, which is the principal safeguard of our free¬ 
 dom and security. But don’t speak of placing 
 him, such as he is, in the office of highest re¬ 
 sponsibility. If you want a safe man to admin¬ 
 ister your laws, select him among those who 
 understand their spirit, not one who means to 
 cushion his Presidential chair with imperial 
 powers, and who would take delight in playing 
 like a reckless boy with the club of Hercules. 
 
 It is my suspicion that Mr. Douglas tried to 
 effect that centralization of power in the hands 
 of the President, expecting to be President him¬ 
 self, and that then he would use it for the pur¬ 
 pose of plunging the country into warlike enter¬ 
 prises, to result in the conquering of Cuba and a 
 part of Mexico, which policy of conquest would 
 relieve him of the difficulties in which his posi¬ 
 tion upon the Slavery question has involved him. 
 I give this as my suspicion. You may judge for 
 yourselves whether it is supported by any mate¬ 
 rial evidence growing out of his past career and 
 present situation. But the measure he urged and 
 advocated is so dangerous and detestable in it¬ 
 self, that no ulterior design can make it more 
 damnable. It certainly is one of the acts dicta¬ 
 ted by the evident desire to retrieve the lost fa¬ 
 vor of the Slavery propagandists by outdoing 
 them in everything not immediately connected 
 with the Territorial question. This may be con¬ 
 sidered a grave charge, and I will substantiate it 
 at once, for in these t imes Judge Douglas’s states¬ 
 manship shines with more than ordinary lustre. 
 
 John Brown had made his insurrectionary at¬ 
 tempt in Virginia. The Republicans openly dis¬ 
 approved of the act, and denounced him in good 
 faith, as they would disapprove and denounce 
 every interference with the laws and institutions 
 of other States, as a violation of the spirit of our 
 institutions, which furnish for every evil a lawful 
 remedy. But the South was excited, and Doug*- 
 las saw a chance for himself. He pounced upon 
 it with almost indecent eagerness, morbidly anx¬ 
 
 ious to anticipate the action of the Committee on 
 the Harper’s Ferry affair, which was expected to 
 offer propositions applicable to the case. On the 
 22d of January, 1860, he introduced the follow¬ 
 ing resolution into the Senate: 
 
 Ilesolvcd, That the Committee on the Judiciary be in¬ 
 structed to report a bill for ihe protection of each State and 
 Territory in the Union against invasion by the authorities, 
 or inhabitants of any other State or Territory, and lor the 
 suppression ami punishment of conspiracies or combina¬ 
 tions in any State or Territory with intent to invade, as¬ 
 sail or molest the government, property or institutions of 
 any other State or Territory of the Union. 
 
 The true intent and meaning of this resolution, 
 was made plain by the speech with which the 
 Judge accompanied it. After having endeavored 
 to show that the Constitution confers upon our 
 Federal Government the power to do what the 
 resolution contemplates, he then defines his ob¬ 
 ject as follows: 
 
 “ Sir, I hold that it is not only necessary to use the 
 military power when the actual case of invasion shall 
 occur, but to authorize the judicial department of the 
 Government to suppress all conspiracies and combina¬ 
 tions in the several States with intent to invade a 
 . State, or molest or disturb its government, its peace, 
 its citizens, its property, or its institutions. You must 
 suppress the conspiracy , the combination to do the act, and 
 then you will suppress it in advance. * * I demand 
 
 that the Constitution be executed in good faith, so as 
 to punish and suppress every combination, either to 
 invade a State, or to molest its inhabitants, or to dis¬ 
 turb its property, or to subvert its institutions and its 
 government. I believe this can be effectually done by 
 authorizing the United States Courts in the several 
 States to take jurisdiction of the offense, and punish 
 the violation of the law with appropriate punish¬ 
 ments.” 
 
 So much about the way in which the combi¬ 
 nations can be and ought to be suppressed and 
 punished. Now what are and where are the 
 combinations ? 
 
 “ Sir,” said the Judge, “ what were the causes which 
 produced the Harper’s Ferry outrage ? Without stop¬ 
 ping to adduce the evidence in detail, I have no hesi¬ 
 tancy in expressing my firm and deliberate conviction 
 that the Harper’s Ferry crime was the natural, logical 
 and inevitable result of the doctrines and teachings of 
 the Republican party, as explained and enforced in 
 their platform, their partisan presses, their pamphlets 
 and books, and especially in the speeches of their 
 leaders in and out of Congress. * * * The great 
 principle that underlies the Republican party, is vio¬ 
 lent, irreconcilable, eternal warfare upon the institu¬ 
 tions of American Slavery, with a view to its ultimate 
 extinction throughout the land.” 
 
 This language is plain. There is the danger¬ 
 ous combination with intent to carry on a vio¬ 
 lent warfare against the institutions of other 
 States. Now, let us see what the Judge is going 
 to do with the unfortunate combination to 
 which, I am sorry to say, most of us belong. 
 
 “Sir,” says the Judge, “give us such a law as the 
 Constitution contemplates and authorizes and I will 
 show the Senator from New York ttuit there is a con¬ 
 stitutional mode of repressing the irrepressible con¬ 
 flict. I will open the prison-door, and allow the conspi¬ 
 rators against the peace of the Republic and the do¬ 
 mestic tranquillity of other States to select their cells, 
 wherein to drag out a miserable life as a punishment 
 for their crimes against the peace of society.” 
 
 But in order to remove all doubt as to what 
 the conspiracy and combination is, he proceeds : 
 
 “ Can any man say to us that, although this outrage 
 has been perpetrated at Harper’s Ferry, tbere is no 
 danger of its recurrence ? Sir, is not the Republican 
 party still embodied organized, confident of success 
 and defiant in its pretensions ? Does it not now hold 
 and proclaim the same creed as before the invasion ? 
 Those doctrines remain the same. Those teachings 
 are being poured into the minds of men throughout 
 the country by means of speeches, and pamphlets and 
 books, and through partisan presses. The causes that 
 produced the Harpers Ferry invasion are now in active 
 operation. * * Mr. President, the mode of preserv¬ 
 ing peace is plain. This system of sectional warfare 
 
9 
 
 must cease. The Constitution has given the power; 
 and all we ask of Congress is to give the means, and 
 we, by indictments and convictions in the Federal 
 Courts of the several States, will make such examples 
 of the leaders of such conspiracies as will strike terror 
 into the hearts of others; and there will he an end 
 of this crusade. Sir we must check it by crushing 
 out the conspiracy and combination; and then there 
 can be safety.” 
 
 I confess, when I read that speech, and the reso¬ 
 lution in defense of which it was made, I stood 
 horror-struck—not as though 1 had feared that a 
 Congress could be found so degenerate as to pass 
 such a law, but because a Senator Acid been found 
 who had the effrontery to advocate it in the open 
 halls of an American Legislature. This is not a 
 mere figure of speech. I do not exaggerate. Only 
 look at it. A treasonable attempt has been com¬ 
 mitted. The offenders ave punished. Mr. Douglas 
 introduces a proposition for a law intended to pre¬ 
 vent a repetition of the attempt, lie pretends to 
 discover the origin of the treasonable attempt in 
 the opinions and doctrines of a great national 
 party. He charges that party with urging a sec¬ 
 tional warfare and crusade against the institutions 
 of some of the States, and declares that this cru¬ 
 sade is carried on by speeches, pamphlets, books, 
 and partisan presses—by ideas being poured into 
 the minds of the people. He declares that there 
 can be no peace as long as those causes which 
 produced the treasonable attempt remain in active 
 operation. He proposes to check this crusade 
 by crushing out the conspiracies and combina¬ 
 tions by which it is carried on; and the means 
 by which he intends to crush them out are 
 indictments and convictions in the Federal 
 Courts, making such examples of the leaders as 
 will strike terror into the hearts of others. He 
 proposes to open prison cells for them, wherein 
 to drag out a miserable life. This is the proposi¬ 
 tion submitted to the Senate of the American 
 Republic—not by the King of Naples, not by the- 
 Vizier of the Turkish Sultan, not by Lhe Chief of 
 Police of the Russian Czar, not by one of the 
 Terrorists of the French Revolution—but by 
 an American Senator, on the 23d of July’ 1860. 
 
 I will not stoop to defend the Republican party 
 against these accusations. They are of so ridi¬ 
 culous, so preposterous a nature, as not to call 
 for the serious notice of any candid man. But 
 no matter. Let us embody the intent and mean¬ 
 ing of Mr. Douglas’s resolution and speech in 
 the shape of a law. It will probably read as 
 follows: 
 
 “Srctiox 1. Be it enacted , fyc , That if any person or 
 persons, residing in any State or Territory, shall unlawfully 
 combine or conspire together, with intent to invade, assail 
 or molest the Government, inhabitants, property, > r insti¬ 
 tutions, of any other State or Territory, or if any person or 
 persons with intent, as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise, or 
 attempt to procure any riot, invasion, unlawful assembly, 
 or co ubination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, 
 counsel, advice, or attempt, shall have the proposed effect 
 or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misde¬ 
 meanor and upon conviction before any Court of the Uni¬ 
 ted States, having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished 
 
 by a fine not exceeding -dollars, or by imprisonment 
 
 during a term not loss than-years, nor exceeding- 
 
 years; and further, at the discretion of the Court, may be 
 bolden to find security for his good behavior, in such sum, 
 and for such time, as the Court may direct.” 
 
 This section would cover the conspiracies and 
 combinations themselves. But Douglas says that 
 such treasonable things will be repeated as long 
 as the causes from which they spring remain in 
 active operation. He, therefore, wants to crush 
 out the causes; which may be done by section 
 second : 
 
 “Skc. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person, 
 
 2 
 
 inhabitant of any one State or Territory, shall wi : te, print, 
 utter, or publish or shall cause or procure to be written, 
 printed or uttered, or published, or shall knowingly or 
 willingly authorize or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or 
 publishing any scandalous or malicious writing or wri¬ 
 tings against the Government, inhabitants, laws, or insti¬ 
 tutions of other Stales or Territories, with intent to defame 
 the said Government, inhabitants, laws, or institutions, or 
 to excite against them the hatred of the good p ople of 
 any of the States, or to excite any unlawful combinations 
 for invading, assailing, or molesting the Government, in¬ 
 habitants, property, or institutions, of other States or Ter¬ 
 ritories, being thereof convicted before any Court of the 
 United States having jurisdiction thereof, lie shall he pun- 
 ishe i by a fine not exceeding-dollars, and by impris¬ 
 onment not exceeding-years.” 
 
 Every candid person will at once admit that 
 these two sections, as I have drawn them, contain 
 nothing—not a single point, not a single expres¬ 
 sion, that is not expressly and directly suggested 
 by Mr. Douglas’s resolution and speech. It so 
 happens that a law like this is not without prece¬ 
 dent in the history of this Republic. It is not 
 quite unknown to our own statute book, for the 
 two sections I laid before you are embodied with 
 scrupulous accuracy. Mr. Douglas’s propositions 
 are the literal copy of the notorious Sedition Law 
 of 1.798. I only put in “Governments, inhabit- 
 “ ants, property, or institutions of other States 
 “ and Territories,” instead of “ Government of 
 “ the United States or either House of Congress.” 
 The rest is exactly alike; no, let me not slander 
 the Sedition Law. The terms of imprisonment 
 prescribed by the Sedition Law are moderate, not 
 exceeding two and five years respectively, while 
 Mr. Douglas insists upon his victims “dragging 
 out in their prison cells their miserable lives,” 
 of which ten years would evidently not be suffi¬ 
 cient. Then this Sedition Law was enacted only 
 for a very limited period, after which it was tc 
 expire, while Mr. Douglas intends the Conspiracy 
 Act to be a permanent institution of the country. 
 These two features make the Sedition Law emi¬ 
 nently liberal in comparison with Douglas’s Con 
 spiracy Bill. 
 
 There may be some old man among us wlic 
 remembers the time when the Sedition law was 
 enacted—lie will tell you that the same act which 
 was intended to prevent insurrection, led peoph 
 upon the very, brink of an insurrection; he will 
 tell you that patriots, horrified at that time foi 
 the liberties of the people, thought of the neces¬ 
 sity of a second revolution. The excitement of 
 those days has left its monument in the history 
 of this country*—that monument is the Kentucky 
 and Virginia resolutions, drawn by Jefferson and 
 Madison. These resolutions were the loud out¬ 
 cry of patriotic hearts against the first flagrant 
 attempt at the centralization of Governmental 
 power. The Democratic party has indorsed them 
 again. It claims Jefferson as its father. What 
 would Jefferson, the author of the Kentucky res¬ 
 olutions, say of his degenerate offspring who 
 have nominated a man for the Presidency who 
 attempts to repeat the most tyrannical and out¬ 
 rageous act of the Federalists in the same outra¬ 
 geous form ? Would he not tell them that they 
 must be mistaken in their ancestry ? 
 
 Let me show the- consequence of the measure, 
 and you will understand why its forerunner cre¬ 
 ated such serious alarm and apprehension. So 
 tar our political parties have been fighting with 
 arguments. The victors obtained possession of 
 the constitutional power, ami administered the 
 Government, lmt had no power to violate the 
 rights and liberties of those that were defeated. 
 However the contest of parties may have ended, 
 
 / 
 
10 
 
 the peace of the country was never materially 
 disturbed, for the vanquished knew that their 
 individual security was not impaired. Such was 
 the uniform result of the fight with arguments. 
 But let the political parties once begin to fight with 
 indictments—put into their hands the two-edged 
 weapon of persecution, and whatever delusion 
 you may indulge in, the liberties of the people 
 will be no more secure in America than they are 
 in Austria and Naples. 
 
 There is one kind of despotism more terrible 
 than that of kings—that is the despotism of 
 political parties. Their tendency is not only to 
 defeat but to oppress their opponents. However 
 pure their first intentions may be, they will, in 
 the heat of political contest, insensibly drift into 
 that irresistible current. There is but one way 
 to prevent this: it is that the means of oppres¬ 
 sion and persecution be carefully kept Out of 
 their reach by strictly limiting and circumscrib¬ 
 ing the powers of the Government. Do not say 
 that these dangerous tendencies may be averted 
 by a change of parties. It is oppression that 
 engenders an oppressive spirit; upon persecution 
 follows revolution and revenge—that is, new per¬ 
 secution, and so on. You may know where it 
 begaj, but not where it will end. The framers 
 of our Constitution understood that well; they 
 defined the crimes of which the Federal Courts 
 shall have jurisdiction with scrupulous nicety. 
 They laid down the doctrine that treason against 
 the Government shall consist in levying war 
 against the United States, not in giving aid and 
 comfort to their enemies, and nothing else ; and 
 that no person shall be convicted of treason 
 unless upon the testimony of two witnesses, not 
 to the “ combination with treasonable intent,” 
 but to the overt act , thus carefully guarding 
 against the idea of constructive treason. They 
 knew well that the usual rules of legal construc¬ 
 tion in regard to common crimes should not be 
 applied to political matters in which conscience 
 and the freedom of opinion is involved, because 
 justice in one might become oppression and 
 tyranny in the other case. But even these con¬ 
 stitutional safeguards appeared so insufficient to 
 the people cf those days, that in the amendments 
 to the Constitution they surrounded the funda¬ 
 mental rights and liberties of the citizen with a 
 new bulwark of emphatic declaration. Hence 
 this fierce, indignant uncompromising opposition 
 to every measure tending to give latitude to the 
 power of the Government over individual rights 
 
 Judge Douglas seems to have no conception 
 of the groundwork upon which the safety of 
 popular liberty rests. Let him not pretend to 
 say that he intended the law for the prevention 
 of political offenses, for he ought to know, as 
 every well-informed man know's, that of all the 
 laws in the world which fasten the chains of 
 despotism upon mankind, there is hardly one 
 which does not rest upon the pretext that political 
 offenses must be prevented. Prevention of mis¬ 
 chief was the snare with which people in all 
 ages and all countries have been prevented from 
 asserting their liberties. Preventive laws are the 
 poison with which freedom is killed. It is said 
 that, years ago, an American citizen met Prince 
 Metternich in the city of Brussels. You remem¬ 
 ber who Prince Metternich was. The history of 
 the world hardly knows the minister who had to 
 answer for more tears and curses of crushed 
 nations. The American showed him the Consti¬ 
 tution of the United States, and asked his opin¬ 
 
 ion of it. “ This Constitution,” said the Prince, 
 “and I can govern the Empire of Austria with 
 it.” “ What is that V’ asked the American with 
 astonishment. “It is the power of the central 
 government to pass preventive laws.” What a 
 pity Prince Metternich is dead. In Judge Doug¬ 
 las he would have found the man of his heart. 
 Put the Judge’s Conspiracy Bill upon our statute 
 book, and declare it Constitutional, and the de¬ 
 ficiency is supplied. Prince Metternich is willing 
 to govern Austria, after his fashion, with the 
 Constitution of the United States. Place the 
 power to indict and punish for combinations and 
 for criminal intent in political matters into the 
 hands of our Federal Judges, those petty pro- 
 consuls who feel big when they can show their 
 power, and w^e shall soon have a little Star Cham¬ 
 ber in every little judicial district, a little Fou- 
 quier Tinville to act as prosecuting attorney, and 
 a little Jeffries to pass the sentences of the court, 
 there will be a government spy to smell out 
 treasonable combinations wherever three or four 
 of them are assembled, and the cells of your 
 prisons filled with men who have the spirit to 
 think and speak about Slavery as Washington, 
 Jefferson, Madison and Franklin thought and 
 spoke. 
 
 And there are those who dare to call the man 
 who proposed to inaugurate such a system of 
 policy, a “great statesman.” To the honor of 
 Southern men be it said in both cases, when he 
 proposed to confer 'the war-making power upon 
 the President, as when he introduced the New 
 Sedition Law, he had the mortification of being 
 put down by a slaveholder. It was in both cases 
 Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Fire-eaters, 
 who had the patriotic spirit to vindicate our Re¬ 
 publican institutions against the disgusting 
 schemes of Northern demagogues. 
 
 But a Northern man also was listening with 
 indignant astonishment to Douglas’s speech in 
 favor of the New Sedition Law; that was the 
 brave John Hickman, of Pennsylvania, the Anti- 
 Lecompton Democrat, who believed what he 
 said. And when he left the Senate Chamber he 
 broke out in the words : “ On thy belly shalt 
 
 thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of 
 thy life.” 
 
 And well might he say so, for the proposition 
 whispered into the ears of the fairest of our kind 
 by the serpent of Paradise was hardly more infa¬ 
 mous and infernal than the proposition Douglas 
 whispered in the ears of the present generation. 
 
 Where did Mr. Douglas learn these doctrines ? 
 He has been in Europe. Unable to comprehend 
 the means by which liberty is to be preserved in 
 this countiy, he seems to have studied the means 
 by which people are enslaved there. Not in 
 England, but in France and Russia, he found 
 much to admire. (I don’t know whether he 
 visited Austria and Naples.) He basked in the 
 sunshine of the smiles of the Czar, Nicholas. 
 The smiles of a despot sank deeply into his heart, 
 and this conspiracy bill grew out of it. 
 
 And this is your “greatest of living statesmen.” 
 If this is the ruling statesmanship of our days, 
 then good night, dearly-bought liberties! good 
 night, bright American Republic! good night, 
 great beacon of struggling humanity! If it is 
 statesmanship to subvert the principles of the 
 Constitution, undermine the liberties of the peo¬ 
 ple, to place the security of the individual at 
 the mercy of the centralized Government, then, 
 indeed, he is one of the greatest, and his statue 
 
11 
 
 deserves to be erected side by side with that of 
 the illustrious Cataline of Rome, and the patri¬ 
 otic Strafford of England. I do not fear that the 
 man who made the infamous attempt will be 
 elevated to the highest trust in this Republic, for 
 a just fate has already irrevocably decreed against 
 him ; but I do fear that there may be thousands 
 of men who will not have spirit enough to stig¬ 
 matize him with their repudiation. I appeal 
 to you. American freemen. Your hearts cannot 
 harbor the sincere feeling of gratitude for the 
 heroes and sages who gave liberty to this land, 
 if you do not harbor a curse for' the man 
 who attempts to destroy it with his insidious 
 schemes.. 
 
 Let me proceed : It would seem that the policy 
 of a man who introduces and advocates such 
 measures, must spring either from the profound- 
 est ignorance of the principles upon which the 
 liberty of men is maintained, or an innate love of 
 the principles b} f which the liberty of men is 
 subverted. It will, therefore, surprise you a 
 little when I tell you that Douglas’s system of 
 policy rests upon the basis of a profound philo¬ 
 sophical doctrine concerning the only safe foun¬ 
 dation upon which human liberty rests. It has 
 always struck me as very remarkable and it may 
 have occurred to a great many of you, that Mr. 
 Douglas’s mind, with all its acuteness and fer¬ 
 tility and resources, is exceedingly barren in 
 original conception. All the speeches he has 
 delivered since 1854 carry the peculiar flavor of 
 staleness about them. They contain nothing but 
 6ome stereotyped and somewhat commonplace 
 ideas, played in a sonorous, mellow swell of lan¬ 
 guage which derives its principal charm from the 
 animal vigor and energy with which it is puffed 
 out. 
 
 And here permit me to say, by the way, that 
 in my humble judgment I consider him one of 
 the most over-estimated men in the country. 
 But his speeches do contain one original idea, 
 and I tell you that is a bright one ; it belongs all 
 to him; nobody ever advocated it before, and 
 nobody will hereafter. We have been laboring 
 under the impression that Douglas did not care 
 whether Slavery be voted up or down; but we 
 must beg his pardon—it turns out that he does 
 care ; for the only original idea he can boast of 
 is that Slavery must necessarily exist for the 
 sake of— variety. [Laughter.] Don’t laugh, 1 
 pray you—it is a very serious matter—it is the 
 fundamental principle upon which Mr. Douglas’s 
 whole statesmanship rests; and as he is the 
 greatest statesman alive, it certainly deserves a 
 serious consideration. He tells us that it is the 
 very issue upon which he conducted the canvass 
 in Illinois in 1858—it is the very ground upon 
 which he placed the necessity of his Conspiracy 
 bill, and he has peddled it all over the Union in 
 numberless speeches. 
 
 The original idea, as expressed in his own lan¬ 
 guage, is simply this: “I assert,” said he, in his 
 speech opening the canvass of 1858, “ that 
 “ the great fundamental system which un- 
 “ derlies our complex system of State and Fede- 
 “ ral Governments, which implies diversity and 
 “dissimilarity in local institutions and domestic 
 “ affairs of each and every State then in the Un- 
 “ion, or thereafter to be admitted. I therefore 
 “ conceive that Mr. Lincoln has totally misappre- 
 “ hended the great principles upon which our 
 “Government rests. Uniformity in local and 
 ** domestic affairs would be destructive of States’ 
 
 “ rights, of States’ sovereignty—of personal lib- 
 “ erty and personal freedom. Wherever the doc- 
 “ trine of uniformity is proclaimed ; that all the 
 “ States must he free or slave ; that all the labor 
 “ must be white or black ; that all the citizens of 
 “ the different States must have the same privi- 
 “ leges, or must be ruled by the same regulations; 
 “ you have destroyed the greatest safeguards 
 “ which our institutions have thrown around, the 
 “ rights of the citizen. From this view of the 
 “ case I am driven irresistibly to the conclusion 
 “ that diversity, dissimilarity, variety in all our 
 “ local and domestic institutions is the great safe¬ 
 guard of our liberties. * * I repeat, that 
 “ uniformity in our institutions is neither possi- 
 “ ble nor desirable.” 
 
 This may sound very profound, but it will not 
 require many words to show you how exceed¬ 
 ingly ridiculous it is. Whatever your opinions 
 of the Judge’s statesmanship may be, permit me 
 to say that whenever he attempts to act the phi¬ 
 losopher, he becomes.—not to put too fine a point 
 upon it—very funny. 
 
 His argument is, that there is a variety of in¬ 
 terests or domestic affairs in the country ; that a 
 variety of local institutions grows out of them ; 
 that upon this variety of institutions our federal 
 system of Government rests ; that the federal 
 system of Government is the great safeguard of 
 our liberties; that consequently in order to pre¬ 
 serve our liberties it is necessary to preserve a 
 variety of'domcstic affairs and local institutions. 
 The question arises, if that variety of domestic 
 affairs and local institutions did not exist, would 
 that render the federal system of government 
 impossible! In other words, would a people, 
 among whom there is no such variety of domes¬ 
 tic affairs and local institutions, be incapable of 
 freedom ! 
 
 The original States entered into a union as 
 separate organizations — whether distinct and 
 separate on the ground of a variety of interests, 
 or for any other reason, is needless to discuss, 
 for if their institutions and interests had been 
 ever so uniform, it is evident that they could and 
 would not have consolidated. But a conclusive 
 refutation of the Judge’s theory lies nearer. The 
 people of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and 
 Wisconsin, are nearly all depending upon the 
 same resources—these States are all essentially 
 agricultural, and, besides, have some shipping 
 interest upon the great lakes. Their domestic 
 affairs and local institutions are essentially the 
 same. Their system of labor is the same—neither 
 of them holds slaves. The uniformity of Free 
 Labor was introduced there by the Ordinance in 
 ’87. According to the Judge’s theory, they must 
 consolidate if there is among them no variety of 
 domestic affairs and local institutions which keep 
 them asunder. It might be said that they cannot 
 consolidate now on account of constitutional 
 obstacles. Granted, for argument’s sake. But 
 that vast extent of land was consolidated once in 
 one great solid mass, called the North-Western 
 Territory. Why did it not remain consolidated ? 
 Why was it cut up into different Territories and 
 States, since their domestic interests were the 
 same, their local institutions the same, their sys¬ 
 tem of labor the same? There was complete 
 uniformity, and yet the very opposite of consoli¬ 
 dation. All these things remain essentially the 
 same. And do they desire to consolidate ? And 
 is it necessary to make half of them Slave States 
 in order to keep them asunder ? It is prepos- 
 
12 
 
 terous. But tliis example shows that not Mr. 
 Lincoln hut Judge Douglas must have entirely 
 misconceived the source from which our political 
 institutions spring. 
 
 That source is nothing else but the instinct of 
 self-government animating our people. Why do 
 we cut up our States into counties and town¬ 
 ships—even its States in which the interests and 
 domestic affairs of the people are everywhere quite 
 uniform? For the simple reason that the instinct 
 of self-government demands that all the functions 
 of sovereignty which the people can exercise by 
 direct action should remain in the hands of the 
 people ; and that all political power which can¬ 
 not be exercised by that direct action should be 
 so organized as to remain as near the original 
 source of sovereignty as possible. This renders 
 necessary such divisions and local organizations 
 as will place the direct administration of the 
 nearest home affairs immediately into the hands 
 of the people. The affairs a little more remote 
 in general are intrusted to the State Govern¬ 
 ments, subject to the immediate control of the 
 people; while the affairs of interests still more 
 remote in general are put into the hands of the 
 Federal Government. This ramification, division, 
 and subdivision of political power is carried out 
 no less where there is a uniformity of domestic 
 affairs and local institutions, than where there 
 exists variety. It will remain such just as long 
 as the people insist upon administering these 
 affairs by as direct an exercise of sovereignty as 
 possible, and no longer. To pretend that this 
 ramification of political power into a complex 
 gradation of functions cannot exist without there 
 being a variety of interests and domestic institu¬ 
 tions, would be to say that the people among 
 whom there is no such variety cannot be free; 
 and that is a nonsense which the merest school¬ 
 boy would be ashamed of. 
 
 But suppose, for argument sake, a variety of 
 interests were really so great and indispensable a 
 prop and pillar of our institutions of self-govern¬ 
 ment—is Judge Douglas unacquainted with the 
 difference between manufacturing Massachusetts 
 and Connecticut and commercial New York—be¬ 
 tween mining Pennsylvania and agricultural Illi¬ 
 nois ? But that variety does not seem to be suf¬ 
 ficient for the Judge—there is still too much 
 uniformity in it. He insists that “ where the 
 t: doctrine of uniformity is proclaimed all the 
 “ States must be free or slave—that all labor 
 “ must be white or black.” Our liberties must 
 necessarily go by the board, therefore we must 
 have more variety. The variety of manufactur¬ 
 ing and commercial-, mining and agricultural 
 products, is sadly insufficient. He insists that 
 there must be a little variety of Freedom and 
 Slavery, of white and black labor; and that 
 seems to be his favorite mixture; his cardinal 
 fundamental, sine qua wow variety ; and not only 
 have we no right to establish uniform Free Labor 
 by encroaching upon the rights of the States, but 
 quite as a general thing, the extinction of his 
 favorite variety , “ would be neither possible nor 
 “ desirable.” He declares it to be “ a fatal heresy 
 “ to proclaim that there can or ought to be uni- 
 “ formity among the different States of this 
 11 Union.” It would, then, according to the Judge, 
 not be desirable that Free Labor should prevail 
 everywhere, for that would create uniformity, 
 and uniformity is the death of Freedom. 
 
 And now mark that wonderful muddle of non¬ 
 sense in the head of that “ greatest of living 
 
 “statesmen”—our liberties rest upon our Fede¬ 
 ral system of Government; our Federal system 
 of Government rests upon the variety of institu¬ 
 tions; that variety of institutions consists of 
 there being Slavery in some of the Stales. If 
 Slavery disappeared, that variety would disap¬ 
 pear ; if that variety disappeared, our Federal 
 system of Government would disappear; if our 
 Federal system of Government disappeared, the 
 safeguards of our liberties would be destroyed— 
 consequently, if Slavery disappears liberty dis¬ 
 appears also. 
 
 Again, if all the States were free there would 
 be uniformity; but uniformity in local and do¬ 
 mestic affairs would be destructive of personal 
 liberty—that uniformity is prevented by the ex¬ 
 istence of Slavery, consequently the existence of 
 Slavery prevents the destruction of liberty; or 
 liberty cannot be preserved but by the preserva¬ 
 tion of Slavery. 
 
 What benefactors of our humanity were those 
 who introduced Slavery into our land 1 for they 
 furnished the material out of which the neces¬ 
 sary variety was made, without which our liberty 
 cannot exist. If they had not done so, then all 
 the States would be free; there would be uni¬ 
 formity, and we would all be slaves ! What non¬ 
 sense to abolish the slave trade! The more 
 slaves, the more variety—the more variety, the 
 more freedom. 
 
 How we must pity the unfortunate nations that 
 have no Slavery among them ; for they have no 
 variety of institutions, and having no variety 
 of institutions, they can have no liberty. Poor 
 people that have no slaves among them; they 
 can never be free! 
 
 It is a little surprising, however, that this great 
 and luminous doctrine of “ variety ” should have 
 been so little known about the time when our 
 Government was organized and the Constitution 
 framed. There were two individuals living then 
 who enjoyed some little reputation for statesman¬ 
 ship, one of whom said : “I trust we shall have 
 a Confederacy of Free States;” and the other 
 said: “ Nothing is more certainly written in the 
 Book of Fate than that those people [meaning 
 the slaves] are to be free.” And they were 
 called statesmen ! What an immense progress 
 we have made in these seventy years! They 
 would be called simpletons or traitors now ; for 
 they either knew nothing of the great doctrine 
 of i( variety” —which was very foolish—or, if 
 they knew it, they plotted the destruction of 
 popular freedom by advocating uniformity— 
 which certainly was very treasonable. By the 
 way, the name of one was George Washington, 
 and the name of the other, Thomas Jefferson. 
 You will be obliged to confess that you were 
 very much mistaken in those two men. What a 
 pity Judge Douglas did not live in those days. 
 IIow he would have knocked his great doctrine 
 of variety about their ears! How lie would 
 have taught Washington what the definition of 
 our Federal system is ! How he would have 
 told Jefferson what the great safeguards of 
 liberty are ! 
 
 But, alas! such statesmen are sometimes born 
 not only out of season, but also out of place. 
 What a pity Judge Douglas does not live in Switz¬ 
 erland, the oldest Republic now extant. Those 
 benighted people, the Swiss, have been for cen¬ 
 turies indulging in the foolish delusion that tl ey 
 were free, and that they had a federal system of 
 Government. Why there is no Slavery in Switz- 
 
13 
 
 erland—there is not the necessary variety of in¬ 
 stitutions there. Their States are all Free States. 
 There is uniformity there. How can they have 
 federal institutions with uniformity I How can 
 there be liberty without variety 1 Impossible. 
 Poor, innocent souls! they think they are free, 
 and have no slaves. Let the Judge go at once 
 on a missionary expedition to liberate the Swiss. 
 He will have an opportunity to try that other 
 great original idea of his, that “ any political 
 n creed must be radically wrong which cannot be 
 “proclaimed everywhere.” I venture to predict 
 that every honest Swiss boot will lift itself and 
 kick the great variety Douglas respectfully from 
 Alp to Alp. 
 
 Now look at the strange consequences into 
 which his variety doctrine inevitably leads him. 
 The necessity of preserving Slavery for the sake 
 of Liberty—that is, of preserving the variety of 
 institutions—was the principal ground upon 
 which he placed the necessity of passing his Con¬ 
 spiracy bill. The same man who tells us that 
 Slavery must be preserved because its extinction 
 would bVing about uniformity, which, in its turn, 
 ■would produce a consolidated despotic Govern¬ 
 ment—the same man advocates the passage of a 
 measure investing the Government with powers 
 which put it upon the courses of consolidation ; 
 for, without the grant of these powers, without 
 that act of consolidation, Slavery cannot be main¬ 
 tained. Slavery, according to him, must be pre¬ 
 served by a measure which is necessary to popu¬ 
 lar liberty; for, if Slavery is not preserved, uni¬ 
 formity will ensue, and the liberties of the peo¬ 
 ple will be in danger. In other words, he tells us 
 that the existence of Slavery is necessary for the 
 preservation of our rights and liberties, and then 
 he tells us that a measure undermining our rights 
 and liberties is necessary for the preservation of 
 Slavery. The variety must be kept up for the 
 purpose of maintaining our liberties, and our lib¬ 
 erties must be put down for the purpose of keep¬ 
 ing the variety. 
 
 We are, indeed, greatly indebted to Judge 
 Douglas. At last we know what Slavery is good 
 for, and why its extinction is neither possible nor 
 desirable. Even the black man, in his suiferings, 
 will find a soothing consolation in the Judge’s 
 philosophy. When Sambo is flogged down South, 
 and the whip lacerates his back, the benevolent 
 Judge will tell the poor fellow that he has got to 
 be whipped for the sake of variety [laughter]; 
 and Sambo will smile in the sweet consciousness 
 of being whipped for a very great principle. 
 [Renewed laughter.] And when the Judge’s bill 
 lias passed, he has opened for you the prison cells 
 wherein he blandly invites you “ to drag out your 
 miserable lives,” you will with pride remeipber 
 the old Roman proverb, “ Dulce et decorum est 
 “patria mori ; ” and improving upon the text 
 you will exclaim, “ It is most sweet and honor¬ 
 able to die for variety’s sake.” 
 
 This, then, is Judge Douglas’s philosophy of 
 government; not an idea occasionally dropped 
 in a speech, but his great original conception. 
 This shallow, ridiculous, childish nonsense, is 
 what he emphatically proclaims to be the funda¬ 
 mental doctrine of his whole political wisdom! 
 Oh, Douglas Democrats, how proud you must 
 feel of your “ greatest statesman alive.” Permit 
 me to offer you. in the name of the Republican 
 party, our sincerest congratulations. 
 
 Gentlemen: You have accompanied my re¬ 
 marks with some evidence of merriment; and, 
 
 indeed, it cannot be denied that there is some of 
 the profundity of the illustrious Dogberry in Mr. 
 Douglas’s philosophical doctrines. But this is a 
 serious matter. Do you not see that to some 
 extent the honor of the country is involved in ill 
 That gentleman stands before us a candidate for 
 the Presidency, arid he is represented to be the 
 “ greatest American statesman.” And now, I 
 entreat you, I implore you solemnly—for there 
 is no man here who has the reputation of this 
 country more deeply at heart than I have—I im¬ 
 plore you, do not make this Republic ridiculous 
 in the eyes of the whole world by attempting to 
 crown that Dogberry statesman with the highest 
 honors .of the Republic. I am not jesting ; I am 
 in deep and solemn earnest; for if you look over 
 the list of those men who, since the organization 
 of the Republic, have been deemed worthy of a 
 vote for the Presidency, you will find not one 
 among them who has laid more insiduous 
 schemes to subvert the principles of the Constitu¬ 
 tion, who did more to debauch the consciences 
 of the people, more to bring American statesman¬ 
 ship into contempt than he. No, I will not wrong 
 Judge Douglas; there was one; I mean Aaron 
 'Burr. He was a more dangerous man, for he 
 united to a depraved heart a far superior under¬ 
 standing. 
 
 But, as to Judge Douglas, here I stand up before 
 the great jury of the sovereign people and bring 
 my bill of indictment. 
 
 I arraign him for having changed his posi¬ 
 tion in regard to the Missouri restriction, time 
 and again, according to the interests of Slavery. 
 
 I arraign him for having broken the plighted 
 faith of the people by the repeal of the Comprom¬ 
 ise of 1820. 
 
 I arraign him for having upheld the most 
 atrocious violations of the ballot-box ; for having 
 trampled upon the most sacred rights of the peo¬ 
 ple of Kansas, so long as the struggle between 
 Freedom and Slavery was doubtful. 
 
 I arraign him for having committed a fraud 
 upon the people by forging and adulterating the 
 principle of Popular Sovereignty, and making it 
 the machine of Slavey propagandism. 
 
 I arraign him for having deserted the cause of 
 Free Kansas when the people, having complied 
 with all reasonable conditions, applied for admis¬ 
 sion into the Union. 
 
 I arraign him for having repeatedly made the 
 attempt to disturb the system of constitutional 
 checks and balances, by placing the war-making 
 power in the hands of the President. 
 
 I arraign him for having attempted, by his 
 conspiracies, a thing more outrageous than the 
 Sedition Law of 1798, to put the liberties of 
 speech and press at. the mercy of a political in¬ 
 quisition, and to make the judicial persecution 
 of opinions a standard system of policy. 
 
 I arraign hrrn, lastly, for having attempted to 
 pass off upon the people the doctrines of political 
 philosophy, which is an insult to the popular 
 understanding. No, I beg your pardon, 1 do 
 not arraign him for that, for this is a free 
 country, where everybody has a right to make 
 himself as ridiculous as he pleases, “subject only 
 to the Constitution of the United States.” [Loud 
 laughter.] And, yet, I arraign him for that also, 
 for I protest that he has no right to make the 
 Republic ridiculous with him. 
 
 Here is the charge. It is for the people to give 
 the verdict. 
 
 Gentlemen, will you have patience enough to 
 
 f 
 
14 
 
 listen to a few remarks about Douglas, “ the^re- 
 sidential candidate V ’ Well, after these exploits 
 he thought he was fit to he a Democratic candi¬ 
 date for the Presidency, and so his name went 
 before the Charleston Convention. But, won¬ 
 derful to tell, the whole Southern Democracy 
 seemed to be united against him ; and I honestly 
 declare I think the Slave Power did wrong. It 
 might have found a more abject and less exact¬ 
 ing tool, but it could hardly expect to find a 
 more daring, reckless and unscrupulous one. 
 What was the reason of their opposition % Was 
 it the Constitutional quibbles about which they 
 had been contending 1 The whole difference was 
 merely imaginary. Was it the slaveholders 
 thought a man who had betrayed his own section 
 of the country could not be relied upon in his 
 promises to be faithful to another ? That was 
 more honorable than judicious in the Slave 
 Power, governed by such a feeling. No, I think 
 the true reason widely differs from this, and it 
 show's that Mr. Douglas never had the sagacity 
 enough to understand his ow r n position. The Slave 
 Power will sometimes, for expediency’s sake, 
 condescend to make a Northern man President, 
 if he consents to be its unconditional tool, but it # 
 will never elevate one who aspires to be or be¬ 
 come a leader of the party. Mr. Douglas ought 
 to have understood that. There was his mistake. 
 However willing he may have been to serve them, 
 he had to serve them not in his, but in their own 
 way. He affected independence, and he fell. I 
 think the South acted against their own interest, 
 for in Judge Douglas they would have had a man 
 in the Presidential chair who would have shrunk 
 from nothing to regain their favor. It is my 
 conviction that he would have been a more ultra 
 Pro-slavery President than Breckinridge, or Jef¬ 
 ferson Davis, or Slidell, and 1 wish they would 
 still conclude to take him, so as to place every 
 man in his proper position. You see w r e are not 
 afraid of your combinations. 
 
 But the mistake was committed. They op¬ 
 posed him to the last, and Judge Douglas saw 
 that his nomination in Charleston was an impos¬ 
 sibility. Then his friends moved an adjourn¬ 
 ment of the Convention, and carried it. They 
 were to re-assemble at Baltimore a few weeks 
 afterward. In the meantime, Mr. Douglas saw 
 a last chance of appeasing the South. He 
 grasped at it with desperate eagerness, and he 
 saw the great prize slipping from his hands, and 
 he staked his all upon a last cast. On the 15th 
 and 16th of May, he arose in the Senate, and in 
 one of the most elaborate efforts of his life, he 
 made the following statement, and Douglas De¬ 
 mocrats I claim your special attention. Listen : 
 
 “ It is part of the history of that country that 
 under this doctrine of non-intervention—this 
 doctrine that you delight to call Squatter Sove¬ 
 reignty—the people of Now Mexico have intro¬ 
 duced and. protected Slavery in the whole of that 
 Territory, under the doctrine they have converted 
 a tract of Free Territory into Slave Territory 
 move than five times the size of the State of New 
 York. Under this doctrine Slavery has been ex¬ 
 tended not only up to 36° 30', but up to 38°, 
 giving you a degree and a half more of slave 
 Territory than you ever claimed. * * * What¬ 
 ever inch of Free Territory lias been converted 
 into Slave Territory on the American continent 
 since the Revolution, except in New Mexico and 
 Virginia, under the principle of non-intervention 
 affirmed at Charleston 1 If it be true that this 
 
 principle of non-intervention has protected Sla¬ 
 very in that comparatively Northern and cold 
 region, where you did not expect it to go, cannot 
 you trust the same principle further South, 
 when you come to acquire additional Territory 
 from Mexico 1 Will not the same principle pro¬ 
 tect in the Northern States of Mexico when they 
 are acquired, since they are now surrounded by 
 Slave Territory I ” 
 
 Oh, Douglas men, what a lesson is this! Did 
 you not tell us that when the Nebraska bill was 
 enacted, that this law was the most efficient way 
 of introducing Free Labor into the Territories I 
 Have you not most solemnly assured us every 
 day since 1854 that the principle of Popular 
 Sovereignty as expounded by Mr. Douglas would 
 most certainly save all the Territories from the 
 grasp of Slavery I And now look there! Your 
 own master and prophet admits, acknowledges , 
 and boasts of it—that this same principle gave 
 to Slavery one and one-half degrees of latitude 
 more than it ever claimed, and that since the 
 organization of the American Republic not a 
 square foot of Free Territory was ever converted 
 into Slave Territory, but by the same measure 
 which you represented to us as the greatest and 
 most reliable engine of Free Labor! Your own 
 master and prophet tells you in your own faces, 
 and in the face of all mankind, and in the face 
 of posterity, that you have been lying most a'ro- 
 ciously—lying every day for the last six years. 
 This was unkind—was it not, Douglasites of the 
 North ? 
 
 No ; I am not joking. It was terribly unkind. 
 All he said was most certainly, most undoubt¬ 
 edly, most uncontrovertibly true; but I de¬ 
 clare that if he had the least regard for the feel¬ 
 ings of his friends—the least sympathy for them 
 in their awkward embarrassments—he, he ought 
 to have been the last on earth to make that state¬ 
 ment. Did he know that you had supported him 
 and made friends for him on the false pretence 
 that liis great principle worked the exclusion of 
 Slavery from the Territories ? Did he not know 
 that you had pledged your honor—had staked 
 your character for truth and veracity upon that 
 pretence ? He knew it well. He had encouraged 
 you in doing so ; and, after you have compro¬ 
 mised yourself for him, day after day, in the eyes 
 of the whole world, he turns and gives you most 
 unceremoniously the lie. Oh, that was ungene¬ 
 rous ! It was mean—very mean—unspeakably 
 mean. If your self-sacrificing friendship had 
 awakened the least echo in his heart, he ought to 
 have been the last man to do so. But that heart 
 seems to be so filled with calloused selfishness— 
 so destitute of the generous impulses of human 
 nature—that if liis friends, like Broderick, die 
 for him, he coldly disowns him ; and if they lie 
 for him, he promptly puts them to shame. Dis¬ 
 owns them and puts them to shame. And for 
 what? For the purpose of retrieving the lost 
 favors of the South ; regaining the lost smiles of 
 the Slave Power, to be sacrificed to them. Was 
 that the reward you had deserved at his hands ? 
 
 Look at it again. See, he stands before the 
 slaveholders in the Senate of the United States 
 busy bargaining away your honor for their favors. 
 “ Who has ever served you more faithfully than 
 “ I with my great principle ?” he asks them. 
 “Why not let my friends in the North preach up 
 “ that principle as the Pioneer of Freedom ? The 
 “ fools, perhaps, believing in what they say, but 
 “ we know better. Do you not see the result ? 
 
15 
 
 “ Why not permit me the innocent joke of bam- 
 “ boozling the people of the North into believing 
 ‘‘that lam the great Champion of Freedom?” 
 Ah, Douglas men, what a sight is this ! He has 
 prostituted you, and now proclaims your dis¬ 
 grace. How do you like the attitude in which 
 he has placed you ? How do you like the pillory 
 to which, with his own hand, he has nailed your 
 ears ? And you are willing to stand there—stand 
 there quietly in the eyes of mankind. Do you 
 not sometimes hear an earnest voice speaking 
 within you, speaking of a self-respect and the 
 natural dignity of man ? Does it never tell you 
 that the fairest blush of shame would be an orna¬ 
 ment to your cheeks ? My friends, I love to 
 esteem all that bears the attributes of human 
 nature ; but if sometimes, at an unguarded mo¬ 
 ment, a cloud of contempt arises in my soul, it 
 is at the aspect of this gratuitous self-degrada¬ 
 tion, for which even ignorance and error can 
 hardly serve as an excuse. 
 
 See there your master and prophet, prostrating 
 himself before the Slave Power—in the dust, be¬ 
 fore your proud opponents! You can no longer 
 say you stand by him, for since that day he does 
 not stand up himself. If you are with him still 
 there, at the foot of the Slave Power, where he 
 lies, you lie with him. And what did the Slave¬ 
 holders do after he had so meanly humiliated 
 himself, and prostrated his friends 1 Did they 
 smile upon him 7 Aye, they did, with scorn, 
 and said, “We loved thy treason well enough, 
 “ but we spurn with contempt the traitorand 
 there he lies still. 
 
 The time of the Baltimore Convention arrived, 
 and the struggle recommenced. It became at 
 once manifest that Douglas’s nomination could 
 not be forced upon the Democratic party without 
 splitting that organization in twain ; and he saw 
 clearly enough that then his election would be 
 an impossibility. The South was seceding en 
 masse , and leaving the rump Convention to do as 
 it pleased. Then Mr. Douglas, seeing a disgrace¬ 
 ful defeat inevitable, wrote a letter to his friends 
 in the Convention, requesting them to withdraw 
 his name if they found it in any way consistent 
 to do so. And I declare, if Douglas was ever 
 honest in anything he did or said, I believe be 
 was honest then and there. 
 
 But now the moment had arrived when it be¬ 
 came manifest that there is justice in history. 
 Douglas’s position was disgusting, but his pun¬ 
 ishment was sublime. Then his friends, for the 
 first time, refused to obey his command. Those 
 whom he had used so often and so long for his 
 own advancement saw now there was a last 
 chance of using him for theirs. They said to him 
 “We have performed our part of the contract; 
 “ now you have to perform yours. We have nom- 
 “ inated you for the Presidency; now you have 
 “ to permit us to be elected Congressmen, Sher- 
 “ iffs, County Clerks, or Constables, on the 
 “ strength of your name. There is no backing 
 “ out. Ho! for the spoils !” 
 
 .“Dost thou think because thou hast suddenly become 
 virtuous, 
 
 There shall be no more cakes and ale ? 
 
 Yes, by Saint Ann! an’ ginger-hot in the mouth, too!” 
 
 [Prolonged laughter.] 
 
 And so the saddle of the rump nomination is 
 put upon his back, and the whole ghastly pack 
 of office-hunters jump upon it. The spurs are 
 put to the flanks—the whip applied to the back 
 of the panting, bleeding jade, and so the spectral 
 
 ride goes, east and west, night and day—and 
 may the steed go to perdition, if only the riders 
 reach their goal. [Loud applause and cheers.] 
 
 Oh, there is justice in history. He has at last 
 the idol of his dreams—the object of his fondest 
 wishes—for which he has laid so many a treach¬ 
 erous scheme—for which he has turned so many 
 a summersault—for which he has struck so many 
 a blow at the peace of the Republic—for which 
 he so often prostituted himself and his followers 
 —for which he has hugged so many a loafer, and 
 insulted so many an honest man—for which he 
 made every rum-shop his headquarters, and every 
 ruffian his friend :—he has at last the nomination 
 for the Presidency ; but what he has craved as a 
 blessing, has come down upon him as a curse. 
 To be nominated, and know that an election is 
 impossible ! To be voted for, and to know that 
 every vote for him is for Breckinridge or Lane, 
 whom he hates, and every vote‘against him a vote 
 for Lincoln, whom he does not love! To be voted 
 for, and be aware that those who vote for him 
 work not for him, but for themselves! To be dead, 
 and yet living enough to be conscious of death ! 
 Oh, there is justice in history ! Am I exaggera¬ 
 ting ? Where is that mighty leader, whose voice 
 once called millions into the field 7 At the street 
 corners and cross-roads you see him standing like 
 a blind, downfallen Belisarius—not in virtue, but 
 in poverty—a bevy of political harlots surround¬ 
 ing him, and begging for the miserable obolus of 
 a vote; begging the Know-Nothings, whom he 
 once affected to despise; begging the Whigs, 
 whom he once insulted with his brawling denun¬ 
 ciations ; invoking the spirit of Henry Clay, whom 
 he once called a black-hearted traitor! Oh, but 
 poor Belisarius ! The party harlots that surround 
 him with their clamorous, begging cry, steal eve¬ 
 ry vote they receive for him, and put it into their 
 own pockets. 
 
 Where is the bold, powerful agitator, whose 
 voice sounded so defiantly on every contested 
 field 7 Behold him on his sentimental journey, 
 vainly trying to find his mother’s home and his 
 father’s grave, apologising with squeamish affec¬ 
 tation for his uncalled-for and indecent appear¬ 
 ance in public, like one of the condemned spirits 
 you read of in the myths of by-gone ages, rest¬ 
 lessly perambulating the world, condemned to a 
 more terrible punishment than Tantalus, who 
 was tortured by an unearthly thirst, with grapes 
 and water within his reach—more terrible than 
 that of Dannites, who had to pour water into 
 the leaky cask—for he is condemned to deliver 
 that old speech of his over and over again. 
 [Applause and cheers find laughter.] As often 
 as he arrives at a hotel that has a balcony, as 
 often as his hasty journey is arrested by a spon¬ 
 taneous gathering, when you hear a subterranean 
 spectral voice cry out “ my great principle of 
 non-intervention”—that is the dead squatter 
 sovereign atoning for the evil deeds he commit¬ 
 ted in his bodily existence. [Prolonged laughter 
 and cheers.] Not long ago he haunted the rail¬ 
 road crossings and clam-bakes of New England; 
 then the cross-roads of the South, and the ghastly 
 apparition was last seen in this neighborhood. 
 [Prolonged laughter and cheers.] Where is that 
 formidable party tyrant whose wishes once were 
 commands; who broke down sacred compromises 
 with a mere stroke of his finger; whose very nod 
 made the heads of those who displeased him fly 
 into the basket; whose very whims were tests of 
 Domooracy 7 Where is he who once, like Mae- 
 
 v 
 
16 
 
 beth, thought himself invulnerable by any man 
 “who was of woman born;” invincible, great, 
 
 -“ Till Birnarn wood 
 
 Do hie to Dunsinane hill. 
 
 Should come against him.” 
 
 Like Macbeth, lie has believed the fiends 
 “That paltered with him in a double sense,” 
 and there he stands, tied to the stake of his . 
 nomination. 
 
 “ He cannot fly, 
 
 And, bear like, he must fight his course.” 
 
 But as Birnatn Wood marched to Dunsinane, 
 so the very fence rails of Illinois are rushing 
 down upon him [tremendous laughter and 
 cheers], and, like Macduff, there rises against 
 the spirit of Free Labor, one whose children he 
 has murdered, and that is a Champion “not of 
 woman born.” [Laughter.] And now 
 
 “ On, Macduff; 
 
 And damned be he who first cries hold—enough.” 
 [Renewed laughter, and cheers.] Oh, there is 
 justice in history. [.Cheers.] 
 
 The same betrayal of the Free Labor cause— 
 the Nebraska bill, which was to be his stepping 
 stone to power, proved to be the abyss which 
 engulfed his honor, his manhood, his strength 
 and his hopes. There are those who mean to re- i 
 verse tlie judgment of history. Vain under¬ 
 taking! That man is marked by the hand of 
 eternal retribution. On his very front stands the 
 fatal touch. Do not attempt to arrest the hand 
 of Supreme Justice. You cannot save him from 
 his ruin. Why are you so eager to share his 
 disgrace'? Leaders of the Douglas Democracy, 
 what means your empty bravado of strength 1 
 You cannot deceive others ; why are you work¬ 
 ing so hard to deceive yourselves? You know 
 that your orators are but endeavoring to galvan¬ 
 ize a dead body into artificial life. You are well 
 aware that your mass-meeting demonstrations 
 are nothing but huge galvanic batteries at play. 
 What means your desperate attempt to glue your 
 broken fortunes together with those of other 
 parties ? Do you think this is the way to cheat 
 destiny out of its dues'? Is it your ambition to 
 have your descendants read in the history of our 
 days, there were men living in 1800 that with in¬ 
 stincts so depraved that when they could not 
 accomplish that which was evil, they endeavored 
 at least, to prevent that which was good ? 
 
 And you who are warned by this sacred 
 voice of conscience that you are doing wrong 
 in adhering to Douglas, and yet obey the com¬ 
 mand of party, hear me: Is this party drill 
 a discipline so omnipotent«rm idol that you would 
 sacrifice upon its altar your independence, 
 your manhood and all thjtt constitutes your 
 moral worth ? 
 
 And you who claim the exclusive privilege of 
 Swearing by tlie Constitution and the laws, will 
 you stamp the evidences of hypocrisy upon your 
 brow by indirectly indorsing him who has done 
 more than any other living man to undermine 
 the Constitution and pervert the laws ? Will you 
 permit your political hucksters to barter away 
 not only your votes, but your consciences and 
 your honor. 
 
 But let the conspirators come on: we defy 
 them. Go on with your coalition's, which are 
 
 made the distinct understanding that those who 
 unite to-day are to cheat each other to-morrow. 
 Has it become a ruling principle in your parties 
 that the ‘‘rank and file have no rights which the 
 “ leaders are bound to respect?” You will find 
 out your mistake. Look around you. Do you 
 see thousands leaving your banners, unwilling to 
 submit to your treacherous schemes, to rob the 
 people of their elections. Do you know what 
 that means ? It means that the man rises above 
 the partisan. It means the revival of conscience 
 in our politics. It is the true sovereignty of the 
 people vindicating itself. [Cheers.] 
 
 Now, build up your mole-hills, and call them 
 impregnable fortresses. It seems you do not 
 know how small they are. The logic of things 
 will not roll its massive will over them. Your 
 puny contrivances will leave no trace behind to 
 tell your doleful story. 
 
 Sir, only those whose hearts are unmoved by 
 great moral impulses can fail to see that we are 
 in the midst of a great moral revolution. They 
 cannot prevent final victory. I firmly believe 
 they cannot retard it. No, they are aiding it in 
 spite of themselves ; for their general rottenness 
 demonstrates its necessity. Douglas himself 
 is powerfully promoting its progress. He has 
 taught the people of America a great, sublime 
 lesson. 
 
 I think it w T as Senator Pugh who once said 
 that if Douglas were struck down by the South, 
 he would take his bleeding corpse and show it to 
 the youth of the North-West as an example 
 of Southern gratitude. Let that modern Mark 
 Antony come in with his dead Caesar (pardon 
 me, it is neither Caesar dead nor Mark Antony 
 living), let him bring in his bleeding corpse, and 
 1 would suggest the funeral oration. Let hint 
 say to the youth of the American Republic: 
 
 “ This is Douglas. Look at him. For every’ 
 
 “ wound the South inflicted upon him, he has,, 
 “struck a blow at the liberties of his country* 
 
 ‘ men. Let him serve as a warning example that r 
 “a man may be a traitor to liberty, and yet not 
 “ become a favorite of the Slave Power. Mark 
 “ him. By false Popular Sovereignty he tried to 
 “ elevate himself; a true Popular Sovereignty 
 “ strikes him down.” [Loud applause.] 
 
 If the youth of America profit by this lesson, . 
 then it may be said that even Douglas has done 
 some service to his country. [Laughter.] Then 
 peace be with him—his mission is fulfilled. 
 
 But now we have to fulfill ours. False Popular 
 Sovereignty is down. Freemen, it is for you to see 
 to it, that true Popular Sovereignty triumph. 
 
 Citizens of New York, when after the adjourn¬ 
 ment of the Convention which nominated that 
 great and good man Abraham Lincoln for the 
 Presidency, I addressed the people of my State 
 again for the first time, I said to them: “Let 
 “ Wisconsin stretch her hand across the great 
 “ lakes and grasp the hand of New York Let 
 “ it be known that New York and Wisconsin, 
 
 “ who stood together to the last for Seward in 
 “the Convention, will stand first and foremost in. 
 
 “ the battle for Lincoln and Liberty.” Wisconsin 
 will redeem her pledge on the 6th of November. 
 Men of New York we look to you for a response. 
 [Prolonged cheering.] 
 
 y