aass__£Ai7- Book. .Li 3g ■ ^'^-Mr'vM^^-i POLITICAL DEBATES BETWEEN HOK ABRAHAM LUSrCOLE" AND HON. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, In the Celebrated Campaign of 1858, in Illinois ; INCLUDING THE PRECEDING SPEECHES OF EACH, AT CHI- CAGO, SPRINGFIELD, ETC.; ALSO, THE TWO GREAT SPEECHES OF MR. LINCOLN IN OHIO, IN 1859, AS CAREFULLY PREPARED BY THE REPORTERS OF EACH PARTY, AND PUBLISHED AT THE TLMES OF THEIR DELIVERY. COLUMBUS: FOLLETT, FOSTER AND COMPANY, 18 6 0. ■^QPS "X. Llncolniana A. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, bt follett, foster & CO., la the Cleric's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohux FOLLETT, FOSTER i CO., Printers, Stcreotj/pers, Binders and Publishers, COLUHOnS, OHIO. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAOS Speech of Mr. Lincoln, at Springfleld, June 17, 1858 1 " " at Chicago, July 10, 1858 15 •: " " at Springfield, July 17, 1858 54 '■ " " at Columbus. Ohio, September, 1859 240 '• " " at Cincinnati, Ohio. September, 1859 255 Speech of Mr. Douglas, at Chicago, July 9, 1858 5 " " at Bloomington, July 16, 1858 24 " " " at Springfield, July 17, 1858 40 Correspondence between Messrs. Lincoln and Douglas, preliminary to the Debates 64 First Joint Debate, at Ottawa, August 21, 1858 65 Mr. Douglas's Opening Speech 65 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 73 Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder 83 Second Joint Debate, at Freeport, August 27, 1858. 87 ]\[r. Lincoln's Opening Speech 87 Mr. Douglas's Reply 93 Mr. Lincoln's Rejoinder 106 Third Joint Debate, at Jonesboro, Sept 15, 1858 110 Mr. Douglas's Speech 110 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 119 Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder 130 Fourth Joint Debate, at Charleston, Sept. 18, 1858 136 Mr. Lincoln's Speech ' 136 Mr. Douglas's Reply 144 Mr. Lincoln's Rejoinder 156 Extract from Mr. Trumbull's Speech at Alton 161 Extract from Douglas's Speech at Jacksonville 165 Fifth Joint Debate, at Galesburgh, Oct. 7, 1858 170 Mr. Douglas's Speech 170 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 178 Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder 188 Sixth Joint Debate, at Quincy, Oct. 13, 1858 192 Mr. Lincoln's Speech 192 Mr. Douglas's Reply 199 Mr. Lincoln's Rejoinder 210 Seventh and Last Joint Debate, at Alton, Oct. 15, 1858 215 Mr. Douglas's Speech 215 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 223 Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder 235 L iM SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, At Springfidd, June 17, 1858. [The following speech was delivered at Springfield, 111., at the close of the Re- publican State Convention held at that time and place, and by which Convention Mr. Lincoln had been named as their candidate for U. S. Senator. Mr. Douglas was not present.] Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Convention : If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agita- tion. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I be- lieve this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate ex- tinction ; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition ? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete leijal com])ination — piece of machineiy, so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doc- trine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the ma- chinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted ; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evi- dences of design, and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the be- ginning. The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by Congressional pro- hibition. Four days later, commenced the struggle which ended in repeahng that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. But, so far. Congress only had acted ; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more. This necessity had not been overlooked ; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sa- cred riffht of self-government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only ri-htful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this : Tliat if any one man choose to enslave another, rio thard man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Isebraska >bill itself in the language, which follows : " It being the true intent and meaning oi this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it there- from; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their uo- mestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Tlien opened the roar of loose declamation in favor ot " Squatter Sove- rei'rntv" and "sacred right of self-government." "But," said opposition members, "l°tus'amendthebillsoas to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slavery." " Not we," said the friends of the measure ; and down they voted the amendment. . , . , While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free State and then into a Territory covered by the Congressional prohi- bition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the U. S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri ; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negro's name was " Dred Scott," which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next Presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States ; but tlie decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election. Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits ; and the latter answers : " That is a question for the Supreme Court." The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people tlie weight and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again ; did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument. The Presidential inaugu- ration came, and still no decision of the court ; but the incoming President in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision. The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denounc- ing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained ! At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton Constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas ; and in that quar- rel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be in- tended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the pubhc mind — the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the onljf shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision " squatter sovereignty " squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding — like the mould at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand — helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lefcompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point — the right of a people to make their own constitution — upon which he and the Republicans have never differed. The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas's '' care not " policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advance- ment. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are : First, "^^hiit no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in ' the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Secondly, That " subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Con- gress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States terri- tory. Tliis point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, witliout danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately ; but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State. Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are ; and partially, also, whither we are tending. It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when thny were transpiring. The people were to be left " per- fectly free," " subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it Avas an exactly fitted niche, for tiie Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect free- dom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down ? Plainly enough now : the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up ? Why even a Senator's individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election ? Plainly enough now : the speaking out then would have dam- aged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement ? Why the delay of a re- argument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the de- cision ? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the Pi-esident and others ? We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of pre- concert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at diffei'ent times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the differ- ent pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaftblding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the people of a State as well as Territory, were to be left " perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." Why mention a State ? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitu- tion of the United States ; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely Terri- torial law ? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being pre- cisely the same ? While the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possihly, this is a mere omission ; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlim- ited power in the people of a State to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska bill ; — I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other ? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He ap- proaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion, his exact language is, " except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction." In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the Torriiories, was left open in the Nebraska act. Put this and that together, and we have another nice httle niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Su- preme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the LTnited States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be ex- pected if the doctrine of " care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up," shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decij-ion is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those Avho would pi'event that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it ? There are those who denounce us openly to tlioir own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to affect that object. They wish us to infer all, from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty ; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But " a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery ? He don't care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the " public heart " io care nothing about it. A leading Douglas democratic news- paper thinks Douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the Afri- can slave trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching ? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property ; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade — how can he refuse that trade in that '' property " shall be " perfectly free " — unless he does it as a protection to the home production ? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday — that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of ■which he, himself, has given no intimation ? Can we safely base our ac- tion upon any such vague inference ? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now with us — he does not pretend to be — he does not promise ever to be. Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends— those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work — who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thou- sand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hos- tile elements, we gathered from the fom* winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then, to falter now ? — now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent ? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail — if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come. I SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS, Gn the occasion of his Public Reception at Chicago, Friday evening, July 9th, 1858. (Mr. Lincoln was present.) Mr. DOUGLAS said: Mr. CHAiRiiAN AND Fellow-citizens — I Can find no language which can ade- quately express my profound gratitude for the magnificent welcome which you have extended to me on this occasion. This vast sea of human faces indicates how deep an interest is felt by our people in the great questions which agitate the public mind, and which underlie the foundations of our free institutions. A reception like this, so great in numbers that no human voice can be heard to its countless thousands — so enthusiastic that no one individual can be the object of such enthusiasm — clearly shows that there is some great principle which sinks deep in the Iteart of the masses, and involves the rights and the liberties of a whole people, that has brought you together with a unanimity and a cordiality never before excelled, if, indeed, equaled on an^ occasion. I have not the vanity to believe that it is any personjj compliment to me. It is an expression of your dcvoiion to that great principle, of self-government, to which my life for many years past has been, and in the future will be, devoted. If there is any one principle' dearer and more sacred than all others in free governments, it is that which asserts the exclusive right of a free people to form and adopt their own fundamental law, and to manage and regulate their own internal affairs and do- mestic institutions. When I found an effort being made during the recent session of Congress to force a Constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, and to force that State into the Union with a Constitution which her people had rejected by more than 10,000, I felt bound as a man of honor and a representative of Illinois, bound by every con- sideration of duty, of fidelity, and of patriotism, to resist to the utmost of my power the consummation of that fraud. With others I did resist it, and resisted it success- fully until the attempt was abandoned. We forced them to refer that Constitution back to the people of Kansas, to be accepted or rejected as they shall decide at an election, which is fixed for the first Monday in August next. It is true that the mode of reference, and the form of the submission, was not such as I could sanction with my vote, for the reason that it discriminated between Free States and Slave States ; providing that if Kansas consented to come in under the Lecompton Constitution it should be received with a population of 35,000 ; but that if she demanded another Constitution, more consistent with the sentiments of her people and their feelings, that it should not be received into the Union until she has 93,420 inhabitants. I did not consider that mode of submission fair, for the reason that any election is a mock- ery which is not free — that any election is a fraud upon the rights of the people which holds out inducements for affirmative votes, and threatens penalties for negative votes. But whilst I was not satisfied with the mode of submission, whilst I resisted it to the last, demanding a fair, a just, a free mode of submission, still, when the law passed placing it within the power of the people of Kansas at that election to reject the Le- compton Constitution, and then make another in harmony with their principles and their opinions, I did not believe that either the penalties on the one hand, or the in- ducements on the other, would force that people to accept a Constitution to which they are irreconcilably opposed. All I can say is, that if their votes can be control- led by such considerations, all the sympathy which has been expended upon them has been misplaced, and all the efforts that have been made in defense of their right to self-government have been made in an unworthy cause. Hence, my friends, I regard the Lecompton battle as having been fought and the victory won, because the arrogant demand for the admission of Kansas under the Le- compton Constitution unconditionally, whether her people wanted it or not, has been abandoned, and the principle which recognizes the right of the people to decide for themselves has been submitted in its place. Fellow-citizens : While I devoted my best energies — all my energies, mental and physical — to the vindication of the great principle, and whilst the result has been such as will enable the people of Kansas to come into the Union, with such a Consti- tution as they desire, yet the credit of this great moral victory is to be divided among a large number of men of various and different political creeds. I was rejoiced when I found in this great contest the Republican party coming up manfully and sustaining the principle that the people of each Territory, when coming into the Union, have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. I have seen the time when that principle was controverted. I have seen the time when all parties did not recognize the right of a people to have slavery or free- dom, to tolerate or prohibit slavery, as they deemed best; but claimed that power for the Congress of the United States, regardless of the wishes of the people to be affec- ted by it, and when I found upon the Crittenden-Montgomery bill the Republicans and Americans of the North, and I may say, too, some glorious Americans and old line Whigs from the South, like Crittenden and his patriotic associates, joined with a portion of the Democracy to carry out and vindicate the right of the people to de- cide whether slavery should or should not exist within the limits of Kansas, I was rejoiced Avltbin my secret soul, for I saw an indication that the American people, when they come to understand the principle, would give it their cordial support. The Crittenden-Montgomery bill was as fair and as perfect an exposition of the doc- truie of popular sovereignty as could be carried out by any bill that man ever devised. It proposed to refer the Lecompton Constitution back to the people of Kansas, and give them the right to accept or reject it as they pleased, at a fair election, held in pursuance of law, and in the event of their rejecting it and forming another in its stead, to permit them to come into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. It was fair and just in all of its provisions ! I gave it my cordial support, and was rejoiced when I Ibun^ that it passed the House of Kepresentatives, and at one time, I entertained high hope that it would pass the Senate. I regard the great principle of popular sovereignty, as having been vindicated and made triumphant in tliis land, as a permanent rule of public policy in the organiza- tion of Territoi-ies and the admission of new States. Illinois took her position upon this principle many years ago. You all recollect that in 1850, after the passage of the Compromise measures of that year, when I returned to my home, there was great dissatisfaction expressed at my course in supporting those measures. I appeared be- fore the people of Chicago at a mass meeting, and vindicated each and every one of those measures ; and by reference to my speech on that occasion, which was printed and circulated broad-cast throughout the State at tlie time, you will find that I then' and there said that those measures were all founded upon the great principle that ev- ery people ought to possess the right to form and regulate their own domestic insti- tutions in their own way, and that that right being possessed by the people of the States, I saw no reason why the same principle should not be extended to all of the Territories of the United States. A general election was held in this State a few months afterward, for members of the Legislature, pending which all these questions were thoroughly canvassed and discusssed, and the nominees of the different parties instructed in regard to the wishes of their constituents upon them. When that elec- tion was over, and the Legislature assembled, they proceeded to consider the merits of tliose Compromise measures and the principles upon v.-hich they were predicated. And what was the result ot their action ? They passed resolutions, first repealmg the Wilmot proviso instructions, and in lieu thereof adopted another resolution, in which they declared the great principle which asserts the right of the people to make their own form of government and establish their own institutions. That resolution is as follows : Resolved, That our liberty and independence are based upon the right of the people to fonn for themselves such a government as they may choose ; that this great principle, the birthright of fieemen, the gift of Heaven, secured to us by the blood of o\X£ ancestors, ought to be secured to (mure generations, and no limitation ought to be applied to this power in the organization of any Territory of the United States, of either Territorial Government or State Constitution, provided the Govtrnment so established shall be Republican, and in conformity with the Coustitution of the U nited States. That resolution, declaring the great principle of self-government as applicable to the Territories and new States, passed the House of Representatives of tliis State by a vote of sixty-one in the affirmative, to only four in tlie negative. Tlius you find that an expression of public opinion, enlightened, educated, intelligent pubHc opinion on this question by the representatives of Illinois, in 1851, approaches near- er to unanimity than has ever been obtained on any controverted question. That resolution was entered on the journal of the Legislature of the State of lUinois, and it has remained there from tiiat day to this, a standing instruction to her Senators and a request to her Representatives in Congress, to carry out that principle in all future cases. Illinois, therefore, stands pre-eminent jis the State which stepped for- ward early and established a platform applicable to this slavery question, concurred in ahke by Whigs and Democrats, in which it was declared to be the wish of our people that thereafter the people of the Territories should be left perfectly free to form and I 8 regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, and that no limitation should be placed upon that right m any form. Hence what was my duty, in 1854, when it became necessary to bring forward a bill for the organization of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska ? Was it not my duty, in obedience to the Illinois platform, to your standing instructions to your Senators, adopted with almost entire unanimity, to incorporate in that bill the great principle of self-government, declaring that it was "the true intent and meaning of the act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic in- stitutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States ?" I did incorporate that principle in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and perhaps I did as much as any living man in the enactment of that bill, thus establishing the doctrine in the public policy of the country. I then defended that principle against assaults from one section of the Union. During this last winter it became my duty to vindi- cate it against assaults from the other section of the Union. I vindicated it boldly and fearlessly, as the people of Chicago can bear witness, when it was assailed by Freesoilers; and during this winter I vindicated and defended it as boldly and fear- lessly when it was attempted to be violated by the almost united South. I pledged myself to you on every stump in Illinois in 1854, I pledged myself to the people of other States, North and South — wherever I spoke — and in the United States Senate and elsewhere, in every form in which I could reach the public mind or the public ear, I gave the pledge that I, so far as the power should be in my hands, would vin- dicate the principle of the right of the people to form their own institutions, to es- tablish Free States or Slave States as they chose, and that that principle should never be violated either by fraud, by violence, by circumvention, or by any other means, if it was in my power to prevent it. I now submit to you, my fellow-citizens, wheth- er I have not redeemed that pledge in good faith ! Yes, my friends, I have re- deemed it in good fluth, and it is a matter of heart-felt gratification to me to see these assembled thousands here to-night bearing their testimony to the fidelity with which I have advocated that principle and redeemed my pledges in connection with it. I will be entirely frank with you. My object was to secure the right of the peo- ple of each State and of each Territory, North or South, to decide the question for themselves, to have slavery or not, just as they chose ; and my opposition to the Le- corapton Constitution was not predicated upon the ground that it was a pro-slavery Constitution, nor would my action have been different had it been a Freesoil Consti- tion. My speech against the Lecompton fraud was made on the 9th of December, while the vote on the slavery clause in that Constitution was not taken until the 21st of the same month, nearly two weeks after. I made my speech against the Le- compton monstrosity solely on the ground that it was a violation of the fundamental principles of free government ; on the ground that it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas ; that it did not embody their will ; that they were averse to it ; and hence I denied the right of Congress to force it upon them, either as a free State or a slave State. I deny the right of Congress to force a slaveholding State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a free State upon an unwilling peo- ple. I deny their right to force a good thing upon a people who are unwilling to receive it. The great principle is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself, whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to adopt it ; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, the right of free judgment upon the question is dearer to every true American than any other under a free government. My objection to the Lecompton contrivance was, tliat it undertook to put a Constitution on the people of Kansas against their will, in oppo- sition to their wishes, and thus violated the great principle upon which all our insti- tutions rest. It is no answer to this argument to say that slavery is an evil, and hence should not be tolerated. You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is a good or an evil. You allow them to decide for themselves whether they desire a Maine liquor law or not ; vou allow them to decide for them- selves what kind of common schools they will have ; what system of banking they will adopt, or whether they will adopt any at all ; you allow them to decide for them- selves the relations between husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward ; in fact, you allow them to decide for themselves all other questions, and why not upon this question ? Whenever you put a limitation upon the right of any people to de- cide what laws they want, you have destroyed the fundamental principle c£ self-gov- ernment In conncition with this subject, perhaps, it will not be improper for me on this oc- casion to allude to the position of those who have chosen to arraign my conduct on this same subject. I have observed from the public prints, that but a few days ago the Republican party of the State of lUinois assembled in Convention at Springfield. S^nd not only laid down their platform, but nominated a candidate for the United "States Senate, as my successor. I take great pleasure in saying that I have known, personally and intimately, for about a quarter of a century, the worthy gentleman who has been nominated for my place, and I will say that I regard him as a kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman, a good citizen and an honorable opponent ; and Avhatever issue I may have with him will be of principle, and not involving personal- ities. Mr. Lincoln made a speech before that Republican Convention which unan- imously nominated him for the Senate — a speech evidently well prepared and care- fully written — in which he states the basis upon which he proposes to carry on the campaign during this summer. In it he lays down two distinct propositions which I shall notice, and upon which I shall take a direct and bold issue with him. Ilis first and main proposition I will give in his own language, scripture quotations and all [laughter]; I give his exact language — " 'A house divided against itself can- not stand.' I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall ; but I do expect it to cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." In other words, Mr. Lincoln asserts, as a fundamental principle of this government, that there must be uniformity in the local laws and domestic institutions of each and all the States of the Union ; and he therefore invites all the non-slaveholding States to band together, organize as one body, and make war upon slaveiy in Kentucky, upon slavery in Virginia, upon the Carolina^, upon slavery in all of the slaveholding States in this Union, and to persevere in that war uiitil it shall be extermina- ted. He then notifies the slaveholding States to stand together as a unit and make an aggressive war upon the free States of this Union with a view of establishing slavery in them all ; of forcing it upon Illinois, of forcing it upon New York, upon New England, and upon every otiier free State, and that they shall keep up the warfare until it has been formally established in them all. In other words, Mr. Lincoln .advo- cates boldly and clearl}^ a war of sections, a war of the North against the South, of the free States against tlie slave States — a war of extermination — to be continued relentlessly until the one or the other shall be subdued, and all the States shall either become free or become slave. Now, my friends, I must say to you frankly, that I take bold, unqualified issue with him upon that principle. I assert that it is neither desirable nor possible that there should be uniformity in the local institutions and domestic regulations of the diiferent States of this Union. The framers of our government never contemplated uniformity in its internal concerns. The fathers of the Revolution, and the sages who made the Constitution, well understood that the laws and domestic institutions which would suit the granite hills of New Hampshire would be totally unfit for the rice plantations of South Carolina; they well understood that the laws which would suit the agricultural districts of Pennsylvania and New Yoik would be totally unfit for the large mining regions of the Pacific, or the kimber regions of Maine. They well understood that the great varieties of soil, of pi'oduction and of interests, in a Republic as large as this, required different local and domestic regulations in each locality, adapted to the wants and interests of each separate State, and for that 10 reason it was provided in the Federal Constitution that the thirteen original States fihould remain sovereign and supreme within their own limits in regard to all that was local, and internal, and domestic, while the Federal Government should have cer- tain specified powers which were general and national, and could be exercised only by federal authority. The framers of the Constitution well understood that each locality, having sepa- rate and distinct interests, required separate and distinct laws, domestic institutions, and police regulations adapted to its own wants and its own condition ; and they acted on the presumption, also, that these laws and institutions would be as diversi- fied and as dissimilar as the States would be numerous, and that no two would be precisely alike, because the interests of no two would be precisely the same. Hence, I assert, that the great fundamental principle which underlies our com- plex system of State and Federal Governments, contemplated diversity and dissimilarity in the local institutions and domestic affairs of each and every State then in the Union, or thereafter to be admitted into the Confederacy. I therefore conceive that my friend, IMr. Lincoln, has totally misapprehended the great principles upon which our government rests. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs would be destructive of State rights, of State sovereignty, of personal liberty and personal freedom. Uniformity is the parent of despotism the world over, not only in politics, but in religion. Wherever the doctrine of uniformity is proclaimed, that all the States must be free or all slave, that all labor must be white or all black, that all the citizens of the different States must have the same privileges or be gov- erned by the same regulations, you have destroyed the greatest safeguard which our institutions have thrown around the rights of the citizen. How could this uniformity be accomplished, if it was desirable and possible? There is but one mode in which it could be obtained, and that must be by abolishing the State Legislatures, blotting out State sovereignty, merging the rights and sove- reignty of the States in one consolidated empire, and vesting Congress with the ple- nary power to make all the police regulations, domestic and local laws, uniform through- out the limits of the Republic. When you shall have done this, you will have uni- formity. Then the States will all be slave or all be free ; then negroes will vote everywhere or nowhere ; then you will have a Maine liquor law in every State or none ; then you will have uniformity in all things, local and domestic, by the authority of the Federal Government. But when you attain that uniformity, you will have converted these thirty-two sovereign, independent States into one consolidated em- pire, with the uniformity of disposition reigning triumphant throughout the length and breadth of the land. From this view of the case, my friends, I am driven irresistibly to the conclusion that diversity, dissimilarity, variety in all our local and domestic institutions, is the great safeguard of our liberties ; and that the framers of our institutions were wise, sagacious, and patriotic, when they made this government a confederation of sove- reign States, with a Legislature for each, and conferred upon each Legislature the power to make all local and domestic institutions to suit the people it represented, without interference from any other State or from the general Congress of the Union. If we expect to maintain our liberties, we must preserve the rights and sovereignty of the States ; we must maintain and carry out that great principle of self-govern- ment incorporated in the compromise measures of 1850 ; indorsed by the Illinois Legislature in 1851 ; emphatically embodied and carried out in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and vindicated this year by the refusal to bring Kansas into the Union with a Constitution distasteful to her people. The other proposition discussed by Mr. Lincoln in his speech consists in a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States on account of the Dred Scott de- cision. On this question, also, I desire to say to you unequivocally, that I take di- rect and distinct issue with him. I have no warfare to make on the Supreme Court of the United States, either on account of that or any other decision wliichthey have pronounced from that bench. The Constitution of the United States has provided that 11 the powers of government (and the Constitution of each State has the same pro- vision) shall be divided into three departments — executive, legislative, and judiciaL The right and the province of expounding the Constitution, and constructing the law, is vested in the judiciary established by the Constitution. As a lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear before the Court and controvert any principle of law while the question is pending before the tribunal ; but when the decision is made, my private opinion, your opinion, all other opinions must yield to the majesty of that authorita- tive adjudication. I wish you to bear in mind that this involves a great principle, upon which our rights, our liberty and our property all depend. What security have you for your property, for your reputation, and for your personal rights, if the courts are not upheld, and their decisions respected when once fairly rendered by the highest tribunal known to the Constitution ? I do not choose, therefore, to go into any argu- ment with Mr. Lincoln in reviewing the various decisions which the Supreme Court has made, either upon the Dred Scott case or any other. I have no idea of appeal- ing from the decision of the Supreme Court upon a Constitutional question to the decisions of a tumultuous town meeting. I am aware that once an eminent lawyer of this city, now no more, said that the State of Illinois had the most perfect judicial system in the world, subject to but one exception, which could be cured by a slight amendment, and that amendment was to so change the law as to allow an appeal from the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, on all Constitutional questions, to Justices of the Peace. My friend, Mr. Lincoln, who sits behind me, reminds me that that proposition was made when I was Judge of the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, I do not think that fact adds any greater weight or authority to the suggestion. It matters not with me who was on the bench, whether Mr. Lincoln or myself, whether a Lockwood or a Smith, a Taney or a Marshall ; the decision of the highest tribunal known to the Constitution of the country must be final till it has been reversed by an equally high authority. Hence, I am opposed to this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, by which he pro- poses to take an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, upon this high constitutional question, to a Republican caucus sitting in the country. Yes, or any other caucus or town meeting, whether it be Republican, American, or Democratic. I respect the decisions of that august tribunal ; I shall always bow in deference to them. I am a law-abiding man. I will sustain the Constitution of my country as our fathers have made it. I will yield obedience to the laws, whether I like them or not, as I find them on the statute book. I will sustain the judicial tribunals and constituted authorities in all matters within the pale of their jurisdic- tion as defined by the Constitution. But I am equally free to say that the reason assigned by Mr. Lincoln for resisting the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, does not in itself meet my approbation. He objects to it because that decision declared that a negro descended from African parents, who were brought here and sold as slaves, is not, and cannot b(% a citizen of the United States. He says it is wrong, because it deprives the negro of the benefits of that clause of the Constitution which says that citizens of one State sliall enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States ; in other words, he thinks it wrong because it deprives the negro of the privileges, im- munities and rights of citizenship, which pertain, according to that decision, only to the wliite man. I am free to say to you that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should deter- mine. It is also true that a negro, an Indian, or any other man of inferior race to a white man, should be permitted to enjoy, and humanity requires that he should have all the rights, privileges and immunities which he is capable of exercising con- sistent with the safety of society. I would give him eveiy right and every privilege which his capacity would enable him to enjoy, consistent with the good of the society iai which he lived. But you may ask me, what are these rights and these privileges? My answer is, that each State must decide for itself the nature and extent of these 12 rights. Illinois has decided for herself. We have decided that the negro shall not be a slave, and we have at the same time decided that he shall not vote, or serve on juries, or enjoy political privileges. I am content with that system of policy which we have adopted for ourselves. I deny the right of any other State to complain of our policy in that respect, or to interfere with it, or to attempt to change it. On the other hand, the State of JSIaine has decided that in that State a negro man may vote on an equality with the white man. The sovereign power of Maine had the right to prescribe that rule for herself. Illinois has no right to complain of Maine for conferring the right of negro suffrage, nor has Maine any right to interfei-e with, or complain of Illinois because she has denied negro suffrage. The State of New York has decided by her Constitution that a negro may vote, provided that he own $250 worth of property, but not otherwise. The rich negro can vote, but the poor one cannot Although that distinction does not commend itself to my judgment, yet I assert that the sovereign ix>wer of New York had a right to prescribe that form of the elective franchise. Kentucky, Virginia and other States have provided that negroes, or a certain class of them in those States, shall be slaves, having neither civil or political rights. Without indorsing the wisdom of that decision, I assert that Virginia has the same power by virtue of her sovereignty to protect slavery within her limits, as Illinois has to banish it forever from our own borders. I assert the right of each State to decide for itself on all these questions, and I do not subscribe to the doctrine of my friend, Mr. Lincoln, that uniformity is either desirable or possible. I do not acknowledge that the States must all be free or must all be slave. I do not acknowledge that the negro must have civil and political rights every- where or nowhere. I do not acknowledge that the Chinese must have the same rights in California that we would confer upon him here. I do not acknowledge that the Cooley imported into this country must necessarily be put upon an eqality with the white race. I do not acknowledge any of these doctrines of uniformity in the local and domestic regulations in the different States. Thus you see, my fellow-citizens, that the issues between Mr. Lincoln and myself, as respective candidates for the U. vS. Senate, as made up, are direct, unequivocal, and irreconcilable. He goes for uniformity in our domestic institutions, lor a war of sections, until one or the other shall be subdued. I go for the great principle oi' the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the right of the people to decide for themselves. On the other point, Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States, because of their judicial 'decision in the Dred Scott case. I yield obedience to the decisions in that court — to the final determination of the highest ju- dicial tribunal known to our constitution. He objects to the Dred Scott decision be- cause it does not put the negro in the possession of the rights of citizenship on an equality with the white man. I am opposed to negro equality. I repeat that this natioc is a white people — a people composed of European descendants — a people that have established this government for themselves and their posterity, and I am in favor of preserving not only the purity of the blood, but the purity of the government from any mixture or amalgamation with inferior races. I have seen the effects of this mixture of superior and inferior races — this amalgamation of wliite men and Indians and negroes ; we have seen it in Mexico, in Central America, in South Amer- ica, and in all the Spanish-American States, and its result has been degeneration, demoralization, and degradation below the capacity for self-government. I am opposed to taking any step that recognizes the negro man or the Indian as the equal of the white man. I am opposed to giving him a voice in the administra- tion of the government. I would extend to the negro, and the Indian, and to all dependent races every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety and welfare of the white races ; but equality they never should have, either political or social, or in any other respect whatever. My friends, you see that the issues are distinctly drawn. I stand by the same platform that I have so often proclaimed to you and to the people of Illinois hereto- 13 fore. 1 stand by the Democrutio organization, yield obedience to its usages, and sup port its regular nominations. I indorse and approve the Cineinnati platibnn, and I adhere to and intend to carry out, as part of that platform, the great piinciple of self-government, uliich recognizes the right of the people in each State and Territory to decide for themselves their domestic institutions. In other words, if the Leeomp- ton issue shall arise again, you have only to turn back and see where you liave found me during the last six months, and then rest assured that you will, find me in the •^ame position, battling for the same principle, and vindicating it from assault from whatever quarter it may come, so long as I have the power to do it. Fellow-citizens, you now have before you the outlines of the propositions which [ intend to discuss before the people of Illinois during the pendmg campaign. I have spoken without preparation and in a very desultory manner, and may have omitted 'iome points which I desired to discuss, and may have been less implicit on others than I could have wished. I have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination which has been made against me. The Republican leaders have formed an alliance, an unholy, unnatural alliance with a portion of the unscrupu- lous federal office-holders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. I know they deny the alliance while avoiding the conanon purjxjse, but yet these men who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Republican Senator in my place, are just as much the agents, the tools, the support- ers of Mr. Lincoln as if they were avowed Republicans, and expect their reward for their services when the Republicans come into power. I shall deal with these allied forces just as the Russians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol. The Russians, when they fired a broadside at the common enemy, did not stop to inquire whether it hit a Frenchman, an Englishman, or a Turk, nor will I stop, nor shall I stop to inquire whether my blows hit the Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal offices and yet acting in concert with the Republicans to defeat the Democratic party and its nominees. I do not include all of the federal office-holders in this re- mark. Such of them as are Democrats and show their Democracy by remaining inside of the Democratic organization and supporting its nominees, I recognize as Democrats, but those who, having been defeated inside of the organization, go out- side and attempt to divide and destroy the pai'ty in concert with the Republican leaders, have ceased to be Democrats, and belong to the allied army, whose avowed object is to elect the Republican ticket by dividing and destroying the Democratic party. My friends, I have exhausted myself, and I certainly have fatigued you, in the long and desultory remarks which I have made. It is now two nights since I have been in bed, and I think I have a right to a little sleep. I will, hoAvever, have an opportunity of meeting you face to face, and addressing you on more than one occa- sion before the November election. In conclusion, I must again say to you, justice to my own feelings demands it, that my gratitude for the welcome you have extended to me on this occasion knows no bounds, and can be described by no language which I c^in command. I see thrit I am literally at home when among my constituents. This welcome has amply repaid me for every effort that I have made in the public service during nearly twenty-five years that I have held office at your hands. It not only compensates me for the past, but it furnishes an inducement and incentive for future effort which no man, no matter how patriotic, can feel who has not wit- ne.ssed the magnificent reception you have extended to me to-night on my return. 14 SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, IN KEPLY TO SENATOR DOUGLAS. Delwered at Chicago Sahirday evening, July 10, ISaB. (Mr. Douglas was not present.) Mr. Lincoln was introduced by C. L, Wilson, Esq., and as he made his appearance be was greeteil with a perfect storm of applause. For some moments the enthusiasm continued unabated. At last, when by a wave of his hand partial silence was re- stored, Mr. Lincoln said : My Fki.low-citizexs : On yesterday eveninjj, upon the occasion of the recep- tion gi\'en to Senator Douglas, I was furnished with a seat very convenient for hear- ing him, and was otherwise very courteously treated by him and his friends, and for which I thank him and them. During the course of his remarks my name was mentioned in such a way as, I suppose, renders it at least not improper that I should make some sort of reply to him. I shall not attempt to follow him in the precise order in which he addressed the assembled multitude upon that occasion, though 1 shall perhaps do so in the main. Tliere was one question to which he asked the attention of the crowd, which I deem of somewhat less importance — at least of pi'opriety for me to dwell upon — than the others, which he brought in near the close of his speech, and which I think it would not be entirely proper for me to omit attending to, and yet if I wex'e not to give some attention to it now, I should probably forget it altogether. While I am upon this subject, allow me to say that I do not intend to indulge in that incon- venient mode sometimes adopted in public speaking, of reading from documents; but I shall depart from that rule so far as to read a little scrap from his speech, which notices this first topic of which I shall speak — that is, provided I can find it in the paper. "I have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination that has been made against me ! the Republican leaders having formed an alliance, an unholy and unnatural alliance, with a portion of unscrupulous federal office-holders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. I know they deny the alli- ance, but yet these men who are trying to xiivide the Democratic party for the pur- pose of electing a Republican Senator in my place, are just as much the agents and tools of the supporters of Mr. Lincoln. Hence I shall deal with this allied army jusl as the Russians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol — that is, the Russians did not stop to inquire, when they fired a broadside, whether it hit an Englishman, a Frendi- man, or a Turk. Nor will I stop to inquire, nor shall I hesitate, whether my blowa shall hit these Republican leaders or tlieir allies, who are holding the federa' :'frices and yet acting in concert with them." Well, now, gentlemen, is not that very alarming ? Just to think of it ! right at the outset of his canvass, I, a poor, kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman, I am to be slain in this way. Why, ray friend, the Judge, is not only, as it turns out, not a dead lion, nor even a living one — he is the rugged Russian Bear ! But if they will have it — for he says that we deny it — that there is any such alli- ance, as he says there is — and I don't propose hanging very much upon this question of veracity — but if he will have it that there is such an alliance — that the Adminis- tration men and we are allied, and we stand in the attitude of English, French and Turk, he occupying the position of the Russian, in that case, I beg that he will in- dulge us while we barely suggest to him that these allies took Sebastojjol. 15 Gentlemen, only a few more words as to this alliance. For my part, I have to eay, that whether there be such an alliance, depends, so far as I know, upon Avhat may be a right definition of the teran alliance. If for the Republican party to see the other great party to which they are opposed divided among themselves, and not try to stop the division and rather be glad of it — if that is an alliance, I confess [ am in ; but if it is meant to be said that the Repubhcans had formed an aUiance going beyond that, by which there is contribution of money or sacrifice of principle on the one side or the other, so far as the Republican party is concerned, if there be any such thing, I protest that I neither know any thing of it, nor do I believe it. I will, however, say — as 1 think this branch of the argument is lugged in — I would before I leave it, state, for the benefit of those concerned, that one of those same Buchanan men did once tell me of an argument that he made for his opposition to Judge Doug- his. He said that a friend of our Senator Douglas had been talking to him, and had among other things said to him : "Why, you don't want to beat Douglas ?" "Yes," said he, " I do want to beat him, and 1 will tell you why. I believe his original Ne- braska bill was right in the abstract, but it was wrong in the time that it was brought forward. It was wrong in the application to a Territory in regard to which the ques- tion had been setthxl ; it was brought forwai'd at a time when nobody asked him ; it was tendered to the South when the South liad not asked for it, but when they could not well refuse it ; and lor this same reason he forced that question upon our party ; it has sunk the best men all over the nation, everywhere ; and now when our Presi- dent, strugghng with the difficulties of this man's getting up, has reached the very hardest point to turn in the case, he deserts him, and I am for putting him where he Avill trouble us no more." Now, gentlemen, that is not my arginnent — that is not my argument at alL I have only been stating to you the argument of a Buchiuian man. You will judge if there is any force in it. Popular sovereignty ! everlasting popular sovereignty ! Let us for a moment in- quire into this vast matter of popular sovereignty. What is popular sovereignty ? AVe recollect that at an early period in the history of this struggle, there was another name tor the same thing — Squatter Sovereignty. It was not exactly Popular Sov- ereignty, but Squatter Sovereignty. What do those terms mean ? What do those terms mean when used now ? And vast credit is taken by our friend, the Judge, in regard to his support of it, when he declares the last years of his life have been, and all the future years of his life shall be, devoted to this matter of popular sovereignty. What is it ? Why, it is the sovereignty of the people ! What was Squatter Sov- ereignty ? I suppose if it had any significance at all it was the right of the people to govern themselves, to be sovereign in their own affairs while they were squatted down in a country not their own, while they had squatted on a Territory that did not belong to them, in the sense that a State belongs to the people who inhabit it — when it belonged to the nation — such right to govern themselves was called " Squatter Sovereignty." Now I wish you to mtu'k. What has become of that Squatter Sovereignty? What has become of it ? Can you get any body to tell you now that the people of a Territory have any authority to govern themselves, in regard to tliis mooted question of shnery, before they form a State Constitution? No such thing at all, although there i? a general running fire, and although there has been a hurra made in every speech on that side, assuming that policy had given the people of a Territory the right to govern themselves upon this question ; yet the point is dodged. To-day it has been decided — no more than a year ago it was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, and is insisted upon to-day, that tlie people of a Territory have no right to exclude slavery fi-om a Territory, that if any one man chooses to tiike slaves into a Territory, all the rest of the people have no right to keep them out. This be- ing so, and this decision being made one of the points that the Judge approved, and one in the approval of' which he says he means to keep me down — put me down I should not say, for I have never been up. He says he is in favor of it, and sticks to * 16 it, and expects to win his battle on that decision, which says that there is no such thing as Squatter Sovereignty ; but that any one man may take slaves into a Terri- tory, and all the other men in the Territory may bo opposed to it, and yet by reasou of the Constitution they cannot prohibit it. Wlien that is so, how much is left of this vast matter of Squatter Sovereignty I should like to know? When we get back, we get to the point of the right of the people to make a Con- stitution. KaJ^as was settled, for example, in ISolT It was a Territory yet, without having formed a Constitution, iii a very regular wa}-, for three years. All this time negro slavery could be taken in by any few individuals, and by that decision of the Supreme Court, which the Judge approves, all the rest of the people cannot keep it out ; but when they come to make a Constitution they may say they will not have slavery. But it is there ; they are obliged to tolerate it some way, and all experience; shows it will be so — for they will not talce the negro slaves and absolutely deprive the owners of them. All experience shows this to be so. All that space of time that runs from the beginning of the settlement of the Territory until there is suffi- ciency of people to make a State Constitution — all that portion of time popular sov- ereignty is given up. The seal is absolutely put down upon it by the Court decision, and Judge Douglas puts his own upon the top of that, yet he is appealing to the peo- ple to give him vast credit for his devotion to popular sovereignty. Again, when we get to the question of the right of the people to form a State Cgwstitution as they please, to form it with slavery or without slavery — if that is any thing new, I confess I don't know it. Has there ever been a time when any body said that any other than the people of a Territory itself should form a Constitution ? What is now in it that Judge Douglas should have fought several years of his life, and pledge himself to fight all the remaining years of his life for ? Can Judge Douglas find any body on earth that said that any body else should form a Constitu- tion for a people ? [A voice, "Yes."] Well, I should like you to name him; I should like to know who he was. [Same voice, '" John Calhoun."] Mr. Lincoln — No, Sir, I never heard of even John Calhoun saying such a thing. He insisted on the same principle as Judge Douglas ; but his mode of applymg it, in fact, was wrong. It is enough for my purpose to ask this crowd, when ever a Re- publican said anything against it ? They never said anything against it, but they have constantly spoken for it ; and whosoever will undertake to examine the platform, and the speeches of responsible men of the party, and of irresjionsible men, too, if you please, Avill be unable to find one word from anybody in tlie Republican ranks, opposed to that Popular Sovereignty which Judge Douglas thinks that he has in- vented. I suppose that Judge Douglas Avill claim in a little while, that he is the in- ventor of the idea that the people should govern themselves ; that nobody ever thought of such a thing until he brought it forward. We do not remember, that in that old Declaration of Independence, it is said that " We hold these truths to be self-evi- dent, that all men ai-e created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- piness ; that to secure these rights, governments ai'e instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There is the origin of Popu- lar Sovereignty. Who, then, shall come in at this day and claim that he invented itr The Lecompton Constitution connects itself with this question, for it is in this matter of the Lecompton Constitution that our friend Judge Douglas claims such vast credit. I agree that in opposing the Lecompton Constitution, so far iis I can perceive, he was right. I do not deny that at all ; and, gentlemen, } ou will readily see why I could not deny it, even if I wanted to. But I do not wish to ; for all the Republicans in the nation opposed it, and they would have opposed it just as niucli without Judge Douglas's aid as Avith it. They had all taken ground against it long before he did. Why, the reason tliat he urges against that Constitution, I urged against him a year before. I have the printed speech in my hand. The argument that he makes, why that Constitution should not be adopted, that the people were not fairly represented nor allowed to vote, I pointed out in a speech a year ago, 17 which I hold in my hand now, that no fair chance was to be given to the people. [" Read it," "read it."] I shall not waste your time by trying to read it. ["Read it " " read it."] Gentlemen, reading from speeches is a very tedious business, par- ticularly for an old man that has to put on spectacles, and more so if the man be so tall that he has to bend over to the light. A Uttle more, now, as to this matter of Popular Sovereignty and the Lecompton Constitution. The Lecompton Constitution, as the Judge tells us, was defeated. The defeat of it was a good thing or it was not. He thinks the defeat of it was a good thing, and so do I, and we agree in that. Who defeated it? A voice — " Judge Douglas." Mr. Lincoln — Yes, he furnished himself, and if you suppose he controlled the '4>ther Democrats that went with him, he furnislied three votes, while the Republicans 'furnished tioenty. That is Avhat he did to defeat it. In the House of Representatives _ he and his friends furnished some twenty votes, and the Republicans furnished ninety odd Now who was it that did the work ? A voice — " Douglas." Mr. Lincoln — Why, yes, Douglas did it ! To be sure he did. Let us, however, put that proposition another way. The Republicans could not have done it without Judge Douglas. Could he have done it without them ? Which could have come the nearest to doing it without the other ? A voice — "Who killed the bill?" Another voice — " Douglas." ^ Mr. Lincoln — Ground was taken against it by the Republicans longbetore Doug las did it. The proportion of opposition to that measure is about five to one. A voice — " AVhy don't they come out on it ? " Mr. Lincoln — You don't know what you are talking about, my friend. I am quke willing to answer any gentleman in the crowd who asks an intelligent question. „ , ,. ^ • ^ c t a Now who, in all this country, has ever found any ot our friends of Judge Douglas's way of thinking, and who have acted M\^n this main question, that h.'».s eveiAhought of uttering a word in behalf of Judge Trumbull? A voice — " We have." , . ta Mr. Lincoln — I defy you to show a printed resolution passed m a Democratic „ieetin<^ — I take it upon myself to defy any man to show a printed resolution of a Democratic meeting, large or small in favor of Judge Trumbull, or any of the five to one Republicans who beat that bill. Every thing must be for the Democrats . They did every thing, and the five to the one that really did the flung, they snub ovei^ and they do not seem to remember that they have an existence upon the face of the earth. , r .1, 1 Gentlemen I feiu- that I shall become tedious. I leave this branch of .he sub- ject to take hold of another. I take up that part of Judge Douglas's spec h in which he respectfully attended to me. , o • _^ n it Juddit be one thing that at least enabled him to draw such an inference that would not be true with me or many others, that is, because he looks upon sxU this matter of slavery as an exceedingly' little thing— this matter of keeping one-sixth ot the population of the whole nation in a state of oi)pression and tyranny unequaled in the world. He looks upon it as being an exceedingly little thing— only equal to tlie (lue-^tionof the cranberry laws of Indiana— as something having no moral question in it^as something on a par with the question of whether a man shall pasture his land with o-ittle or plant it with tobacco— so little and so small a thing, that he concludes, it I ,-ould 'desire that if anything should be done to bring about the ultimate extmction of that little thincr, I must be in favor of bringing about an amalgamation of all the other little things in the Union. Now, it so happens— and there, I presume, is the foundation of this mistake— that the Judge thinks tlius; and it so happens that there is a va^t portion of the American people that do not look upon that matter as being this very little thing. Thev look upon it as a vast moral evil; they can prove it as ^uch'by the writings of those who gave us the blessings of liberty which we enjoy, and that th^y so looked upon it, and not as an evil merely confining itself to the States where it is situated ; and while we agree that, by the Constitution we assent- ed tx) in the States where it exists we have no right to interlere with it, because it is in the Constitution; and we are by both duty and inclination to stick by that Consti- tutiou, in all its letter and spirit, from beginning to end. „ , ^ t • i f So much then as to my disposition— my wish— to have all the State Legislatures blotted out and to have one consolidated government, and a uniformity of domestic reo-ulations in all the States, by whicli I suppose it is meant, if we raise corn here, 20 we musi make sugar-cane grow here too, and we must make those which grow North grow m the South. All this I suppose he understands I a.m in favor of doin-. Now, so much for all this nonsense— for 1 must call it so. The Judge can have n°o issue with me on a question of establishing uniformity in the domestic regulations of the otates. A little now on the other point— the Dred Scott decision. Another of the issues he says that is to be made with me, is upon his devotion to the Dred Scott decision and my opposition to it. I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposition to the Dred Scott de- cision, but I should be allowed to state the nature of that opposition, and I ask your in- dulgence whde I do so. AVhat is fairly implied by the term Judge Dou-las has used " resistance to the decision ?" I do not resist it. If I wanted t<> take Died Scott trom his master, I would be interfering with property, and that t^errible dimculty that Judge Douglas speaks of, of interfering with property would Arise. But. I am domg no such thmg as that, but all that I am doing is refusing to c'>ey it as a politi- cal rule. If I were m Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new TeiTitory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision I would vote that it should. ' Mr. Lincoln— That is what I would do. Judge Douglas said Jast niBtion to you whether I hare been right or wrong in the course I have pursued in Congress. And I submit, also, whether I have nJt redeemed in good faith every pledge I have made to you? Then, my friends, the question recurs, whether I bhall be sustained or rejected ? If you are of opinion that Mr. 29 Lincoln will advance the interests of Illinois better than I can; that he will sustain her honor and her dignity higher than it has been in my power to do; that your iii- terests, and the interests of your children, require his election instead of mine, it is your duty to give him your support. If, on the contrary, you think that my adher- ence to these great fundamental principles upon which our Government is founded is the true mode of sustaining the peace and harmony of the country, and inaintain- ing the perpetuity of the Republic, I then ask you to stand by me in the efforts I have made to that end. * • ht And this brings me to the consideration of the two points at issue betwetu Mr. Lincoln and myself. The Republican Cypvention, wlien it assembled at Springfield, did me and the country the honor of indicating the man who was to Ix; their standard- bearer, and the embodiment of their principles, in this State. I owe them my grati- tude for thus making up a direct issue between Mr. Lincoln and myself. I shaU have no controversies of a personal character with Mr. Lincoln. I have known him well for a quarter of a century. I have known him, as you all know him, a kind- ' hearted, amiable gentleman, a right good fellow, a worthy citizen, of eminent ability as a lawyer, and I have no doubt, sufficient ability to make a good Senator. The question, then, for you to decide is, whether his principles are more in accordance with the genius of our free institutions, the peace and harmony of the Repubhc, than those which I advocate. He tells you, in his speech made at Springfield, before the Convention which gave him his unanimous nomination, that : " A house divided against itself cannot stand." " I believe this Government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free." " I do not expect the Union to be dissolved— I don't expect the house to fall— but I do expect it will cease to be divided." " It will become all one thing or all the other." That is the fundamental principle upon which he sets out in this campaign. Well, I do not suppose you will believe one word of it when you come to examine it carefully, and see its consequences. Although the Republic has existed from 1789 to this day, divided into free States and slave States, yet we are told that in the future it cannot endure unless they shall become all free or all slave. For that reason he •^ays, as the gentleman in the crowd says, that they must be all free. He wishes to <^o to the Senate of the United States in order to carry out that Hne of public policy which will compel all the States in the South to become free. How is he goin-r to do it? Has Congress any power over the subject of slavery in Ken- tucky, or Virginia, or any other State of this Union ? How, then, is Mr. Lincoln goino-'to carry out that principle which he says is essential to the existence of this i Union, to wit : That slavery must be abolished in all the States of the Union, ov 'Hmust be established in them all? You convince the South that they must either rjestablish slavery in Illinois, and in every other free State, or submit to its abolition in every Southern State, and you invite them to make a warfare upon the Northern States in order to establish slavery, for the sake of perpetuating it at home. Thus, jMr. Lincohi mvites, by his proposition, a wai* of sections, a war between Illinois and Kentucky, a war between the free States and the slave States, a war between the North and the South, for the purpose of either exterminating slavery in eveiy South- ern State, or planting it in every Northern State. He tells you that the safety of this Republic, that the existence of tliis Union, depends upon that warfiu-e being car- ried on until one'section or the other shall be entirely subdued. The States must all be free or slave, for a house divided against itself cannot stand. That is Mr. Lin- coln's argument upon that question. My friends, is it possible to preserve peace be- tween the North and the South if such a doctrine shall prevail in either section of the Union ? Will you ever submit to a warfare waged by the Southern States to estabhsh slavery in Illinois ? What man in Illinois would not lose the last drop of his heart's blood before he would submit to the institution of slavery being forced upon us by the other States, against our will? And if that be true of us. wliat Soutlicrn man would not shed the la?t drop of his heai't's blood to prevent Ilh- 3 30 nois, or any other Northern State, from intei-fering to abolish slaveiy m his State : Each of these States is sovereign under the Constitution ; and if we wisli to pre- serve our liberties, the reserved rights and f overeignty of each and every State must be maintained. I have said on a former occasion, and I here repeat, that it is neither desirable nor possible to estabhsh uniformity in the local and domestic institutions of all the States of this Confederacy. And why ? Because the Constitution of the United States rests upon the right of every State to decide all its local and domestic institutions for itself. It is not possible, there ("ore, to make them conform to each other unless we subvei-t the Constitution of (he United States. No, sir, that cannot be done. God forbid that any man should ever make the attem]'t. Let that Constitution ever be ti'odden under foot and destroyed, and there will not be wisdom and patriotism enough left to make another that will work half so well. Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it, inviolate, at the same time maintaining the reserved lights and the sovereigntj- of each State over its local and domestic institutions, against Federal authority, or any outside interference. The difference between Mr. Lincoln and myself upon this point is, that he goes for a combination of the Northern States, or the organization of a sectional political party in the free States to make war on the domestic institutions of the Southern States, and to prosecute that war until they shall all be subdued, and made to conform to 9uch rules as the North shall dictate to them. I am aware that Mr. Lincoln, on Saturday night last, made a speech at Chicago for the purpose, as he said, of ex- plaining his position on this question. I have read that speech with great care, and will do him the justice to say that it is marked by eminent ability and great success in concealing what he did mean to say in his Springfield speech. His answer to this point, which I have been arguing, is, that he never did mean, and that I ought to know that he never intended to convey the idea, that he wished the " people of the free States to enter irdo the Southern States and interfere with slavery." "Well, I never did suppose that he ever di'eamed of entering into Kentucky, to make w^ar upon her institutions; nor will any Abolitionist ever enter into Kentucky to wage such war. Their mode of making war is not to enter into those States where slavery exists, and there interfere, and render themselves responsible for the consequences. Oh no ! They stand on this side of the Ohio river and shoot across. They stand in Bloomington, and shake their fists at the people of Lexington ; they threaten South Carolina from Chicago. And they call that bravery ! But they are very particular, as Mr. Lincoln says, not to enter into those States for the purpose of intcrfeiing with the institution of slavery there. I am not only opposed to entering into the slave States, for the purpose of interfering with their institutions, but I am opposed to a sectional agitation to control the institutions of other States. I am opposed to or- ganizing a sectional pai'ty, which appeals to Northern pride, and Northern pas- sion and prejudice, against Southern institutions, thus stirring up ill fepling and hot blood between brethren of the same Republic. I am opposed to that whole system of sectional agitation, which can produce nothing but strife, but discord, but hostil'ty, anS, finally, disunion. And yet Mr. Lincoln asks you to send him to the Senat(! of the United States, in order that he may carry out that great principle of hi^, tl.at all the States must be slave or all must be free. I repeat, how is he to c arry it out when he gets to the Senate ? Does he intend to inti-oduce a bill to abolisn slavery in Kentucky ? Does he intend to introduce a bill to interfere with slavery in Virginia ? How is he to accomplish what he professes must be done in order to save the Union ? Mr. Lincoln is a lawyer, sagacious and able enough to tell you how he proposes to do it. I ask Mr. Lincoln how it is that he proposes ultimately to bring about this uniformity in each and all the States of the Union. There is but one possible mode which I can see, and perhaps Mr. Lincoln intends to pursue it; that is, to introduce a proposition into the Senate to change the Constitution of the United States, in order that all the State Legislatures may be abolished, Stat*' sovereignty blotted out, and the power conferred upon Con- 31 gress to make local laws and establish the domestic institutions and police regu- lations uniformly throughout the United States. Are you prepared for such a change in the institutions of your country? Whenever you shall have blotted oilf the State sovereignties, abolished the State Legislatures, and consolidated all the povrer in the Federal Government, you will have established a consolidat- ed Empire as destructive to the liberties of the people and the rights of the citizen as that of Austria, or Russia, or any otherdespotism that rests upon the necks of the people. How is it pos«;ible for Mr. Lincoln to carry out his cherished princi- ple of abolishing slavery everywhere or establishing it everywhere, except by the mode which I have pointed out — by an amendment to the Constitution to the effect tliat I have suggested ? There is no other possible mode. Mr. Lincoln intends re- sorting to that, or else he means nothing by the great principle upon which he desires lo be elected. My friends, I trust that we will be able to get him to define what he does mean by this Scriptural quotation that " A house divided against itself cannot stand;" that the Government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free; that it must be all one thing or all the other. Who among you expects to live, or have his children live, until slavery shall be established in Illinois or abolished in South Carolina? Who expects to see that occur during the lifetime of ourselves or our children ? There is but one possible way in which slavery can be abolished, and that is by leaving a State, according to the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, perfectly free to form and regulate its institutions in its own way. That was the principle upon which this Republic was founded, and it is under the operation of that prin- ciple that we have been able to preserve the Union thus far. Under its opera- tions, slavery disappeared from New Hampshire, from Rhode Island, from Con- necticut, from New York, from New Jersey, from Pennsylvania, from six of the twelve original slaveholding States ; and this gradual system of emancipation went on quietly, peacefully and steadily, so long as we in the free States minded our own business, and left our neighbors alone. But the moment the Abolition Societies were organized throughout the North, preaching a violent crusade against slavery in the Southern States, tliis combination necessm-ily caused a counter-combination in the South, and a sectional line was drawn whilh was a barrier to any further emanciixa- tion. Bear in mind that emancipation has not taken place in any one State since the Freesoil flirty was organized as a political party in this countiy. Emancipation went on gradually in State after State so long as the free States were content with man- aging their own affairs and leaving the South perfectly free to do as they pleased ; but the moment the North said we are powerful enough to control you of the South, the moment the North proclaimed itself the determined master of the South, that moment the South combined to resist the attack, and thus sectional parties were formed and gradual emancipation ceased in all the Northern slavehokUng States. And yet j\Ir. Lincoln, in view of these historical facts, proposes to keep up this sectional agitation, band all the Northern States together in one pohtical party, elect a President by Northern votes alone, and then, of course, make a Cabinet composed of Northern men, and administer the Government by Northern men only, denying all the Southern States of this Union any participation in the adminis- tration of affairs whatsoever. I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, whether such a line of policy is consistent with the peace and hannony of the country? Can the Union endure under such a system of policy? He has taken his ])osition in favor of sectional agitation and sectional warfare. I have taken mine in favor of secuiing peace, harmony and good-will among all the States, by permitting each to mind its own business, and discountenancing any attempt at interference on the part of one Stiite with the domestic concerns of the others. Mr. Lincoln makes another issue with me, and he wishes to confine the contest to these two issues. I accept the other as readily as the one to which I have already referred. The other issue is a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States, because of its decision in the Dred Scott case. ^U' fellow-citizens, I have no 32 issue to make with the Supreme Court. I liave no crusade to preach against that august body. I have no warfare to make upon it. I receive tiie decision of the Judges of that Court, when pronounced, as the final adjudication upon all questions Avithin their jurisdiction. It would be perfectly legitimate and proper for Mr. Lincoln, myself, or any other lawyer, to go before the Supreme Court and argue any question that might arise there, taking either side of it, and en- forcing it with all our ability, zeal, and energy, but when the decision is pronounced, that decision becomes the law of the land, and he, and you, and m}'self, and evei-y other good citizen, must bow to it, and yield obedience to it. Unless we respect and bow in deference to the final decisions of the highest judicial tribunal in our country, we are driven at once to anarchy, to violence, to mob law, anrl tliere is no security left for our property, or our own civil rights. AVhat projects your property but the law, and who expounds the law but the judicial tribunals ; and if an appeal is to be taken from the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in all cases where a person does not like the adjudi- cation, to whom is that appeal to be taken ? Are we to appeal from the Supreme Court to a county meeting like this ? And shall we here re-argue the question and re- verse the decision ? If so, how are we to enforce our decrees after we have pronounced them ? Does Mr. Lincoln intend to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court to a Republican caucus, or a town meeting? To whom is he going to appeal? ["To Lovejoy^^ and shouts of laughter.] Why, if I understand aright, Lincoln and Love- joy are co-appellants in a joint suit, and inasmuch as tlicy are so, he would not cer- tainly appeal from the Supreme Court to his own partner to decide the case for him. Ml*. Lincoln tells you that he is opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Well, suppose he is ; what is he going to do about it ? I never got beat in a law suit in my life that I was not opposed to the decision, and if I had it before the Circuit Court I took it up to the Supreme Court, where, if I got beat again, I thought it better to say no more about it, as I did not know of any lawful mode of revei'sing the decision of the highest tribunal on earth. To whom is Mr. Lincoln going to appeal ? Why, he says he is going to appeal to Congress. Let us see how he will appeal to Congress. He tells us lliat on the 8th of March, 1820, Congress passed a .law ciUled the Missouri Compromise, prohibiting slavery forever in all the territory West of the Mississippi and North of the Missouri line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, that Dred Scott, a slave in Missouri, was taken by his master to Fort Snelling, in the present State of Minnesota, situated on the West branch of the Mississippi river, and consequently in the Territory where slavery was prohibited by the Act of 1820, and that wiien Dred Scott appealed for his freedom in consequence of having been taken into a free Tei'ritory, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that Di-ed Scott did not become free by being taken into that Territory, but that having been carried back to Missouri, was yet a slave. Mr. Lincoln is going to appeal from that decision and reverse it. He doei> not intend to I'everse it as to Dred Scott. Oh, no ! But he will reverse it so that it shall not stand as a rule in the future. How will he do it ? He says that if lie is elected to the Senate, he will introduce and pass a law just like the Missouri Com- promise, proliibiting slavery again in all the Territories. Suppose he does re- enact the same law which the Court has pronounced unconstitutional, will that make it constitutional? If the Act of 1820 was unconstitutional in consequence of Congress having no power to pass it, will Mr. Lincoln make it constitutional by passing it again ? What clause of the Constitution of the United States provides ior an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court to Congress ? If my reading of that instrument is correct, it is to the effect that that Constitution and all laws made in pursuance of it are of the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of a State to the contrary notwithstanding. Hence, you will find that only such acts of Congress are laws as are made in pursuance of the Constitution. Wlien Congress has passed an act, and put it on the statute book as law, who is to decide whether that act is in conformity with the Constitution or not? The Constitution of 33 the United States tells you. It has provided that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in a Supreme Court, and such inferior Courtis as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Thus, by the Constitution, the Supreme Court is declared, in so many words, to be the tribunal, and the only tribunal, which is competent to adjudicate upon the constitutionality of an act of Congress. He tells you that that Court has adjudicated the question, and decided that an act of Congress proliibiting slavery in the Territory is unconstitutional and void ; and yet he says he is going to pass another like it. What for ? Will it be any more valid ? Will he be able to convince the Court that the second act is valid when the first is invalid aad void? What good does it do to pass a second act? Why, it will liave the effect to arraign the Supreme Court before the people, and to bring them into all the political discussions of the country. Will that do any good ? Will it inspire any more con- fidence in the judicial tribunals of the country ? What good can it do to wage thi.-; Avar upon the Court, arraying it against Congress, and Congress against the Court? The Constitution of tlieUnited States has said that this Government shall be divided into three separate and distinct branches, the executive, the legislative and the judi- cial, and of course each one is supreme and independent of the other within the circle of its own powers. Tiie functions of Congress are to enact the statutes, the province of the Court is to pronounce upon their validity, and the duty of the Executive is to carry the decision into effect when rendered by the Court. And yet, notwithstanding the Constitution makes the decision of the Court final in regard to the validity of an act of Congress, jNIr. Lincoln is going to reverse that decision by passing another act of Congress. When he has become convinced of the folly of the proposition, perhaps he will resort to tlie same subterfuge that I have found others of his party resort to, which is to agitate and agitate until he can change the Supreme Court and put other men in the places of tlie present incumbents. I wonder whether Mr. Lincoln is right sure that he can accomplisli that reform. He certainly will not be able to get rid of the present Judges until they die, and from present appear- ances I think they have as good security of life as he has himself. I am afraid that my friend Lincoln would not accomplish this task during his own life- time, and yet he wants to go to Congress to do it all in six years. Do you think that he can persuade nine .Judges, or a majority of them, to die in that six years, just to accommodate him ? They are ap])ointed Judges for life, and according to the present organization, new ones cannot be appointed during tiiat time ; but he is going to agitate until they die, and then have the Presi- dent appoint good Republicans in their places. He had better be quite sure that he gets a Republican President at the same time to appoint them. He wants to have a Republican President elected by Northern votes, not a Southern man participating, and elected for the purpose of placing none but Republicans on the bench, and consequently, if he succeeds in electing tliat President, and succeeds in persuading the present Judges to die, in order that their vacan- cies may be filled, that the President will then appoint tiieir successors. And by what process will he appoint them ? He first looks for a man who has the legal qualifications, perhaps he takes Mr. Lincoln, and says, " Mr. Lincoln, would you not like to go on tlie Supreme bench?" "Yes," replies Mr. Lincoln. "Well," le- » turns the Republican President, "I cannot appoint you until you give me a pledge as to how you will decide in the event of a particular question com- ing before you." What would you think of Mr. Lincohi if he would consent to give tliat pledge? And yet he is going to prosecute a Avar until he gets the present Judges out, and then catechise each man and require a pledge before his appointment as to hoAV he Avill decide each question that may arise upon points affect- ing the Republican party. Noav, my friends, suppose tliis scheme Avas practi- ail, I ask you Avhat confidence you Avould have in a Court thus constituted — a Court composed of partisan Judges, appointed on political grounds, selected Avith a vicAV to the decision of questions in a particular Avay, and pledged in regard to a de- cision before the argument, and Avithout reference to the jjeculiar state of the facts. 34 Would such a Court command the respect of the country? If the Repub- lican party cannot trust Democratic Judges, how can they expect us to trust Republican Judges, when they have been selected in advance for the purpose of packing a decision in the event of a case arising ? My fellow-citizens, whenever par- tisan politics shall be carried on to the bench ; whenever the Judges shall be arraigned upon the stump, and their judicial conduct reviewed in town meetings and caucuses; whenever the independence and integrity of the judiciary shall be tampered with to the extent of rendering them partial, blind and suppliant tools, what security will you liave for your rights and your liberties? I therefore take issue with Mr. Lin- coln directly in regard to this warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States. I accept the decision of that Court as it was pronounced. "Whatever my individual opinions may be, I, as a good citizen, am bound by the laws of the land, as the Legislature makes them, as the Court expounds them, and as the executive officers administer them. I am bound by our Constitution as our fathers made it, and as it is our duty to support it. I am bound, as a good citizen, to sustain the constituted authorities, and to resist, discourage, and beat down, by all lawful and peaceful means, all attempts at exciting mobs, or violence, or any other revolutionary proceedings against the Constitution and the constituted authorities of the country. Mr. Lincoln is alarmed for fear that, under the Dred Scott decision, slavery will go into all the Territories of the United States. All I have to say is that, with or without that decision, slavery will go just where the people want it, and not one inch further. You have had experience upon that subject in the case of Kansas. You have been told by the Republican party that, from 1854, when the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed, down to last winter, that slavery was sustained and supported in Kansas by the laws of what they called a "bogus" Legislature. And how many slaves were there in the Territory at the end of last winter ? Not as many at the end of that period as there were on the day the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed. There was quite a number of slaves in Kansas, taken there under the Missouri Compromise, and in spite of it, before the Kansas-Nebi'aska bill passed, and now it is asserted that there are not as many there as there were before the passage of the bill, notwith- standing that they had local laws sustaining and encouraging it, enacted, as the Re- publicans say, by a " bogus " Legislature, imposed upon Kansas by an invasion from Missouri. Why has not slavery obtained a foothold in Kansas under these circum- stances ? Simply because there was a majority of her people opposed to slavery, and every slaveholder knew that if he took his slaves there, the moment that majority "ot possession of the ballot-boxes, and a fair election was held, that moment slavery would be abolished and he would lose them. For that reason, such owners as took their slaves there brought them back to Missouri, fearing that if they remained they would be emancipated. Thus you see that under the principle of popular sovereignty, slavery has been kept out of Kansas, notwithstanding the fact that for the first three years they had a Legislature in that Territory favorable to it. I tell you, my friends, il is impossible under our institutions to force slavery on an unwilling people. If this principle of popular sovereignty asserted in the Nebraska bill be fairly carried out, by letting the people decide the question for themselves, by a fair vote, at a fair election, and with honest returns, slavery will never exist one day, or one hour, in any Territory against the unfriendly legislation of an unfriendly people. I care not how the Dred Scott decision may have settled the abstract question eo far as the j)raclical result is concerned; for, to use the language of an eminent Southern Scna- tf)r, on this very question : " I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, for it is of no particular con- sequence ; slavery cannot exist a day or an hour, in any Territory or State, unless it has atfirmative laws sustaining and supporting it, furnishing police regulations and remedies, and an omission to furnish them would be as fatal as a constitutional pro- hibition. Without affirmative legislation in its favor, slavery could not exist any longer than a new-born infant could survive under the heat of the sun, on a barren rock, without protection. It would wilt and die for the want of support." Hence, if the people of a Territory want slavery, they will encourage it by pass- in"- affirmatory laws, and the necessary police regulations, patrol laws and slave code ; if "they do not want it they will withhold that legislation, and by withholding it slavery is as dead as if it was prohibited by a constitutional prohibition, especially if, in addition, their legislation is unfriendly, as it would be if they were opposed to it! They could pass such local laws and police regulations as would drive slavery out in one day, or one hour, if they were opposed to it, and therefore, so far a3 the question of slavery in the Territories is concerned, so far as the principle of popular 8overei whether the people are for or against it, and which ever way they shall decide it in any Territoiy or in any State, will be entirely satisfactory to me. But I must now bestow a few words upon Mr. Lincoln's main objection to the Dred Scott decision. He is not going to submit to it. Not that he is going to make war upon it with force of arms. But he is going to appeal and reverse it m some way • he cannot tell us how. I reckon not by a writ of error, because I do not know where he would prosecute that, except before an AboUtion Society. And when he appeals, he does not exactly tell us to whom he wiU appeal, except it be the Republican party, and I have yet to learn that the Repub- lican party, under the Constitution, has judicial powers; but he is gomg to appeal from it and reverse it, either by an act of Congress, or by turning out the iud-es, or in some other way. And why? Because he says that that decision d^ privcs the nc'^ro of the benefits of that clause of the Constitution of the United Slates which entitles the citizens of each State to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several Stotes. Well, it is very true that the decision does have that effect By deciding that a negro is not a citizen, of course it denies to him the ri'Hits and privileges awarded to citizens of the United States. It is this that Mr. L?ncoln will not submit to. Why ? For the palpable reason that he wishes to con- fei- upon the negro all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States I will not quarrel with Mr. Lincoln for his views on that subject. 1 have no' doubt he is conscientious in them. I have not the slightest idea but that he con- scientiously believes that a negro ought to enjoy and exercise aU the rights and pnv- ik-cs -iven to white men; but I do not agree with him, and hence I cannot concur wifh hfm I believe that this Government of ours wjis founded on the white basis. I believe that it was estabhshed by white men; by men of European birth, or descended of European races, for the benefit of white men and theu- pos teritv in all time to come. I do not believe that it was the design or intention of the sile to their God for their action. It is not for me to aiTaign them for what they do. I will not judge them lest I shall be judged. Let Kentucky mind her own business, and take care of her negroes, and we attend to our own affairs, and take care of our negroes, and we will be the best of friends ; but if Kentucky attempts to interfere with us, or we with her, there will be strife, there will be discord, there will be relentless hatred, there Avill be everything but fra- ternal feeling and brotherly love. It is not necessary that you should enter Ken- tucky and interfere in that State, to use the language of Mr. Lincoln. It is just as offensive to interfere from this State, or send your missiles over there. I cai-e not whether an enemy, if he is going to assault us, shall actually come mto our State, or come along the line, and throw his bomb-shells over to explode in our midst. Suppose England should plant a battery on the Canadian side of the Niagara river, opposite Buffalo, and throv.^ bomb-shells over, which would ex- plode in INIain street, in that city, and destroy the buildings, and that, when we protested, she would say, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, that she never dreamed of coming into the United States to interfere w4th us, and that she was just throwing her bombs over the line from her OAvn side, which she had a right to do, would that explanation satisfy us? So it is with Mr. Lincoln. He is not going into Kentucky, but he will plant his batteries on this side of the Ohio, where he is safe and secure for a retreat, and Avill throw his bomb-shells — his abolition documents — over the river, and will carry on a political warfare, and get up strife between the North and the South until he elects a sectional President, reduces the South to the condition of de- pendent colonies, raises the negro to an equality, and forces the South to submit to the doctrine that a house divided against itself cannot stand — that the Union divided into half slave States and half free cannot endure — that they must all be slave or they must all be free, and that as we in the North are in the majority, we will not permit them to be all slave, and therefore they in the South must consent to the States all being free. Now, fellow-citizens, I submit to you whether these doctrines are consistent with the peace and harmony of this Union ? I submit to you whether they are consistent with our duties as citizens of a common confederacy ; whether they are consistent with the principles w4iich ought to govern brcthern of the same family ? I recognize all the people of these States, North and South, East and West, old or new, Atlantic or Pacific, as our brethren, flesh of one flesh, and I will do no act unto them that I would not be willing they should do unto us. I would apply the same Christian rule to the States of this Union that we are taught to apply to individuals, " do unto others as you would have others do unto you," and this would secure peace. Why should this slavery agitation be kept up? Does it benefit the white man or the slave? Who does it benefit except the Re- pubUcan politicians, who use it as their hobby to ride into office? Why, I re- peat, should it be continued ? Why cannot Ave be content to administer this Government as it was made — a confederacy of sovereign and independent States? Let us recognize the sovereignty and independence of each State, refrain from 89 interfering with the domestic institutions and regulations of other States, permit the Territories and new States to decide their institutions for themselves, as we did when we were in their condition; blot out these lines of North and South, and resort back to these lines of State boundaries which the Constitution has marked out, and engraved upon the face of the country; have no other dividing lines but these, and we will be one united, harmonious people, with fraternal feelings, and no discord or dissension. These are my views and these are the principles to which I have devoted all ray energies since 1850, when I acted side by side with the immortal Clay and the god- like Webster in that memorable struggle in which Whigs and Democrats united u[)on a common platform of patriotism and the Constitution, throwing aside pailisan feelings in order to restore peace and harmony to a distracted country. And when I stood beside the death-bed of Mr. Clay, and heard him refer with feelings and emotions of the deepest solicitude to the welfare of the country, and saw that he looked upon the principle embodied in the great Compromise measures of 1850, the principle of the Nebraska bill, the doctrine of leaving each State and Territory free to decide its institutions for itself, as tlie only means by which the peace of the country could be preserved and the Union perpetuated, — I pledged him, on that death-bed of his, that so long as I lived ray energies should be devoted to the vindication of that principle, and of his fame as connected with it, 1 gave the same pledge to the great expounder of the Constitution, he who has' been called the "god-like Webster." I looked up to Clay and him as a son would to a father, and I call upon the people of Illinois, and the people of the whole Union, to bear testimony, that never since the sod has been laid upon the graves of these eminent statesmen have I failed, on any occasion, to vindicate the principle with which the last great, crowning acts of their lives were identified, or to vindicate their names whenever they have been assailed; and now my life and energy are devoted to this great work as the means of preserving this Union. This Union can only be preserved by maintaining the fraternal feeling between the North and the South, the J^ast and the West. If that good feeling can be preserved, the Union will be as perpetual as the fame of its great founders. It can be main- tained by preserving the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State and each Territory to settle its domestic concerns for itself, and the duty of each to refrain from interfering with the other in any of its local or domestic institutions. Let that be done, and the Union will be perpetual ; let that be done, and this Republic, which besan witli thirteen States, and which now numbers thirty-two, which, when it be- gan, only extended from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, but now reaches to the Pa- citi ;, may yet expand. North and South, until it covers the Avhole Continent, and becomes one vast ocean-bound confederacy. Then, my friends, the path of duty, of honor, of patriotism, is plain. There are a few simple principles to be pre- served. Bear in mind the dividing line between State rights and Federal authority; let us maintain the great principles of popular sovereignty, of State rights, and of the Federal Union as the Constitution has made it, and this Republic will endure forever. I thank you kindly for the patience with which you have listened to me. I fear I have wearied you. I have a heavy day's work before me to-morrow. I have several speeches to make. My friends, in whose hands I am, are tax- in^' me beyond human endurance, but I shall take the helm and control them hereafter. I am profoundly grateful to the people of McLean for the reception they have o-iven me, and the kindness with which they have listened to me. I remember that when I first came among you heie, twenty-five years ago, that I was prosecuting attorney in this district, and that my earliest efforts were made here, when my defi- ciencies were too ap})arent, I am afraid, to be concealed from any one. I remember the courtesy and kindness with whicli I was uniformly treated by you all, and when- ever I can recognize tiie face of one of your old citizens, it is like meeting an old and cherished friend. I come among you with a heart filled with gratitude for past 40 favors. I have been with you but little for the past few years on account of my official duties. I intend to visit you again before the campaign is over. I wish to speak to your whole people. I wish them to pass judgment upon the correctness of my course, and the soundness of the principles which I have proclaimed. If you do not approve my principles, I cannot ask your support. If you believe that the elec- tion of Mr. Lincoln would contribute more to preserve the harmony of the country, to perpetuate the Union, and more to the prosperity and the honor and glory of the State, then it is your duty to give him the preference. If on the contrary, you be- lieve that I have been faithful to my trust, and that by sustaining me you will give gretiter strength and efficiency to the principles which I have Expounded, I shall then be grateful for your su^iport. 1 renew my profound thanks ibr your attention. SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS, Delivered July 17, 1858, aJt Springjield, III. (Mr. Lincoln was not present.) Mr. Chairman, and Felloav-citizens of Springfield and old Sangamon My hearf is filled with emotions at the allusions which have been so happily and so kindly made in the welcome just extended to me — a welcome so numerous and so enthusiastic, bringing me to my home among my old friends, that language cannot express my gratitude. I do feel at home whenever I return to old Sangamon and receive those kind and friendly greetings which have never failed to meet me when I have come among you ; but never b'^fore have I had such occasion to be grateful and to be proud of the manner of the reception as on the present. While I ara willing, sir, to attribute a part of this demonstration to those kind and friendly per- sonal relations to which you have referred, I cannot conceal from myself that the controlling and pervading element in this great mass of human beings is devotion to that principle of self-government to which so many years of my life have been de- voted ; and rejoice more in considering it an approval of my support of a cardinal principle than I would if I could appropriate it to myself as a personal compliment. You but speak rightly when you assert that during the last session of Congress there was an attempt to violate one of the fundamental principles upon which our free institutions rest. The attempt to force the Lecompton Constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, would have been, if successful, subversive of tlie great fundamental principles upon which all our institutions rest. If there is any one principle more sacred and more vital to the existence of a free government than all others, it is the right of the people to form and ratify the Constitution under which they are to live. It is the corner-stone of the temple of liberty, it is tiie foundation upon which the whole structure rests, and whenever it can be successfully evaded self-government has received a vital stab. I deemed it my duty, as a citizen and as a i-epresentative of the State of Illinois, to resist, with all my energies and with whatever of ability I could command, the consummation of that effi3rt to force a Constitution upon an unwilling people. I am aware that other questions have been connected, or attempted to be connect- ed, with that great struggle, but they were mere collateral questions, not nflf'ecting the main point. My opposition to the Lecompton Constitution rested solely upon the fact that it was not the act and deed of that people, and that it did not embody their will. I did not object to it upon the ground of the slavery clause contained in it. I should have resisted it with the same energy and determination even if it had 41 been a free State instead of a slaveholJing State ; and as an evidence of this fact I wish you to bear in mind that my speech against that Lecompton act was made on tiie 9th day of December, nearly two weeks before the vote was taken on the accept- ance or rejection of the slavery clause. I did not then know, I could not have known, whether the slavery clause would be accepted or rejected ; the general impres- sion was that it would be rejected, and in my speech I assumed that impression to be true ; that probably it would be voted down ; and then I said to the U. S. Senate, a? I now proclaim to you, my constituents, that you have no more right to force a free State upon an unwilling people than you have to force a slave State upon them against their will. You have no right to force either a good or a bad thing upon a people who do not choose to receive it. And then, again, the highest jn-ivilege of our people is to determine for themselves what kind of institu- tions are good and what kind of institutions are bad, and it may be true that the same people, situated in a different latitude and different climate, and with different productions and different interests, might decide the same question one way in the North and another way in the South, in order to adapt their institutions to the wants .■uid wishes of the people to be affected by them. You all are familiar with the Lecompton struggle, and I will occupy no more time upon the subject, except to remark that when we drove the enemies of the principle of popular sovereignty from the effort to force the Lecompton Constitution upon the people of Kansas, and when we compelled them to abandon the attempt and to refer that Constitution to that people for acceptance or rejection, we obtained a concession of the principle for which I had contended throughout the struggle. When I saw that the principle was conceded, and that the Constitution was not to be forced on Kansas against the wishes of the people, I felt anxious to give the proposition ray support; but, when I examined it, I found that the mode of reference to the people and the form of submission, upon which the vote was taken, was so objectionable as to make it unfair and itnjust. Sir, it is an axiom with me that in every free government an unfair election is no election at all. Every election should be free, should be fair, with the same privileges and the same inducements for a negative as for an affirmative vote. The objection to what is called the " English " proposition, by which the Lecompton Constitution was referred back to the people of Kansas, was this, that if the people chose to ac- cept the Lecompton Constitution they could come in with only 35,000 inhabitants, while if they determined to reject it in order to form another more in accordance with their wishes and sentiments, they were compelled to stay out until they should have 93,420 inhabitants. In other words, it was making a distinction and discrimi- nation between free States and slave States under the Federal Constitution. I deny tlie justice, I deny the right, of any distinction or discrimination between the States North and South, free or slave. Equality among the States is a fundamental prin- ciple of this government. Hence, while I will never consent to the passage of a Liw that a slave State may come in with 35,000, while a free State shall not come in unless it have 93,000, on the other hand, I shall not consent to admit a free State with a population of 35,000, and require 93,000 in a slaveholding State. My principle is to recognize each State of the Union as independent, sovereign and equal in its sovereignty. I will apply that principle not only to the original thirteen States, but to the States which have since been brought into the Union, and also to every State that shall hereafter be received, " as long as water shall run and grass grow." For these reasons I felt compelled, by a sense of duty, by a conviction of principle, to record my vote against what is called the Englisii bill ; but yet the bill became a law, and under that law an election has been ordered to be held on the first Monday in August for the purpose of determining the question of the acceptance or rejection of the proposition submitted by Congress. I have no hc-itation in saying to you, as the chairman of your committee has justly said in his address, that whatever the decision of the people of Kansas may be at thai election, it must be final and conclusive of the whole subject ; for if at that 42 election a majority of the people of Kansas shall vote for the acceptance of the Con- gressional proposition, Kansas from tiiat moment becomes a State of the Union, the law admitting her becomes irrepealable, and thus the controversy terminates forever; if, on the other hand, the people of Kansas shall vote down that pi'oposition, as it is now generally admitted they will, by a large majority, then from that instant the Lecompton Constitution is dead^ dead beyond the power of resur- rection, and thus the controversy terminates. And when the monster shall die I shall be willing, and trust that all of you will be willing, to acquiesce in the death of the Lecompton Constitution. The controversy may now be considered as terminated, tor in three weeks from now it will be finally settled, and all the ill-feeling, all the embittered feeling which grew out of it shall cease, unless an attempt should hi made in the future to repeat the same outrage upon popular rights. I need not tell you that my past course is a sufficient guarantee that if the occasion shall ever arise again while I occupy a seat in the United States Senate, you will find me car- rying out the same principle that I have this winter, with all the energy and all the power I may be able to command. I have the gratification of saying to you that I do not believe that that controversy will ever arise again ; first, because the fate of Lecompton is a warning to the people of every Territory and of every State to be cautious how the example is repeated; and secondly, because the President of the United States, in his annual message, has said that he trusts the example in the Minnesota case, wherein Congress passed a law, called an enabling act, requii'ing the Constitution to be submitted to the people for acceptance or rejection, will bo followed in all future cases. [" That was right."] I agree with you that it was right. I said so on the day after the message was delivered, in my speech in the Senate on the Lecompton Constitution, and I have frequently in the debate tendered to the President and his friends, tendered to the Lecomptonites, my voluntary pledge that if he will stand by that recommendation, and they will stand by it, that they will find me working hand in hand with them in the effort to carry it out. All we have to do, therefore, is to adhere firmly in the future, as we have done in the past, to the principle contained in the recommendation of the President in his annual message, that the example in tlie Minnesota case shall be car- ried out in all future cases of the admission of Territories into the Union as States. Let that be done and the principle of popular sovereignty will be main- tained in all of its vigor and all of its integrity. I rejoice to kn>^v that Illinois stands prominently and proudly forward among the States which first took their po- sition firmly and immovably upon this principle of popular sovereignty, applied to the Territories as well as to the States. You all recollect when in 1850 the peace of the country was disturbed in consequence of the agitation of the slavery question, and the effort to force the Wilraot Pi'oviso upon all the Territories, that it required all the talent and all the energy, all the wisdom, all the patriotism, of a Clay and a Webster, united with other great party leaders, to devise a system of measures by which peace and harmony could be restored to our distracted country. Those com- promise measures eventually passed and were recorded on the statute book, not only as the settlement of the then existing difficulties, but as furnishing a rule of action which should prevent in all future time the recurrence of like evils, if they were firmly and fairly carried out. Those compromise measures rested, as I said in my speech at Chicago, on my return home that year, upon the principle that every people ought to have the right to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. They were founded upon the principle that, while every State possessed that right under the Constitution, that the same right ought to be extended to and exercised by the people of the Territories. When the Illinois Legislature assembled, a few months after the adoption of these measures, the first thing the members did was to review their action upon this slavery agitation, and to correct the errors into which their predecessors had fallen. You remember that their first act was to repeal the Wilmot Proviso instructions to our U. S. Senators, which had been previously passed, and in lieu of them to record an- 43 other resolution upon the journal, with which you must all be familiar — a resolution hrou;rht forward by Mr. Ninian Edwards, and adopted by the House of Representa- tives^by a vote of 61 in the affirmative to 4 in the negative. That resolution I can quote to you in almost its precise language. It declared that the great principle of self-government was the birthright of freemen ; w^is the gift of heaven ; was achieved by the blood of our revolutionary fathers, and must be continued and carried out in the organization of all the Territories and the admission of all new States. That became the Illinois platform by the united voices of the Democratic party and of the Whig par- ty in 1851 ; all the Whigs and all the Democrats in the Legislature uniting in an af- firmative vote upon it, and there being only 4 votes in the negative, of Abolitionists, of course, that resolution stands upon the journal of your Legislature to this day and hour unrepealed, as a standing, living, perpetual instruction to the Senators from Illinois in all time to come to carry out that principle of self-government and allow no limita- tion upon it in the organization of any Territories or the admission of any new States. In 1854. wlien it became my duty as the chairman of the committee on Ter- ritories to bring forward a bill for the organization of Kansas and Nebraska, I incor- porated tliat principle in it and Congress passed it, thus carrying the principle into practical effect. I will not recur to the scenes which took place all over the country in 1854 when that Nebraska bill passed. I could then travel from Boston to Chicago by the light of my own effigies, in consequence of having stood up for it. I leave it" to you to say how I met that storm, and whether I quailed under it; whether I did not -'face the music," justify the principle, and pledge my life to cany it out. ^ \ friend here reminds me^ too, that when making speeches then, justifying the Nebraska bill and the great principle of self-government, that I predicted that in less than five years you would have to get out a search warrant to find an anti-Nebraska man. Well, I believe I did make that prediction. I did not claim the power of a prophet, but it occurred to me that among a free people, and an honest people, and an intelligent people, that five years was long enough for them to come to an understanding that the great prin- ciple of'^self-government w^as right, not only in the States, but in the Territories. I re-joiced thTs year to see my prediction, in that respect, carried out and fulfilled by the unanimous vote, in one form or another, of both Houses of Congress. If you w^ill remember that pending this Lecompton controversy that gallant old Roman, Kentucky's favorite son, the worthy successor of the immortal Clay — I allude, as you know, to the gallant John J. Crittenden — brought forward a bill, now known as the Crittenden-Montgomery bill, in which it was proposed that the Lecompton Constitution should be referred back to the people of Kan- sas, to be decided for or against it, at a fair election, and if a majority of the people were in favor of it, that Kansas should come into the Union as a slave- holdins State, but that if a majority were against it. that they should make a new Constitution, and come in with slavery or without it, as they thought proper. r " That was riffht."] Yes, my dear sir, it was not only right, but it was carry- ing out the principle of the Nebraska bill in its letter and in its spirit. Of course I voted for it, and so did every Republican Senator and Representative in Congress. I have found some Democrats so perfectly straight that they blame me for%-oting for the principle of the Nebraska bill because the Republicans voted the same way. [Great laughter. "AVhat did they say ?"] AV hat did they say ? Why, many of them said that Douglas voted with the Republicans. Yes! not only that, but with the black Republicans. Well, there are different modes of stating that proposition. The New York Tribune says that Dou'das did not vote with the Republicans, but that on that question the Repub- licans went over to Douglas and voted with him. My friends, I have never yet abandoned a pi-inciple because of the support I found men yielding to it, and I shall never abandon my Democratic principles merely because Republicans come to them. For what do we travel over the coun« try and make speeches in every political canvass, if it is not to enlighten the minds 44 of these Republicans ; to remove the scales from their eyes, and to impart to them the hght of democratic vision, so that they may be able to carry out the Constitu- tion of our country as our fathers made it. And if by preaching our principles to the people we succeed in convincing the Republicans of the eiTors of their ways, and bring them over to us, arc we bound to turn traitors to our principles, merely because they give them their support ? All I have to say is that I hope the Republican party will stand firm, in the future, by the vote they gave on the Crittenden-Montgomery bill. I hope we will find, in the resolutions of their Counly and Congressional Conventions, no declarations of "no more slave States to be admitted into this Union," but in lieu of that declaration that we will find the principle that the people of every State and every Territory shall come into the Union with slavery or without it, just as they please, without any interfer- ence on the part of Congress. ]\Iy friends, whilst I was at Washington, engaged in this great battle for sound constitutional principles, I find from the newspapers that the Republican party of this State assembled in this Capital, in State Convention, and not only nominated, as it was wise and proper for them to do, a man for my successor m the Sen- ate, but laid down a platform, and their nominee made a speech, carefully writ- ten and prepared, and well delivered, which that Convention accepted as con- taining the Republican creed. I have no comment to make on that pai-t of Mr. Lincoln's speech, in which he represents me as forming a conspiracy with the Supreme Court, and with the late President of the United States and the present chief magistrate, having for my object the passage of the Nebraska bill, the Dred Scott decision and the extension of slavery — a scheme of pohtical tricksters, composed of Chief Justice Taney and his eight associates, two Presidents of the United States, and one Senator of Illinois. If Mr. Lincoln deems me a conspi- rator of that kind, all I have to say is that I do not think so badly of the President of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judi- cial tribunal on earth, as to believe that they were capable in then- action and decision of entering into political intrigues for partisan purposes. I therefore shall only notice those parts of Mr. Lincoln's speech, in wliich he lays dov.n his platfbnn of piinciples, and tells you what he intends to do if he is elected to the Senate of the United States. [An old gentleman here rose on the platform and said : " Be particular now, Judge, be particular."] Mr. Douglas — My venerable friend here says that he will be gratified if I will be particular, and in order that I may be so, I will read the language of Mr. Lincoln as reported by himself and pul)lished to the country. Mr. Lincoln lays down his main proposition in these Avords : " ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this Union cannot endure permanently half free and half slave. I do not expect the Union will be dissolved, I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it to cejise to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." Mr. Lincoln does not think this Union can continue to exist composed of half slave and half free States; they must all be free or all slave. I do not doubt tliat this is Mr. Lincoln's conscientious conviction. I do not doubt that he thinks it is the highest duty of every patriotic citizen to preserve this glorious Union, and to adopt these measures as necessary to its preservation. He tells you that the only mode to preserve the Union is to make all the States free or all slave. It must be the one or it must be the other. Now that being essen- tial, in his estimation, to the preservation of this glorious Union, how is he going to accomplish it ? He says that he wants to go to the Senate in order to carry out tliis favorite patriotic poHcy of his, of making all the States free, so that tlie house shall no longer be divided against itself. When he gets to the Sen- ate, by what means is he going to accomplish it ? By an act of Congress ? Will he contend that Congress has any power under tlie Constitution to abolish slavery 45 in an J State of tliis Union, or to interfere with it directly or indirectly ? Of t'ourse he will not contend that. Then what is to be his mode of carrv in^r out his principle, by which slavery shall be abolished in all of the States ? Mr^Lin- coln certainly does not speak at random. He is a lawyer, an eminent lawyer and his profession is to know th(i i-omedy for every wrong. What is ids remedy for this imaginary wrong which he supposes to exist? The Constitution of tlie United States provides that it may be amended by Congress passing an amendment by a rwo-thirds majority of each house, which shall be ratified by three-fourths of the Stat'^s and the inference is that Mr. Lincohi intends to cany this slavery agitation into Congress with the view of amending the Constitution so that slavery t°ui be abol- ished in all the States of the Union. In other words, he is not going to allow one portion of the Union to be slave and another portion to be free ; he Ts not "oiug to permit the house to be divided against itself. He is going to remedy it by lawful and constitutional means. What are to be these means ? How can he abolish slavery m those States where it exists ? There is but one mode by which a political o]-<^aniza- rion, composed of men in the free States, can abolish slavery in the slaveholdino- States and that would be to abolish the State Legislatures, blot out of existence the State sovereignties, invest Congress with full and plenary power over all the local and do- mestic and police regulations of the different States of this Union. Then there \yould be uniibrmity in the local concerns and domestic institutions of the different States; then the house would be no longer divided against itself ; then the States would all be free, or they would all be slave ; then you would have unifbrmity pre- vailing throughout tliis whole land in the local and domestic institutions, but it would be a uniformity not of liberty, but a uniformity of despotism that would triumph. I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, whether this is not the logical consequence of Mr. Lincoln's proposition ? I have called on Mr. Lincoln to explain wliat he did mean, if he did not mean this, and he has made a speech at Chicago, in which he at- jempts to explain. And how does he explain .? I will give him the benefit of his own language, precisely as it was reported in the Republican papers of that city, after undergoing his revision. " I have said a hundred times, and have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States and interfere with the question of slavery at alL" He believes there is no right on the part of the free people of the free States to enter the slave States aud interfere with the question of slavery, hence he does not propose to go into Kentucky and stir up a civil war and a servile war between the blacks and the whites. All he proposes is to invite the people of Illinois and every other free State to band together as one sectional party, governed and divided by a geographical line, to make war upon the institution of slavery in the slaveholdinT Suites. He is going to cany it out by means of a political party, that has its adhe- rents only in the free States ; a political party, that does not pretend that it can o-ive a solitary vote in the slave States of the Union ; and by this sectional vote he is going to elect a President of the United States ; form a Cabinet and administ(!r the Government on sectional grounds, being the power of the North over that of the South. In other words, he invites a war of the North against the South, a warfare of tlie free States against the slaveholding States. He asks all men in the free States to conspire to exterminate slavery in the Southern States, so as to make them all free, and then he notifies the South that unless they are going to submit to our efforts •o exterminate their institutions, they must band together and plant slavery in Illi- nois and every Northern State. He says that the States must all be free or must all be slave. On tliis point I tak(.' issue with him directly. I assert that Illinois has a right to decide tlic slavery question for herself. We have decided it, and I think we have done it wisely ; but whether wisely or unwisely, it is our business, and the peo- ple of no other State have any right to interfere with us, directly or iiidirectly. Claiming as we do this right ibr ourselves, wc must concede it to every other State, to be exercised by them respectively. 4 46 Now, Mr. Lincoln says that he will not enter into Kentucky to abolish slavery there, but tliat all he will do is to fight slavery in Kentucky from Illinois. He will not go over there to set fire to the match. I do not think he would. Mr. Lincoln is a very prudent man. He would not deem it wise to go over into Kentucky to stir up this strife, but he would do it from this side of the river. Permit me to in- quire whether the wrong, the outrage of interference by one Slate with the local concerns of another, is worse when you actually invade them than it would be if you carried on the warfare from another State? For the pui-pose of illustration, suppose the British Government should plant a battery on the Niagara river opposite Buffalo and throw their shells over into Buffalo, where they should explode and blow up th(^ houses and destroy the town. We call the British Government to an account, and they say, in the language of iNIr. Lincoln, we did not enter into the limits of tlie United States to interfere with you ; we planted the battery on our own soil, and had a riv3 different from each and every other State, in order that its laws shall be adapted to the condition and necessities of the peoplfe. Hence I insist that our institutions rest on the theory that there shall be dissimilarity and variety in the local laws and institutions of the different States instead of all beinf uniform ; and you find, my friends, that Mr. Lincoln and myself differ radically und totally on the fundamental principles of this Government. He goes for consoli- dation, for uniformity in our local institutions, for blotting out State rights and State sovereignty, and consolidating all the power in the Federal Government, for convert- ing these thirty-two sovereign States into one Empire, and making uniformity through- out the length and breadth of the land. On the other hand, I go for maintaining the authority of the Federal Government within the limits marked out by the Constitu- tion, and then for maintaining and preserving the sovereignty of each and all of the States of the Union, in order that each State may regulate and adopt its own local institutions in its own way, without interference from any power whatsoever. Thus 3'ou find thei'e is a distinct issue of principles — principles irreconcilable — be- tween Mr. Lincoln and myself. He goes for consolidation and uniformity in our Gov- ernment. I go for maintaining the confederation of the sovereign States under the Constitution, as our fathers made it, leaving each State at liberty to manage its own affairs and own internal institutions. Mr. Lincoln makes another point upon me, and rests his whole case upon these two points. His last point is, that he will wage a wai-fiire upon the Supreme Court of the United States because of the Dred Scott decision. He takes occasion, in his speech made before the Republican Convention, in ray absence, to arraign me, not only for having expressed my acquiesence in that decision, but to charge me with being a conspirator with that court in devising that decision three years before Dred Scott ever thought of commencing a suit for his freedom. The object of his speech was to convey the idea to the people that the court could not be trusted, that the late President could not be trusted, that the present one could not be trusted, and that Mr. Douglas could not be trusted ; that they were all conspirators in bringing about that corrupt decision, to which Mr. Lincoln is determined he will never yield a wilUng obedience. He makes two points upon the Dred Scott decision. The first is that he objects to it because the court decided that negi-oes descended of slave parents are not citizens of the United States ; and secondly, because they have decided that the act of Con- gress, passed 8th of March, 1820, prohibiting slavery in all of the Territories north of 3G° 30', was unconstitutional and void, and hence did not have effect in emancipa- ting a slave brought into that Territory. And he will not submit to that decision. He says that he will not fight the Judges or tlie United States Marshals in order to liberate Dred Scott, but that he will not respect that decision, as a rule of law bind- ing on this country, in the future. Why not ? Because, he says, it is unjust. How is he going to remedy it ? Why, he says he is going to reverse it. How ? He is going to take an appeal. To whom is he going to appeal? The Constitution of the United States provides that the Supreme Court is the ultimate tribu- nal, the highest judicial tribunal on earth, and Mr. Lincoln is going to ap])eal from that. To whom ? I know he appealed to the Republican State Convention of Illi- nois, and I beUeve that Convention reversed the decision, but I am not aware that they have yet cai-ried it into effV^-t. How are they going to make that reversal effectual? Why, Mr. Lincoln tells us in his late Chi- cago speech. He explains it as clear as light. He says to the people of Ilhnois that if you elect him to the Senate he will introduce a bill to re-enact the law which the Court pronounced unconstitutional. [Sliouts of laughter, and voices, "Spot the law."] Yes, he is going to spot the law. The court pronounces that law, prohibit- 48 ing slavery, unconstitutional and void, and Mr. Lincoln is going to pass an act I'evers- ing that decision and making it valid. I never heard before of an appeal being taken from the Supreme Court to the Congress of the United States to reverse its decision. I have heard of appeals being taken from Congress to the Supreme Court to declare a statute void. That has been done from the earliest days of Chief Justice Marshall, down to the present time. The Supreme Court of Illinois do not hesitate to pronounce an act of the Legis- lature void, as being repugnant to the Constitution, and the Supreme Court of tlie United States is vested by the Constitution with that very power. The Constitution jiayij that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in the Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and estabhsh. Hence it is the province and duty of the Supreme Court to pronounce judgment on the vahdity and constitutionality of an act of Congress. Li this case they have done so, and Mr. Lincoln will not submit to it, and he is going to reverse it by another act of Congress of the same tenor. My opinion is that Mr. Lincoln ought to be on the supi-eme bench himself, when the Repubhcans get into power, if that kind of law knowledge quahlies a man for the bench. But Mr. Lincoln intimates that there is another mode by Avhich he can reverse the Dred Scott decision. How is that ? Why, he is going to api)eal to the people to elect a Presi- dent who will appoint judges who will reverse the Dred Scott decision. Well, let us see how that is going to be done. First, he has to carry on his sectional organiza- tion, a pai'ty confined to the free States, making war upon the slaveholding States until he gets a Republican President elected. ["He never will, sir."] I do not believe he ever will. But suppose he should ; when that Republican President shall have taken his seat (Mr. Seward, for instance), will he then proceed to ap- point judges ? No ! he will have to wait until the present judges che before he can do that, and perhaps his four years would be out before a majority of these judges found it agreeable to die ; and it is very possible, too, that Mr. Lincoln's sen- atorial tei-m would expire before these judges would be accommodatmg enough to die. If it should so happen I do not see a very great prospect for Mr. Lincoln to reverse the Dred Scott decision. But suppose they should die, then how are the new judges to be appointed? AV'hy, the Republican President is to call upon the candidates and catechise them, and ask them, " How will you decide this case if I appoint you iud<'-e?" Suppose, for instance, Mr. Lincoln to be a candidate for a vacancy on the supreme bench to fill Chief Justice Taney's place, and when he apphed to Seward, tlie latter would say, "Mr. Lincoln, I cannot appoint you until I know how you will decide the Dred Scott case ?" Mr. Lincoln tells him, and then asks him how he will decide Tom Jones's case, and Bill Wilson's case, and thus catechises the judge as to how he will decide any case which may arise before him. Suppose you get a Supreme Court composed of such judges, who have been appointed by a partisan President upon their giving pledges how they would decide a case before it arose, what confidence would you have in such a court ? Would not your court be prostituted beneath the contempt of all mankind? What man would feel that his liberties were safe, his right of person or property was secure, if the supreme bench, that august tribunal, the highest on earth, was brought down to that low, dirty pool wherein the judges are to give pledges in advance how they will decide all the questions which may be brought before them? It is a prop- osition to make that court the corrupt, unscrupulous tool of a political party. But Ml" Lincoln cannot conscientiously submit, he thinks, to the decision of a court composed of a majority of Democrats. If he cannot, how can he expect us to have confidence in a court composed of a majority of Republicans, selected for the pui'pose of deciding against the Democracy, and in favor of the Republicans ? The very proposition carries with it the demoralization and degradation destructive of tlie judicial department of the Federal Government. I say to you, fellovv'-citizens, that I have no warfare to make upon the Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott decision. I have no complaints to make against 49 that court, because of that decision. My private opinions on some points of the case may have been one way and on other points of the case another; in some things concurring with the court and in others dissenting, but what have my private opin- ions in a question of law to do with the decision after it has been pronounced by the highest judicial tribunal known to the Constitution ? You, sir [addressing the chairman], as an eminent lawyer, have a right to entertain your opinions on any question that comes before the court and to appear before the tribunal and main- tain them boldly and with tenacity until the final decision shall have been pronounced, .'eans. I presVhim a little further, and ask if it meant to include the Russimis in Asia? or does he mean to exclude that vast population from the principles of our Declara- tk)n oT Independence ? I expect ere long he will introduce another amendment to hi' defini on He is not at all particular. He is satisfied with any thing which does not end"n-er the nationalizing of negro slavery. It may draw white men down, but Tmust Jof lift negroes up. Who shall say, " I am the superior, and you ai-e the m- ^^ My' declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but eaiS be nisunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration to Tan that^n men were created equal in all respects. Tiiey are not our equal m To o^ tmt I sZpose that it does meaii to declare that all men are equal in some re- p c ts' • U ey a Tequ d in their right to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happine.s " Ceiti;iy the nearo is not our equal in color _ perhaps not in many other respects; Sil 1n the ilht^to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he he ec al of every other man, white or black. In pointing out that more hasl,een - Sven ?o you cannot be justified in taking away the httle which has been given Sm AU I ask for the negro is that if you do not hke him, let him alone. If God ^^^^rr r;r;::::^nrtJlst;SiZ^e had the institution of .avery am^ wl were in a certain sense compelled to tolerate its existence. It was a sort 64 ist. They did what thej could and yielded to the necessity for the rest. I also yield to all which follows from that necessity. What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races. One more point on this Springfield speech which Judge Douglas says he has read so carefully. I expressed my belief in the existence of a conspiracy to perpetuate and nationalize slavery. I did not profess to know it, nor do I now. I showed the part Judge Douglas had played in the string of facts, constituting to my mind the proof of that conspiracy. I showed the parts played by others. I charged that the people had been deceived into carrying the last Presidential election, by the impression that the people of the Territoiies might exclude slavery if they^chose, when it was known in advance by the conspirators, that the court was to decide that neither Congress nor the people could so exclude slaveiy. These charges are more distinctly made than anything else in the speech. Judge Douglas has carefully read and re-read that speech. He has not, so far as I know, contradicted those chai'ges. In the two speeches which I heard, he certainly did not. On his own tacit admission I renew that charge. I charge him with hav- ing been a party to that conspiracy and to that deception for the sole purpose of nationahzing slavery. The following is the correspondence betwen the two rival candidates for the United States Senate: Mr. Ldncoln to Mr. Douglas. Chicago, III., July 24, 1858. HoQ. S. A. Douglas — My Dear Sir: Will it be agreeable to you to make an aiTaugement for you aad myselt to divide time, and addi'ess the same audiences the present canvass ? Mr. Judd, who will hand you this, is authorized to receive your answer ; and, if agreeable to you, to enter into the terms of such arrangement. Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 3Ir. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. Chicago, July 24, 1858. Hon. A. Lincoln — Dear Sir: Your note of this date, in which you inquire if it would be agreea))le to me to make an arrangement to divide the time and address the same audiences during the present can\iiss, was handed me by Mr. Judd. Recent events have interposed difficul- ties in the way of such an arrangement. I went to Springfield last week for the purpose of conferring with the Democratic State Central Committee upon the mode of conducting the canvass, and with them, and under their advice, made a list of appointments covering the entire period until late in October. The people of the several localities have been notified of the times and places of the meetings. Those appointments have all been made for Democratic meetings, and arrangements have been made by which the Democratic candidates for Congress, for the Legislature, and other offices, will be present and address the people. It is evident, therefore, that these various candidates, in connection with myself, will occupy the whole time of the day and evening, and leave no opportunity for other speeches. Besides, there is another consideration which should be kept in mind. It has been suggested recently that an an'angement had been made to bring out a third candidate for the United States Senate, who, with yourself, should canvass the State in opposition to me, with no other purpose than to insure my defeat, by dividing the Democratic party for your benefit. If I should make this arrangement with you, it is more than probable that this other caudidale, who has a common object with you, would desire to become a party to it, and claim the right to speak from the same stand ; so that he and you, in concert, might be able to take the opening and closing speech in every ease. I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise, if it was your original intention to invite such aa 65 arrangement, that you should have waited until after I had made my appointments, inasmuch tm we were both here in Chicago together for several days after my arrival, and again at Bloomings toa,_ Atlanta, Lincoln and Springfield, where it was well known I went for the purpose of con- sulting with the State Central Committee, and agreeing upon the plan of the campaign. While, under these circumstances, I do not feel at liberty to make any arrangements which would deprive the Democratic candidates for Congress, State officers, and the Legislature from participating in the discussion at the various meetings designated by the Democratic State Central Committee, I will, in order to accommodate yon as I'ar as it is in my power to do so, take the responsibility of making an arrangement with you for a discussion between us at one prominent point in each Congressional District in the State, except the second and sixth districts, where we have both spoken, and in each of which cases you had the concluding speech. If agreeable to you, T will indicate the following places as those most suitable in the several Congressional Dis- tricts at which we should speak, to wit : Freeport, Ottawa, Galesburg, Quincy, Alton, Jonesboro and Charleston. I will confer with you at the earliest convenient opportunity in regard to the mode of conducting the debate, the times of meeting at the several places, subject to the condi- tion, that where appointments have already been made by the Demociatic State Central Committe« at any of those places, I must insist upon you meeting me at the times specified. Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, S. A. DOUGLAS. Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas. Springfield, July 29, 1858. Hon. S. A DoDGLAS — Z>ear Sir: Yours of the 24th in relation to an arrangement to divide time, and address the same audiences, is received ; aiid, in apology for not sooner replying, allow me to say, that when I sat by you at dinner yesterday, I was not aware that you had answered my note, nor, certainly, that my own note had been presented to you. An hour after, I saw a copy of your answer in the Chicago Tmes, and, reaching home, I found the original awaiting me. Protesting that your insinuations of attempted unfairness on my part are unjust, and with the hope that you did not very considerately make them, I proceed to reply. To your statement that " It has been suggested, recently, that an arrangement had been made to bring out a third candi- date for the U. S. Senate, who, with yourself, should canvass the State in opposition to me," etc., I can only say, that such suggestion must have been made by yourself, for certainly none such has been made by or to me, or otherwise, to my knowledge. Surely you did not ddiberately con- clude, as you insinuate, that I was expecting to draw you into an arrangement of terms, to be agreed on by yourself, by which a third candidate and myself, "in concert, might be able to take the opening and closing speech in every case." As to your surprise that I did not sooner make the proposal to divide time with you, I can only say, I made it as soon as I resolved to make it. I did not know but that such proposal would come from you ; I waited, respectfully, to. see. It may have been well known to you that you went to Springfield for the purpose of agreeing on the plan of campaign ; but it was not so known to me. When your appointments were announced in the papers, extending only to the 21st of August, I, for the first time, considered it certain that you would make no proposal to me, and then resolved that, if my friends concurred, I would make one to you. As soon thereafter as I could see and consult with friends satisfactorily, I did make the proposal. It did not occur to me that the proposed arrangement could derange your plans after the latest of your appointments ali'eadj made. After that, there was, before the election, largely over two mouths of clear time. For you to say that we have already spoken at Chicago and Springfield, and that on both occa- sions 1 had the concluding speech, is hardly a fair statement. The truth rather is this : At Chicago, July 9th, you made a carefully-prepared conclusion on my speech of June I6th. Twenty- four hours after, I made a hasty conclusion on yours of the 9th. . You had six days to prepare, and concluded on me again at Bloomington on the Kith. Twenty-four hours after, I concluded again on you at Springfield. In the meantime, you had made another conclusion on me at Spring- field, which I did not hear, and of the contents of which I knew nothing when I spoke ; so that your speech made in daylight, and mine at night, of the 17th, at Springfield, were both made in perfect independence of each other. The dates of making all these speeches will show, I think, that in the matter of time for preparation, the advantage has all been on your side ; and that none of the external circumstances have stood to my advantage. I agree to an arrangement for us to speak at the seven places you have named, and at your own times, provided you name the times at once, so that I, as well as you, can have to myself the time not covered by the arrangement. As to the other details, I Avish perfect reciprocity, and no more. I wish as much time as you, and that conclusions shall alternate. That is all. Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. P. S. As matters now stand, I shall be at no more of your exclusive meetings ; and for about a week from to-day a letter from you will reach me at Springfield. A. L 6Q Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. Bement, Piatt Co., Iix., July 30, 1858. Bear Sir: Your letter, dated yesterday, accepting my proposition for a joint discussicm at one proiiiini>ot point iu each Congi'essional District, as stated iu my previous letter, was received this morning. The times and places designated are as follows : Ottawa, La Salle County August 21st, 1858. Freeport, Stephenson County " 27th, " Jonesboro, Union County September 15th, " Charleston, Coles County " 18th, " Galesbuvgh, Knox County October 7th, " Quincy, Adams County " 13th, " Alton, Madison County " 15th, " 1 agree to your suggestion that we shall alternately open and close the discussion. I will speak at Ottawa one hour, you can reply, occupying an hour and a half, and I will then follow for half an hour. At Freeport, you shall open the discussion and speak one hour, I will follow for an hour and a half, aud you cau then reply for half an hour. We will alternate iu like manner ia each successive place. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. A. DOUGLAS. Hon. A. LiNCOij^, Spruigfield, HL Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas. Sprtngfiki.d, July 31, 1858. Hon. S. A. Douglas — Dear Sir: Yours of yesterday, naming places, times and terms, for joint discussions between us, was received this morning. Altbough, hj the terms, as you pro- pose, you take fotir openings and closes, to my three, I accde, and thus close the arrangement. 1 direct this to you at Hillsboro, and shall try to have both your letter and this appear in the Journal and Register of Monday morning. Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. FIRST JOINT DEBATE, AT OTTAWA, August 21, 1858. MR. DOUGLAS'S SrEECII. * Ladies and Gentlemen : I appear befoi*e you to-day for the puqjose of flis- eussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind. By an ar- rangement between Mr. Lincoln and myself, we ai-e present here to-day for the pur- pose of having a joint discussion, as the representatives of the two great political parties of the State and Union, upon the principles in issue between those parties ; and this vast concourse of people shows the deep feeling which pervades the public mind in regard to the questions dividing us. Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political parties, known as the Whig and Democratic parties. Both were national and patriotic, advocating principles that were universal in their application. An old line Whig could proclaim his principles in Louisiana and Massachusetts alike. Whig principles had no boun- daiy sectional line — they were not limited by the Ohio river, nor by the Potomac, nor by the line of the free and slave States, but applied and were proclaimed wher- ever the Constitution ruled or the American flag waved over the American soil. So it was, and so it is with the great Democratic party, which, from the days of Jeffer- son until this period, has proven itself to be the historic party of this nation. While the Whig and Democratic parties differed in regard to a bank, the tariff, distribution, 67 the specie circular and the sub-treasury, they agreed on tlie great slavery question*, whichnow agitates the U)don. I say that the Whig party and the Democratic party ri'ed on thfs slavery question, while they differed on those matters _ot expediency to which I have refen-ed. The Whig party and the Democratic party jom ly adop ed he Compromise measures of 1850 as the basis of a proper and just solution of this Bkveiy question in all its forms. Clay was the great eader w.th Webster on his rio-ht Jnd Cass on his left, and sustained by the patriots in the Wing and Democratic ra°iks, who had devised and enacted the Compromise measures ot IhoU. _ In 1851, the Whig party and the Democratic party united m Illinois in adopting resolutions indorsingrind approving the principles of the Compromise measures of ISSoTs he propei^Kljustment of "that question. In 1852, when the Whig party asimbled in Convention , at Baltimore for the purpose of nominating a candidate for arPresideney,tlie tirst thing it did was to declare the Compromise measures of %^TlJ^ce and in prh^iple, a suitable ac^ustment of that quest^ H^ the speaker was interrupted by loud and long-continued applause.] My nends, sUence win be more acceptable to me in the discussion of these questions than ap- luse I desire to address myself to your judgment, your uncei-.tanding^ and your coisSnces, and not to your passions or your enthusiasm. A\ hen the Democratic Convention ^ sembled in Baltimore in the same year, for the purpose of nominating a D Tocratic canL^^^ l^r the Presidency, it.ilso adopted the Comprom^e "^^^^^^^^^^ of 1850 as the basis of Democratic action. Thus you see that up to 18o3- 54, the iki^t^rty ^id the Democratic party both stood on the same platform with re|ai-d to tfe slavery question. That platform was the right of the people of each State and each Territmy to decide their local and domestic institutions for themselves, sub- iect onlv to the Federal Constitution. , x-^i tt -t^j ^ Dur iVthe session of Congress of 1853-'54,I introduced into the Senate of the United St?"sab too -.anizethe^Territoriesof Kansas and Nebraska on that prmciple wHcl had been adopted in the Compromise measures of 1850, approved by he Whig pa ty ^nd riie Democratic party in Illinois in 1851, and indorsed by the Whig party and tlS Democratic party in National Convention in 1802. In order that there "i J be no nSunderstanding in relation to the principle mvolved in the Kansas and Ncl • iska bill, I put forth the true intent and meaning of the act m these^vords : It sthJ me intent and meaning of this act not to iegislaie slavery into any State or Ter- ritlrv o to exclude it therefiom, but to leave the people then.of perfect y free to form I^^d r^mlxte t1 eir domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Federa^ ConltUiUki." Thus, you see, that up to 1854, when the Kan.as and Nebraska bill was li^u^ht into Congress for the purpose of carrying out the principles which bo^th na^Vies had up to that^ime hidorsed and approved, there had been no drvision in thi. coin iV^ vegai-d to that principle except the opposition of the Abolitionists In the Hon e of Representatives of the Illinois Legislature, upon a reso ution as.sertmg nt nrinc inle every Whi^^ and every Democrat in the House voted m the affirma- tive 'a^r d on y fbur men voted againsi it, and those four were old line Aboht.omsts. i; 1854 Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull entered mto an Hn-ang-mien^ one w th the other, and each with his respective friends, to dissolve the old Wh g oartv on theone hand, and to dissolve the old Democratic party on the o her, and to Lnict the m mbers of both into an Abolition party, under the name and disguise of nS blhi^party. Tiie terms of that arrangement between Mr. Lmcoln and Mr. Trun^bun Imve been published to the world by Mr. Lincoln's spec.a friend. James M M.the, V Esq and they were, that Lincoln should have Shields's place in the ^^■•^Jfst^J^stm'xte which was then about to become vacant, and that Trumbull S^u d imv^ny ea^^^^ term expired. Lincoln went to work to Abohtioni^e Srold Whi-^ party all over the State, pretending that he was then as good a Whig a ever a dl-umbull went to work in his part of the State pi-eachmg Aboh lonisin ' ^ •? -1? .nd lighter form and trying to Abolitionize the Democratic party, and Sii: ^Dci^ S hLlJjcSi:^ ,„ai.und hand and fi>ot inU. tlie Abdition camp. In pursuance of the arrangement, the parties met at Springheld m October, 1854, 68 and proclaimed their new platform. Lincoln was to bring into the Abolition camp the old line Whigs, and transfer them over to Giddings, Chase, Fred. Douglass, and Parson Lovejoy, who were ready to receive them and christen them in their new faith. Tliey laid down on that occasion a platform for their new Republican party, which was to be thus constructed. I have the resolutions of their State Convention then held, which was the hrst mass State Convention ever held in Ilhnois by the Black Republican party, and I now hold them in my hands and will read a part of them, and cause the others to be printed. Here are the most important and material resolutions of this Abolition platform : 1. Resolved, That we believe this truth to be self-evident, that when parties become subversive of the ends for which they are estaljlished, or incapable of restoring the Government to the true principles of the Constitution, it is the right and duty of the people to dissolve the political bauds by which they may have been connected therewith, and to organiz? new parties upon such princi- ples and with such views as the circumstances and exigencies of the nation may demand. 2. Resolved, That the times imperatively demand the reorganization of parties, and, repudiating all previous party attachments, names and predilections, we unite ourselves together in defense of the liberty and Constitution of the country, and will hereafter cooperate as the Republican party, pledged to the accomplishment of the following purposes : To bring the administration of the Government back to the control of first principles ; to restore Nebraska and Kansas to the position of free Territories ; tliat, as the Constitution of the United States vests ia the States, and not in Congress, the power to legislate for the extradition of fugitives from labor, to repeal and entirely abrogate the Fugitive Slave law ; to restrict slavery to those States in which it exists ; to prohibit the admission of any moie slave States into the Union ; to abolish slavery in the District of Co- lumbia ; to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the General Government has ex- clusive jurisdiction ; and to resist the acquirements of any more Territories unless the practice of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited. 3. Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles we will use such Constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office, under the General or State Government, who is not positively and fully committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal character and conduct is not a guaranty that he is reliable, and who shall not have abjured old party allegiance and ties. Now, gentlemen, your Black Republicans have cheered every one of those prop- ositions, and yet I venture to say tliat you cannot get Mr. Lincoln to come out and say that he is now in favor of each one of them. That these propositions, one and all, constitute the platform of the Black Republican party of this day, I have no doubt ; and when you were not aware for what purjjose I was reading them, your Black Republicans cheered them as good Black Republican doctrines. INIy object in reading these resolutions, was to put the question to Abraham Lincoln this day, whether he now stands and will stand by each article in that creed, and cany it out I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln to-day stands as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more slave States into the Union, even if the people want tliem. I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a Con- stitution as the people of that State may see fit to make. I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 1 desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade between the different States. I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, North as well as South of the Missouri Compromise line. I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the ac- quisition of any more territory unless slavery is prohibited therein. I want his an- swer to these questions. Your affirmative cheers in favor of this Abolition platform is not satisfactory. I ask Abraham Lincoln to answer these questions, in order that, when I trot him down to lower Egypt, I may put the same questions to him. My principles are the same everywhere. I can proclaim them alike in the North, the South, the East, and the West. My principles will apply wherever the Constitution prevails and the American flag waves. I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln's prin- ciples will bear transplanting from Ottawa to Jonesboro ? I put these questions to him to-day distinctly, and ask an answer. 1 have a right to an answer, for I quote 69 from the platform of the Republican party, made by himself and others at the time that party was formed, and the bargain made by Lincoln to dissolve and kill thM old Wliig party, and transfer its members, bound hand and foot, to the Abolition jjarty, under the direction of Giddings and Fred Douglass. In the remarks I have made on this platform, and the position of Mr. Lincoln upon it, I mean nothing personally disrespectful or unkind to that gentleman. I have known him for nearly twenty-five years. There were many points of sympathy between us when we first got ac- quainted. We were both comparatively boys, and both struggling with poverty in a strange land. I was a school-teacher in the town of Winchester, and he a flourishing grocery-keeper in the town of Salem. He was more successful in his occupation tlian I was in mine, and hence more fortunate in this world's goods. Lincoln is one of those peculiar men who perform with admirable skill everything which they un- dertake. 1 made as good a school-teacher as I could, and when a cabinet maker I made a good bedstead and tables, although my old boss said I succeeded better with bureaus and secretaries than with anything else ; but I believe that Lincoln was al- ways more successful in business than I, for his business enabled him to get into the Legislature. I met him there, however, and had a sympathy with him, because of the up-hill struggle we both had in life. He was then just as good at telling an anec- dote as now. He could beat any of the boys wrestling, or running a foot-race, in pitching quoits or tossing a copper; could ruin more liquor than all the boys of the town together, and the dignity and impartiality with which he presided at a horse- race or fist-fight, excited the admii-ation and won the praise of everybody that was present and participated. I sympathised with him, because he was struggling with difficulties, and so was I. Mr. Lincoln served with me in the Legislature in 1836, when we both retired, and he subsided, or became submerged, and he was lost sight of as a public man for some years. In 1846, when Wilmot introduced his celebrated proviso, and the Abolition tornado swept over the country, Lincoln again turned up as a member of Congress from the Sangamon district I was then in the Senate of the United States, and was glad to welcome my old friend and companion. Whilst in Congress, he distinguished himself by his opposition to the Mexican war, taking the side of the common enemy against his own country ; and when he returned home he found that the indignation of the people followed him everywhere, and he was again submerged or obliged to retire into private life, forgotten by his former friends. He cimie up again in 1854, just in time to make this Abolition or Black Republican platform, in company with Giddings, Lovejoy, Chase and Fred Douglas, for the Republican party to stand upon. Trumbull, too, was one of our own cotPnporaries. He was born and raised in old Connecticut, was bred a Federalist, but removing to Georgia, turned Nullifier, when nullification was popular, and as soon as he disposed of his clocks and wound up his business, migrated to Illinois, turned politician and lawyer here, and made his appearance in 1841, as a member of the Legislature. He became noted as the author of the scheme to repudiate a large portion of the State debt of Illinois, which, if successful, would have brought infamy and disgrace upon the fair escutcheon of our glorious State. The odium attached to that measure con- signed him to oblivion for a time. I helped to do it. I walked into a pubHc meet- ing in the hall of the House of Representatives, and rephed to his repudiating speeches, and resolutions were carried over his head denouncing repudiation, and as- serting the moral and legal obligation of Illinois to pay every dollar of the debt she owed and every bond that bore her seal. Trumbull's malignity has followed me since I thus defeated his infamous scheme. These two men having formed this combination to abolitionize the old Whig party and the old Democratic party, and put themselves into the Senate of the United States, in pursuance of their ba>gain, are now carrying out that arrangement. Matheny states that Trumbull broke faith ; that the bargain was that Lincoln should be the Senator in Shields's place, and Trumbull was to wait for mine ; and the story goes, that Trumbull cheated Lincoln, having control of four or five abolitionized Democrats who were holding over in the Senate ; he would not let them vote for 70 Lincoln, and which obliged the rest of the Abolitionists to support him in order to secure an Abolition Senator. There are a number of authorities for the truth of this besides Matheny, and I suppose that even Mr. Lincoln will not deny it. Mr. Lincoln demands that he shall have the place intended for Trumbull, as Trumbull cheated him and got his, and Trumbull is stumping the State traducing me for the purjjose of securing the position for Lincoln, in order to quiet him. It was in consequence of this arrangement that the Republican Convention was impan- neled to instruct for Lincoln and nobody else, and it was on this account that they passed resolutions that he was their first, their last, and their only choice. Archy Williams was nowhere, Browning was nobody, Wentworth was not to be considered ; they had no man in the Republican party for the place except Lincoln, for the reason that he demanded that they should carry out the arrangement. Having formed this new party for the benefit of deserters from Whiggery, and deserters from Democracy, and having laid down the Abolition platform which 1 have read, Lincoln now takes his stand and proclaims his Abolition doctrines. Let me read a part of them. In his speech at Springfield to the Convention, which nominated him for the Senate, he said : "In my opinion it will not cease until- a crisis shall have been reached and passed. *A house dividend against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure permanently half Slave and half Free. I do not expect the Union to be dis- solved — 1 do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to he divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction : or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States — old as well as new, North as well as South." ["Good," "good," and cheers.] I am delighted to hear you Black Republicans say "good." I have no doubt that doctrine expresses your sentiments, and I will prove to you now, if you will listen to me, that it is revolutionary and destructive of the existence of this C4overnment. Mr. Lincoln, in the extract from which I have read, says that this Government can- not endure permanently in the same condition in which it was made by its framers — divided into free and slave States. He says that it has existed for about seventy years thus divided, and yet he tells you that it cannot endure permanently on the same pru|ciples and in the same relative condition in which our fathers made it. Why carFit not exist divided into free and slave States ? Washington, Jefierson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and the great men of that day, made this Gov- ernment divided into free States and slave States, and left each State perfectly free to do as it pleased on the subject of slavery. Why can it not exist on the same principles on which our fathers made it ? They knew when they framed the Consti- tution that in a counti-y as wide and broad as this, with such a variety of climate, production and interest, the people necessarily required different laws and institutions in different localities. They knew that the laws and regulations which would suit the granite hills of New Hampshire would be unsuited to the rice plantations of South Carolina, and they, therefore, provided that each State should retain its own Legisla- ture and its own sovereignty, with the full and complete power to do as it pleased within its own limits, in all that was local and not national. One of the reserved rights of the States, was the right to regulate the relations betAveen Master and Servant, on the slavery question. At the time the Constitution was framed, there were thirteen States in the Union, tAvelve of wdiich were slaveholding States and one a free State. Suppose this doctrine of uniformity preached by Mr. Lincoln, that the States should all be free or all be slave had prevailed, and what would have been the result? Of course, the twelve slaveholding States would have overruled the one free State, and slavery would have been fastened by a Constitutional provision on every inch of the American Republic, instead of being left as our fathers wisely lefl it, to each State to decide for itself. Here I assert that uniformity in the local laws 71 and institutions of the different States is neither possible or desirable. If uniformity had been adopted when the Government was established, it must inevitably have been the unlforuiity of slavery everywhere, or else the uniformity of negro citizen- ship and negro equaUty everywhere. We ai-e told by Lincoln that he is utterly opposed to the Dred Scott decision, and will not submit to it, for the reason that he says it deprives the negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship. That is the first and main reason which he assigns for his warfare on the Supreme Court of the United States and its decision. I ask you, are you in favor of conferring upon the negro the rights and privileges of citizenship? Do you desire to strike out of our State Constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the State, and allow the free negroes to fioAv in, and cover your prairies with black settlements? Do you desire to turn this beautiful State into a free negro colony, in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send one liundi-ed thousand emancipated slaves into IlUnois, to become citizens and voters, on an equality with yourselves ? If you desire negro citizenship, if you desire to allow them to come into the State and settle with the white man, if you desire them to vote on an equality with yourselves, and to make them eligible to office, to serve on juries, and to adjudge your rights, then support Mr. Lhicohi and the Black Repub- lican party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the negro. For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this Government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the little Abolition orators, who go around and lecture in the basements of schools and churches, reads from the declaration of Independence, that all men were created equal, and then asks, how can you deprive a negro of that equality which God and the Declaration of Inde- pendence awards to him? He and they maintain that negro equality is guarantied by the laws of God, and that it is asserted in the Declaration of Independence. K they think so, of course they have a right to say so, and so vote. I do not question Mr. Lincoln's conscientious belief that the negro was made his equal, and hence is his brother ; but for my own part, I do not regard the negro as my equal, and posi- tively deny that he is my brother or any kin to me whatever. Lincoln has evidently learned by heart Parson Lovejoy's catechism. He can repeat it as well as Farns- worth, and he is worthy of a medal from Father Giddings and Fred Douglass for his Abolitionism. He holds that the negro was born his equal and yours, and that he was endowed with equality by the Almighty, and that no human law can deprive him of these rights which were guarantied to him by the Supreme ruler of the Uni- verse. Now, I'do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the wliite man. If he did, he has been a long time demonstrating the fact. For thousands of yeai-s the negro has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the race wliich he has there met. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position. I do not hold that because the negro is oar infei-ior that therefore he ought to be a slave. By no means can such a con- clusion be drawn from what I have said. On the contrary, I hold that humanity and Christianity both require that the negro shall have and enjoy every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety of the society in which he lives. °0n that point, I presume, there can be no diversity of opinion. You and I are bound to extend to our inferior and dependent beings every right, every privilege, every facility and immunity consistent with the pubhc good. The question then arises, what rights and privileges are consistent with the pubhc good ? This is a qu&stion which each State and each Territory must decide for itself— Illinois has decided it for herself. We have provided that the negro shall not be a slave, and we haA e also provided that he shall not be a citizen, but protect him in his civil 72 rights, in his life, his person and his property, only depriving him of all political rights whatsoever, and refusing to put him on an equality with the white man. That policy of Illinois is satisfactory to the Democratic party and to me, and if it were to the Repuhlicans, there would then be no question upon the subject ; but the Repub- licans say that he ought to be made a citizen, and when he becomes a citizen he becomes your equal, with all your rights and privileges. They assert the Dred Scott decision to he monstrous because it denies that the negro is or can be a citizen under the Constitution. Now, I hold that Illinois had a right to abolish and pro- hibit slavery as she did, and I hold that Kentucky has the same right to continue and protect slavet-y that Illinois had to abolish it, I hold that New York had as much right to abolish slavery as Virginia has to continue it, and that each and every State of this Union is a sovereign power, with the right to do as it pleases upon this ques- tion of slavery, and upon all its domestic institutions. Slavery is not the only ques- tion which comes up in this controversy. There is a far mor-^* important one to you, and that is, what shall be done with the free negro ? We have settled the slavery question as far as we are concerned ; we have pi'ohibited it in Illinois forever, and in doing so, I think we have done wisely, and there is no man in the State who would be more strenuous in his opposition to the introduction of slavery than I would ; but when we settled it for ourselves, we exhausted all our power over that subject. We have done our whole duty, and can do no more. We must leave each and every other State to decide for itself the same question. In relation to the policy to be pursued toward the free negroes, we have said that they shall not vote ; whilst Maine, on the other hand, has said that they shall vote. Maine is a sovereign State, and has the power to regulate the qualifications of voters within her limits. I would never consent to confer the right of voting and of citizenship upon a negro, but still I am not going to quari'el with Maine for diffei-ing from me m opinion. Let Maine take care of her own negroes and fix the qualifications of her own voters to suit her- self, without interfering with Illinois, and Ilhnois will not interfere with Maine. So with the State of New York. She allows the negro to vote provided he owns two hundred and fifty dollars' worth of property, but not otherwise. While I would not make any distinction whatever between a negro who held property and one who did not ; yet if the sovereign State of New York chooses to make that distinction it is her business and not mine, and I will not quarrel with her for it. She can do as she pleases on this question if she minds her own business, and we will do the same thing. Now, my friends, if we will only act conscientiously and rigidly upon this great prin- ciple of popular sovereignty, which guaranties to each State and Territory the right to do as it pleases on all things, local and domestic, instead of Congress interfering, we will continue at peace one with another. Why should Illinois be at war with Missouri, or Kentucky with Ohio, or Virginia with New York, merely because their Institutions difi'er? Our fathers intended that our institutions should differ. They knew that the North and the South, having different climates, productions and intex'ests, required different institutions. This docti'ine of Mr. Lincoln, of uniformity among the institutions of the different States, is a new doctrine, never di'eamed of by Washington, Madison, or the framers of this Grovernment. Mr. Lincoln and the Republican party set themselves up as wiser than these men who made this Govern ment, which has flourished for seventy years under the principle of popular sovereignty, recognizing the right of each State to do as it pleased. Under that principle, we have grown from a nation of three or four millions to a nation of about thirty millions of people ; we have crossed the Allegheny mountains and filled up the whole North-west, turning the prairie into a garden, and building up churches and schools, thus spreading civilization and Christianity where before there was nothing but savage barbarism. Under that principle we have become, from a feeble nation, the most powerful on the face of the earth, and if we only adhere to that principle, we can go forward increasing in territory, in power, in strength and in glory until the Republic of America shall be the North Star that shall guide the friends of freedom thi'oughout the civilized world. And why can we not adhere to the great principle 73 of self-government, upon which our institutions were originally based? I believe that this new doctrine preached by Mr. Lincohi and his party will dissolve the Union if it succeeds. They are trying to array all the Northern States in one body against tlie South, to excite a sectional war between the free States and the slave States, in order that the one or the other may be driven to the wall. I am told that my time is out. Mr. Lincoln will now address you for an hour and a half, and I will then occupy an half hour in replying to him. MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY. Mr Fellow-citizens : When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented. it provokes him — at least, I find it so with myself; but when misrepresentation be- comes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him. The first thing I see fit to notice, is the fact that Judge Douglas alleges, after running through the history of the old Democratic and the old Whig parties, that Judge Trumbull and myself made an arrangement in 1854, by which I was to have the place of Gen. Shields in tlie United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull was to have the place of Judge Douglas. Now, all I have to say upon that subject is, that I think no man — not even Judge Douglas — can prove it, because it is not true. I have no doubt he is " conscientious " in saying it. As to those resolutions that he took such a length of time to read, as being the platform of the Repubhcan party in 1854, I say I never had anything to do with them, and I think Trumbull never had. Judge Douglas cannot show that either of us ever did have anything to do with them. I believe this is true about those resolutions : There was a call for a Convention to form a Republican party at Springfield, and I think that my friend, Mr. Lovejoy, who is here upon this stand, had a hand in it. I think this is true, and I think if he will remember accurately, he will be able to recollect that he tried to get me into it, and I would not go in. I believe it is also true that I went away from Springfield when the Convention was in session, to attend court in Tazewell county. It is true they did place my name, though without authority, upon the committee, and afterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the committee, but I refused to do so, and I never had anything to do with that organization. This is the plain truth about all that matter of the resolutions. Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells of Trumbull bargaining to sell out the old Democratic party, and Lincoln agreeing to sell out the old Whig party, I have the means of knowing about that; Judge Douglas cannot have; and I know there is no substance to it whatever. Yet I have no doubt he is " conscientious " about it. I know that after Mr. Lovejoy got into the Legislature that winter, he complamed of me that I had told all the old Whigs of his district that the old Whig party was good enough for them, and some of them voted against him because I told them so. Now, I have no means of totally disproving such charges as this which the Judge makes. A man cannot prove a negative, but he has a right to claim that when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to show the truth of what he says. I certainly cannot introduce testimony to show the negative about things, but I have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, th(;n he must show how he knows it. I always have a right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be " conscientious " on the subject. Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on such thmgs, but in regard to that general Abolition tilt that Judge Douglas makes, when he saj'S that I was engaged at that thiie ui selling out and abolitionizing the old Whig party — I hope you will permit me to read a part of a printed speech that I made then at Peoria, which will show altogether a difierent view of the position I took in that contest of 1854. Voice — '■ Put on your specs." 74 Mr. Lincoln— Yes, sir, I am obliged to do so. I am no longer a young man. " This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.* The foregoing liistory may not be precisely accurate in every particular; but I am sure it is sufficiently so for all the uses I shall attempt to make of it, and in it we have before us, the chief ma- tei ials enabling us to correctly judge whether the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is right or wrong. " i think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong ; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas mid Nebraska — and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world, where men can be found inclined to tyke it. '•Tliis declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the S])read of slavery, 1 cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of sla- very itself I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world — enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as h}'pocrites — causes the real Iriends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and espe- cially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty — criticising the Declaration of Inde{)endence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self- interest. " Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just Avhat we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances ; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tip-top Abolitionists ; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters. . . " When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origm of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia — to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days ; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to cai-ry them there in many times ten days. What then ? Free them all, and keep them among us as undeilings ? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition ? I think I would not hold'one in slavery at any rate ; yet the point is not clear enough to me to de- nounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them pohtically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of fhe great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that svstems of gradual emancipation might be adopted ; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South. " When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly ; and I would give them any legislation for the re- claiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely »This extract from Mr. Lincoln's Peoria speech of 1854, was read by him in the Ottawa debate, but was not reported fully or accurately in either the Times or Presa and Tribune. It is inserted now as necessary to a com' plete report of the debate. 75 to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one. . . , " But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permittmg slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade hy law. Tlie law which forhids the bringing of slaves /'om Africa, and that which has so long tbrbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral^'principle ; and the repeal of the former could lind quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter." t i • i i i I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knoivs that I said this. 1 think he has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechise me unless he pays back for it in kind. I will not answer questions one after another, unless he reciprocates ; but as he has made this inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has got it without my getting anything in return. He has got my answer on the Fugitive Slave law. Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this is the true com- plexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and politii-al equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with tlie institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful rii^ht to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to in- troduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difterence between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably for- ever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a dilference, I, as well as Judge Doug- la-s, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enu- merated in the Declaration of Lidependence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the wlnte man. _ I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects — certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is vuj equal and the eqiial of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. Now I pass on to consider one or two more of these little folUes. The Judge is wofuUy at fault about his early friend Lincoln being a " grocery-keeper." I don't know as it would be a great sin, if I had been ; hut he is mistaken. Lincoln never kept a grocery anvwhere in the world. It is true that Lincoln did work the latte,r part of one winter in a little still-house, up at the head of a hollow. And so I thmk my friend, the Judge, is equally at fauU when he charges me at the time when I was in Congress of having opposed our soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican war. The Judge did not make his charge very distinctly, but I can tell you what he can prove, by referring to the record. You remember I was an old Whig, and whenever the Democratic party tried to get me to vote that the war had been right- eously begun by the President, I would not do it. But whenever they asked for any money, or land-warrants, or anything to pay the soldiirs there, during all that time, I o-ave the same vote that Judge Douglas did. You can think as you i)lease as to wl'iether that was consistent. Such is the truth ; and the Judge has the_ right to make all he can out of it. But when he, by a general charge, conveys the idea that I withheld supphes from the soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican war, or did anything else to hinder the soldiers, he is, to say the least, grossly and altogether mistaken, as a consultation of the records will prove to him. As I have not used up so much of my time as I had supposed, I will dwell a little lonoer upon one or two of these mmor topics upon which the Judge has spoken. He has read from my speech in Springfield, in which I say that " a house divided 76 against itwlf cannot stand." Does the Judge say it can stand? I don't know whether he does or not. The Judge does not seem to be attending to me just now, but 1 would hke to know if it is his opinion that a house divided against itself can stand. If he does, then there is a question of veracity, not between him and me, but between the Judge and an authority of a somewhat higher character. Now, my friends, I ask your attention to this matter for the pui-pose of sayin.^ somethmg seriously. I know that the Judge may readily enough a^ree with me that the maxim which was put forth by the Saviour is true, but he nmy alle- about a dead uniformity in the various States, in all their institutions, he argues errone- ously. The great variety of the local institutions hi the States, sprin(^in<^ from dif- ferences in the soil, differences in the face of the country, and in the climate, are bonds of Union. They do not make " a house divided against itself," but they make a house united. If they produce in one section of the country what is called for by the wants of another section, and this other section can supplv the wants of the first they are not matters of discord but bonds of union, true bonds of union. But can this question of slavery be considered as among these varieties in the institution^ of the country? I leave it to you to say whether, in the history of our Government this institution of slavery has not always failed to be a bond of union, and, on the contrary, been an apple of discord, and an element of division in the house. I a.sk you to consider whether, so long a,s the moral constitution of men's minds shall con- tinue to be the same, after this generation and assemblage shall sink into the grave and another race shall arise, with the same moral and intellectual development we have— whether, if that institution is standing in the same irritating position in whirli It now IS, it will not continue an element of division ? If so, then I have a rio-ht to say that, in regard to this question, the Union is a house divided a^^ainst itself"^ and when the Judge reminds me that I have often said to him that the institution of slavery has existed for eiglity years in some States, and yet it does not exist in some others, I agree to the fact, and I account for it by looking at the position in which our fathers originally placed it— restricting it from the new Territories where it had not gone, and legislating to cut off its source by the abrogation of the slave-trade thus putting the seal of legislation against its spread. The public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. But lately, I think— and in this I charge nothing on the Judge's motives— lately. I think, that he, and tho slavery perpetual and universal in this nation. Having made that spc-eh principally for 'that object, after arranging the evidences that I thought tended to prove my i.mposition, I con- cluded with this bit of comment : " We cannot absolutely know that these exact adaptations ar(> the result of pre- concert, but when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different time'; and places, and by different workmen- Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance— and when we see the^^e timber* joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to th.nr respective places, and not a j.ifc.^ too many or too few— not omittmg even the scaffolding— or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place m the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such jjiece in— in such a c^e we feel it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin, and Rooer and James, all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon at^mmon ])lan or draft drawn before the first blow was struck." When my friend, Judg^-, Douglas, cainfe to Chicago, on the !»th of July, this speech having been delivered on the l(5th of June, he made an harangue there, in which he ook hold of this speech of mine, showing that he had carefully read it; and while he paid no attention to this matter at all, but complimented me as beimr a "kind amiable and intelligent gmtleman," notwithstanding I had said this, he g°oes on and 6 78 eliminates, or draws out, from my speech this tendency of mine to set the States at war with one another, to make all the institutions uniform, and set tiie niggers and white people to marrying together. Then, as tlie Judge had complimented me with tliese pleasant titles (I must confess to my weakness), I was a httle " taken," for it came from a great man. I was not very much accustomed to flattery, and it came the sweeter to me. I was rather like the Hoosier, witli the gingerbread, when he said he reckoned he loved it better than any other man, and got less of it. As the Judge had so Hattered me, I could not make up my mind that he meant to deal un-__ fairly with me ; so I went to work to show him that he misunderstood the whole scope of my speech, and that I really never intended to set the people at war with one another. As an illustration, the next time 1 met hhn, which was at Springfield, I used this expression, that I claimed no right under the Constitution, nor had I any inclination, to enter into the slave States and interfere with the institutions of slavery He says upon that : Lincoln will not enter into the slave States, but will go to the banks of the Ohio, on this side, and shoot over ! He runs on, step by step, in the horse-chestnut style of argument, until in the Springfield speech he says, " Unless he shall be successful in tiring his batteries, until he shall Imve extinguished slavery in all the States, the Union shall be dissolved." Now 1 don't think that was exactly the way to treat "a kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman." I know if I had asked the Judge to show when or where it was 1 had said that, if I didn't succeed in tiring into the slave States until slavery should be extinguished, the Union should be dissolved, he could not have shown it. I understand what he would do. He would say, " I don't mean to quote from you, but this was the result of what you say." But 1 have the right to ask, and 1 do ask now, Did you not put it in such a form that an ordi- nary reader or listener would take it as an expression from me ? In a speech at Springfield, on the night of the 17th, 1 thought I might as well at- tend to my own business a little, and I recalled his attention as well as 1 could to this charge of conspiracy to nationalize slavery. I called his attention to tlie fact that he had acknowledged, in my hearing twice, that he had car.^fiilly read the speech, and, in the language of the lawyers, as he had twice read the speech, and still had put in no plea or answer, I took a default on him. I insisted tliat 1 had a right then to renew that charge of conspiracy. Ten days afterward I met the Judge at Clinton— that is to say, I was on the ground, but not in the discussion — and heard him make a speech. Then he comes in with his plea to this charge, for the first time, and his plea when put in, as well as I can recollect it, amounted to this : that he never had any talk with Judge Taney or the President of the United States with regard to the Dred Scott decision before it was made. I (Lincoln) ought to know that the man who makes a charge without knowmg it to be true, fiilMfies as much as he who know- ingly tells a falsehood ; and lastly, that he would pronounce the whole thing a false- hood ; but he would make no personal apphcation of the charge of falsehood, not because of any regard for the " kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman," but because of his own personal self-respect ! I have understood since then (but [turning to Judge Douglas] will not hold the Judge to it if he is not willing) that he has broken tlu-ough the *' self-respect," and has got to saying the thing out. The Judge nods to me tluit it is so. It is fortunate for me that I can keep as good-humored as I do, when the Judge acknowledges that he has been trying to make a question of veracity with me. I know the Judge is a great man, while I am only a small man, but I feel that I have got him. I demur to that plea. I waive all objections that it was not filed till after detiuilt was taken, and demur to it upon the merits. What if Judge Dou<^las never did talk with Chief Justice Taney and the President, before the Dred Scott decision was made, does it follow that he could not have had as perfect an un- derstanding without talking as with it ? I am not disposed to stand upon my legal advantage." I am disposed to take Ms denial as being like an answer in chancery, that he neither had any knowledge, information or belief in the existence of such a conspiracy I am disposed to take his answer as being as broad as though he had put it in these words. And now, I ask, even if he had done so, have not I a right 79 to prove it on him, and to offer the evidence of more than two witnesses, by whom to prove it ; and if the evidence proves the existence of the conspiracy, does his broad answer denying all knowledge, information, or belief, disturb the fact ? It can only show that he was used by conspirators, and was not a leader of them. Now, in regard to his reminding me of the moral rule that persons who tell what they do not know to be true, falsify as much as those who knowingly tell lalsehooda. I remember the rule, and it must be borne in mind that in what 1 have read to you, I do not say that I hiow such a conspiracy to exist. To that I reply, / believe it. If the Judge says that I do 7iot believe it, then he says what he does not know, and falls within his own rule, that he who asserts a thing wliich he does not know to be true, falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood. I want to call your attention to a httle discussion on that branch of the case, and the evidence which brought my mind to the conclusion which I expressed as my belief. If, in arraying that evidence, I had stated anything which was false or erroneous, it needed but that Judge Douglas should point it out, and I would have taken it back with all the kind- ness in the world. I do not deal in that way. If I have brought forward anything not a fact, if he will point it out, it will not even ruffle me to take it back. But if he will not point out anything erroneous in the evidence, is it not rather for him to show, by a comparison of the evidence, that I have reasoned falsely, than to call the "kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman " a liar ? If I have reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vocation of an able debater to show by argument that I have wandered to an erroneous conclusion. I want to ask your attention to a portion of the Nebraska bill, which Judge Douglas has quoted : " It being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery mto any Territory or State, nor to exclude it there- from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domes- tic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Thereupon Judge Douglas and others began to argue in favor of '■ Popular Sovereignty" — the right of the people to have slaves if they wanted them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want them. " But," said, in substance, a Senator from Oliio (Mi\ Chase, I believe), "we moi'e than suspect that you do not mean to allow the people to exclude slavery if they wish to, and if you do mean it, accept an amendment which I propose expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery." I believe I have the amendment here before me, which was offered, and under which the people of the Territory, through their proper representatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein. And now I state it as a fact, to be taken back if there is any mistake about it, that Judge Douglas and those acting with him looted that amendment down. I now think that those men who voted it down, had a real reason for doing so. They know what that reason was. It looks to us, since we have seen the Dred Scott decision pronounced, holding that, " under the Constitution," the people cannot exclude slavery — I say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, " amiable, intelligent gentlemen," as though the niche was left as a place to put that Dred Scott decision in — a niche which would have been spoiled by adopting the amendment. And now, I say again, if this was not the reason, it will avail the Judge much more to calmly and good-humoredly point out to these people Avhat that other reason was for voting the amendment down, than, swelling himself up, to \o- eiferate that he may be provoked to call somebody a liar. Again : there is in that same quotation from the Nebraska bill this clause — "It being the true intent and meaning of this bill not to legislate slavery into any Terri- tory or State." I have always been puzzled to know what business the word "State" had in that connection. Judge Douglas knows. He, pvt it there. He knows Avliat he put it there for. We outsiders cannot say what he put it there for. The law they were passing was not about S^p' s, and was not making provisions for States. What was it placed there for ? Ai^er seeing the Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people cannot exclude slavery from a Territory, if another Di'ed Scott de- cision shall come, holding that they cannot exclude it from a State, we shall discover that when the word was originally put there, it was in view of something which was 80 to come in due time, we sliiill see that it was the other lialf of something. I now say again, if there is any different reason for putting it there, Judge Douglas, in a good- humored way, without calhng anybody a liar, can tell what the reason was. When the Judge spoke at CHnton, he came very near making a charge of false- hood against me. He used, as I found it printed in a newspaper, which, I remember, was very nearly like the real speech, the following language : "I did not answer the charge [of conspiracy] before, for the reason that I did not suppose there was a man in America with a heart so corrupt as to believe such a churge could be true. I have too much respect for Mr. Lincoln to suppose he is se- rious in making the charge." I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of respect for me he should con- sider I wa> making what I deemed rather a grave cliargein fun. I confess it strikes me rather strangely. But I let it pass. As the Judge did not fur a moment believe tliat tliere was a man in America whose heart was so " corrupt " as to make such a «!harge, and as he jalaces me among the "men in America" who have hearts base enough to make such a charge, I hope he will excuse me if I hunt out another charge very like this; and if it should turn out that in hunting I should find that other, and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas himself who made it, I hope he will recon- sider this question of the deep corruption of heart he has thought lit to ascribe to me. In Judge Douglas's speech of March 22d, 1858, which I hold in my hand, he says: " In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of newspapers, or notice the articles which tliey publish in regard to myself; but the course of the Washington Union has been so extraordinary, for the last two or three months, that I think it well enough to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of the Democratic party every other day, at least for two or three months, and keeps reading me out, and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues to i-ead me out, usuig such terms as " traitoi'," "renegade," "deserter," and other kind and polite epithets of that nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my De- mocracy against the Washington Union, or any other newspapers. I am willing to allow my history and action for the last twenty years to speak for themselves as to my political j)rinciples, and my fidelity to political obligations. The Washington Union has a personal grievance. When its editor was nominated for public printer I declined to vote for him, and stated that at some time I might give my reasons for doing so. Since I declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abu.-e, these vindictive and constant attacks have been repeated almost daily on me. Will my friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude r " Tliis is a part of the speech. You must excuse me from reading the entire article of the Washington Union, as Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. Douglas. The Judge goes OH and sums up, as 1 think, coi'rectly: " Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly by the Washington Union editoiially, and apparently authoritatively, and any man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abohtionist, a Freesoiler, a fanatic The propositions are, first, that the primary object of all government at its original institution is the protection of person and property; second, that the Constitution of the, Unitt;d States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States ; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, ^\'hetlIer organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of oue State from settUng in another with their slave property, and especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of the Government and (yonstltution of the United States ; and, foui'fh, that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northcirn States was a gross outrage v, *he rights of property, inasmuch as it v;as involuntarily done on the part of the ownu*. " Remember that this article was published in the Union on tlie 17th of Novem- ber, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesion of the Uiion to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words : • 81 "'Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed question is settled. The prob- lem is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas aftairs is over and gone' — " And a column, nearly, of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put forth editorially in the Union. What is it '^ "'Article 7, Section 1. The right of proi)erty is before and higher than any Constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slav-:; and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever.' " Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be amended aftor 1864 by a two-thirds vote. " ' But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the ownership of slaves.' " It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution, that they are identical in spirit with the authoritative article in the Washington Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution." I pass over some portions of the speech, and I hope that any one wdio feels inter- ested in this matter will read the entire section of the speech, and see whether I do the Judge injustice. He proceeds : " When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was sl fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union." I stop the quotation there, again requesting that it may all be read. I have read all of the portion I desire to comment upon. What is this charge that the Judge thinks I must have a very corrupt heart to make ? It was a purpose on the part of certain high functionaries to make it impossible for the people of one State to pro- hibit the people of any other State from entering it with their "property," so called, and making it a slave State. In other words, it was a charge implying a design to make the institution of slavery national. And now I ask your attention to what Judge Douglas has himself done here. I know he made that part of the speech as a reason why he had refused to vote for a certain man for public printer, but when we get at it, tlie charge itself is the very one I made against him, that he thinks I am so corrupt for uttering. Now, whom does he make that charge against ? Does he make it against that newspaper editor merely ? No ; he says it is identical in spirit with the Lecompton Constitution, and so the framers of that Constitution are brought in with the editor of the newspaper in that "fatal blow being struck." He did not call it a " conspiracy." In his language it is a " fatal blow being stnick." And if the words carry the meaning better when changed from a " conspiracy " into a " fatal blow being* struck," I will change my expression and call it " fatal blow being struck." We see the charge made not merely against the editor of the Union, but all the framers of the Lecompton Constitution; and not only so, but the article was an authoritative article. By whose authority ? Is there any question but he means it was by the authority of the President and his Cabinet — the Administration ? Is there any sort of question but he means to make that charge ? Then there are the editors of the Union, the framers of the Lecompton Constitution, the President of the United States and his Cabinet, and all the supporters of the Lecompton Con- stitution, in Congress and out of Congress, who are all involved in this " fatal bUiw being struck." I commend to Judge Douglas's consideration the question of how corrupt a tnan's heart tnust be to make such a charge ! Now, my friends, I have but one branch of the subject, in the little time I have left, to which to call your attention, and as I shall come to a close at the end of that branch, it is probable that I shall not occupy quite all the time allotted to me. Al- though on these questions I would like to talk twice as long as I have, I could not 82 enter upon another head and discuss it properly without running over my time. 1 ask the attention of the people here assembled and elsewhere, to the course that Judge Douglas is pursuing every day as bearing upon this question of making slavery national. Not going back to the records, but taking tJie speeches he makes, the speeches he made yesterday and day before, and makes constantly all over the coun- tiy^ — I ask your attention to them. In the first place, wnat is necessary to make the institution national? Not war. There is lo danger that the people of Kentucky will shoulder their muskets, and, with a young nigger stuck on every bayonet, march into Illinois tmd force them upon us. There is no danger of our going over there and making war upon them. Then what is necessary for the nationalization of sla- very? It is simply the next Dred Scott decision. It is merely for the Suj^reiue Coui't to decide that no State under the Constitution can exclude it, just as they have already decided that under tlie Constitution neither Congress nor the Territorial Leg- islature can do it. When that is decided and acquiesced in, the whole thing is done. This being true, and this being the way, as I think, that slavery is to be made na- tional, let us consider what Judge Douglas is doing every day to that end. In the first place, let us see what influence he is exerting on public sentiment. In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail ; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sen- timent, goes deeper than he wlio enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed. Tliis must be borne in mind, as also the additional fact that Judge Douglas is a man of vast influence, so great that it is enough for many men to profess to believe anything, when they once find out that Judge Douglas professes to believe it. Consider also the attitude he occupies at the head of a large party — a party which he claims has a majority of all the voters in the country. This man sticks to a decision which forbids the jieople of a Territory from excluding slavery, and he does so not because he says it is right in itself — he does not give any opinion on that — but because it has been decided by the court, and being decided by the court, he is, and you are bound to take it in your po- litical action as laio — not that he judges at all of its merits, but because a decision of the court is to him a " Thus saith the Lord." He places it on that ground alone, and you will bear in mind that, thus committing himself unreservedly to this decis- ion, commits him to the next one just as firmly as to this. He did not commit him- self on account of the merit or demerit of the decision, but it is a Thus saith the Lord. The next decision, as much as tliis, will be a 2'hus saith the Lord. There is nothing tliat can divert or turn him away from this decision. It is nothing that I point out to him that his great prototype, Gen. Jackson, did not believe in the bind- ing force of decisions. It is nothing to him that Jetferson did not so believe. I have said that I have often heard him approve of Jackson's course in disregarding the de- cision of the Sup!-eme Court j)ronouncing a National Bank constitutionah He says, I did not hear liim say so. He denies the accuracy of my recollection. I say he ought to know better than I, but I will make no question about this thing, though it still seems to me that I heard him say it twenty times. I will tell him though, that he now claims to stand on the Cincinnati platform, which affirms that Congress can- not charter a National Bank, in the teeth of tliat old standing decision that Congress can charter a bank. And I remind him of another piece of history on tlie question of respect for judicial decisions, and it is a piece of Illinois history, belonging to a time when the large party to which Judge Douglas belonged, were displeased with a decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois, because they had decided that a Governor could not remove a Secretary of State. You will find the whole story in Ford's History of Illinois, and I know that .Judge Douglas will not deny that he was then in favor of overslaughing that decision by the mode of adding five new Judges, so as to vote down the four old ones. Not only so, but it ended in the Judge's sitting down on that very bench as one of the five new Judges to break down the four old ones. It was in this way precisely that he got his title of Judge. Now, when the Judge tells me tliat men appointed conditionally to sit as members of a court, will 83 have to be catechised beforehand upon some subject, I saj, "You know, Judge ; you have tried it." When he gays a court of this kind will lose the confidence of all men, will be prostituted and disgraced by such a proceeding, I say, " You know- best, Judge ; you have been thi'oiigh the mill." But I cannot shake Judge Doug- las's teeth loose from the Dred Scott decision. Like some obstinate animal (I mean no disrespect), that will hang on when he has once got his teeth iixed ; you may cut off a leg, or you may tear away an arm, still he will not relax his hold. And so I may point out to the Judge, and say that he is bespattered all over, from the begin- ning of his political life to the present time, with attacks upon judicial decisions — I may cut off hmb after limb of his public record, and strive to wrench him from a single dictum of the court — yet I cannot divert him from it. He hangs, to the last, to the Dred Scott decision. These things show there is a purpose strong as death and eternity for which he adheres to this decision, and for which he will adhere to all other decisions of the same court. A Hibernian — " Give us something besides Drid Scott." Mr. Lincoln — Yes ; no doubt you want to hear something that don't hurt. Now, having spoken of the Dred Scott decision, one more word and I am done. Henry Clay, my beau ideal of a statesman, the man for whom I fouglit all my humble life — Henry Clay once said of a class of men who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation, that they must, if they would do this, go back to the era of our Independence, and muzzle the cannon which thunders its annual joyous re- turn ; they must blow out the moral lights around us ; they must penetrate the hu- man soul, and eradicate there the love of liberty ; and then, and not till then, could they perpetuate slavery in this country! To my thinking, Judge Douglas is, by his example and vast influence, doing that very thing in this community, when he says that the negro has nothing in the Declaration of Independence. Henry Clay plainly understood the contrary. Judge Douglas is going back to the era of our Revolution, and to the extent of his ability, muzzling the cannon which thunders its annual joy- ous return. When he invites any people, Avilling to have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us. When he says he " cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up" — that it is a sacred right of self-government — he is, in ray judgment, penetrating the human soul and eradi'-ating the light of rea- s^>n aiul the love of liberty in this American people. Aud now I will only say that when, by all these means and appliances. Judge Douglas sliall succeed in bringing public sentiment to an exact accordance with his own views — wlien these vast assem- blages shall echo back all these sentiments — when they shall come to repeat his views ancf to avow his principles, and to say all that he says on these mighty questions — then it needs only the Ibrmality of the second Dred Scott decision, which he indorses in advance, to make slavery alike lawful m aU the States — old as well as new, North ss well as South. My friends, that ends the chapter. The Judge can take his 'half hour. MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. Fellow-citizens : I will now occupy the half hour allotted to me in replying to Mr. Lincoln. The first point to which I will call your attention is, as to what I said about the organization of the Republican party in 1854, and the platform that was formed on the fifth of October, of that year, and I will then put the question to Mr. Lincoln, whether or not, he approves of each article in that platform, and ask for a specific answer. I did not charge him witli being a member of the committee which reported that platform. I charged that that platform was the platform of the Republican party adopted by them. The fact tliat it was the platform of the Repub- lican party is not denied, but Mr. Lincoln now says, that althougli hi? name was on the committee which reported it, that he does not think he was there, but thinks he 84 was in Tazewell, holding court. Now, I want to remind Mr. Lincoln that he was at Spriiigfield when that Convention was held and those resolutions adopted. The point I am going to remind Mr. Lincoln of is this : that after I had made my speech in 1854, during the fair, he gave me notice that he was going to reply to me the next day. I was sick at the time, but I staid over in Springfield to hear his re- ply and to reply to him. On that day this very Convention, the resolutions adopted by which I have read, was to meet in the Senate chamber. He spoke in the hall of the House ; and when he got through his speech — my recollection is distinct, and I shall never forget it — Mr. Codding walked in as I took the stand to reply, and gave notice that the Republican State Convention would meet instantly in the Senate chamber, and called upon the Republicans to retire there and go into this very Con vention, instead of remaining and listening to me. Li the first place, Mr. Lincoln was selected by the very men who made the Re- publican organization, on that day, to reply to me. He spoke for them and for tha< party, and he was the leader of the party ; and on the very day he made his speech in reply to me, preaching up this same doctrine of negro equality, under the Decla ration of Independence, this Republican party met in Convention. Another evidenc< that he was acting in cx^cert with them is to be found in the fact that that Conven tion waited an hour after its time of meeting to hear Lincoln's speech, and Codding one of their leading men, marched in the moment Lincoln got through, and gave no tice that they did not want to hear me, and would proceed with the business of th( Convention. Still 'another feet. 1 have here a newspaper printed at Springfield Mr. Lincoln's own town, in October, 1854, a few days afterward, publishing these resolutions, charging Mr. Lincoln with entertaining these sentiments, and trying to prove that they were also the sentiments of Mz-. Yates, then candidate for Congress. This has been published on Mr. Lincoln over and over again, and never before has he denied it. But, my friends, this denial of his that he did not act on the committee, is a miser- able quibble to avoid the main issue, which is, that this Republican platform declares in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. Has Lincoln an- swered whethfer he indorsed that or not ? I called his attention to it when I first ad- di-essed you, and asked him for an answer, and I then pi-edicted that he would not answer. How does he answer ? Why, that he was not on the committee that wrote the resolutions. I then repeated the next proposition contained in the resolutions, which was to restrict slavery in those States in which it exists, and asked him whether he indorsed it. Does he answer yes, or no ? He says in reply, " I was not on the committee at the time ; I was up in Tazewell." The next question I put to him was, whether he was in favor of prohibiting the admission of any more slave States into the Union. I put the question to him distinctly, whether, if the people of the Terri- tory, when they had sufficient population to make a State, should form their Consti- tution recognizing slavery, he would vote for or against its admission. He is a can- didate for the United States Senate, and it is possible, if he should be elected, that he would have to vote directly on that question. I asked him to answer me and you, whether he would vote to admit a State into the Union, with slavery or without it, as its own people might choose. He did not answer that question. He dodges that question al^o, under the cover that he was not on the Committee at the time, that he was not present when the platform was made. I want to know if he should hap- ijen to be in the Senate when a State applied for admission, with a Constitution acceptable to her own people, he would vote to admit that State, if slavery was one of its institutions. He avoids the answer. It is true he gives the Abohtionists to understand by a hint that he would not vote to admit such a State. And why ? He goes on to say that the man who would talk about giving each State the right to have slavery, or not, as it pleased, was akin to the man who would muzzle the guns which thundered forth the annual joyous return of the day of our independence. He says that that kind of talk is casting a blight on tlie gloi'y of this country. What is the meaning of that ? That he is not in favor 85 of each State to have the right of doing as it pleases on the slavery question? I will put the question to him again and again, and I intend to force it out of him. Then a"-ain this platform wliich was made at Springfield hy his own party, when he was its^cknowledged head, provides tliat Republicans will insist on the abolition of slavery in tiie District of Columbia, and I asked Lincoln specifically whether he agreed with them in that ? [" Did you get an answer ? "] He is afraid to answer it. He knows I will trot him down to Egypt. I intend to make him answer there, or 1 will show tlie people of Illinois that he does not intend to answer these questions. The Convention to which I have been alluding goes a little further, and pledges itself to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the General Government has exclusive jurisdiction north of 36 deg. 30 min., as well as South. Now I warit to k'low whether he approves that provision. I want him to answer, and when he does, I want to know his opinion on another point, which is, whether he will redeem the pled^re of this platform and resist the acquirement of any more territory unless sla- very°therein shall be forever prohibited. I want him to answer this last question. Each of the questions I have put to him are practical questions— questions ba.sed upon the fundamental principles of the Black Republican party, and I want to know whether he is the first, last, and only choice of a party with whom he does not agree in principle. He does not deny but that that principle was unanimously adopted by the Republican party ; he does not deny that the whole Republican party is pledged to it ; he does not deny tliat a man who is not faithful to it is faithless to the Repub- lican party ; and now I want to know whether that party is unanimously in favor of a man who does not adopt that creed and agree with them in their principles : 1 want to know whether the man who does not agree with them, and who is afraid to avow his differences, and who dodges the issue, is the first, last, and only choice ot the Republican party. ^ A voice — " How about the conspiracy ? , -o . .i i ,ft.,.^ Mr Doucrlas — Never mind, I will come to that soon enough. But the plattoim which I have read to you, not only lays down these principles, but it adds : Resoloed That in furtherance of these principles we will use such constitutional and law- ful 2 aas as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we w.il support no nan lor otfice, under the General or State Government, who is not positively and lully com- mUed to the support of these principles, and whose pc'rsonal character and conduct is not a guaranty that hJ is reliable, and who shall not have abjured old party allegiance and ties. Tlie Black Republican party stands pledged that they will never support Lincoln until he has pledged himself to that platform, but he cannot devise his answer; he has not made up his mind whether he will or not. He talked about everything else he could tliiiik of to occupy his hour and a half, and when he could not think of any- thing more to say, without an excuse for refusing to answer these questions, he sat down long before his time was out. _ In reUaion to Mr. Lincoln's charge of conspiracy against me, I ha.ve a w-ord to say. In his speecli to-day he quotes a playful part of his speech at Springfield, about Stephen, and James, and Franklin, and Roger, and says that I did not take exception to it I did not answer it, and he repeats it again. I did not take exception to this fioure of his. He has a right to be as playlul as he pleases in throwing his ar-nimeius together, and I will not object; but I did take objection to his second Sin-in-field speech, in which he stated that he intended his first speech as a charge of irruption or conspiracy against the Supreme Court of the United States, President Pierce President Buchanan, and myself. That gave the oftensive character to the chu-e' He then said that when he made it he did not know whether it was true or not but inasmuch as Judge Douglas had not denied it, although he had replied to the other parts of his speech three times, he repeated it as a charge of conspiracy against me thus chai-ing me with moral turpitude. When he put it in that form, I did say that ina^muciras he repeated the charge simply because I had not denied it, I would de.prive him of the opportunity of ever repeating it again, by declaring tbat it was, 86 in all its bearings, an infamous lie. He says he will repeat it until I answer his folly and nonsense, about Stephen, and Franklin, and Roger, and Bob, and James. He studied that out — prepared that one sentence witii the greatest care, committed it to memory, and put it in his first Springfield speech, and now he carries that speech around and reads tliat sentence to show how pretty it is. His vanity is w( unded because I will not go into that beautiful figure of his about the building of a house. All I have to say is, that I am not gi-een enough to let him make a charge wdiii h he acknowledges he does not know to be true, and then take up my time in answering it, when I know it to be false and nobody else knows it to hi true. I have not brought a charge of moral turpitude against him. When he, or any other man, brings one against me, instead of disproving it, I will say that it is a lie, and let him prove it if he can. I have lived twenty-five years in Illinois. 1 have served you with all the fidelity and ability which I possess, and Mr. Lincoln is at liberty to attack my public ac- tion, my votes, and my conduct ; but when he dares to attack my moral integrity, by a charge of conspiracy between myself. Chief Justice Taney and the Supreme Court, and two Presidents of tlie United States, I will repel it. Ml". Lincoln has not character enough for integi-ity and truth, merely on his own ipse dixit, to arraign President Buchanan, President Pierce, and nine Judges of the Supreme Court, not one of whom would be complimented by being put on an equal- ity with him. There is an unpardonable presumption in a man putting himself up before thousands of people, and pretending that his ijjse dixit, without proof, with- out fact and without truth, is enough to bring down and destroy the purest and best of living men. Fellow-citizens, my time is fast expiring ; I must pass on. Mr. Lincoln wants to know why I voted against Mr. Chase's amendment to the Nebraska bill. I will tell him. In the first place, the bill already conferred all the power which Congress had, by giving the people the whole power over the subject. Chase offered a proviso that they might abolish slavery, which by implication would convey the idea that they could prohibit by not introducing that institution. Gen. Cass asked him to mod- ify his amendment, so as to provide that the people might either prohibit or intro- duce slavery, and thus make it fair and equal. Chase refused to so modify his proviso, and then Gen. Cass and all the rest of us, voted it down. Those facts ap- pear on the journals and debates of Congress, where Mr. Lincoln found the charge, and if he had told the whole truth, there would have been no necessity for me to oc- cupy your time in explaining the mattex'. Mr. Lincoln wants to know why the word " State," as well as " Temtory," was put into the Nebraska bill ? I will tell him. It was put there to meet just such false arguments as he has been adducing. That fii'st, not only the people of the Territories should do as they pleased, but that when they come to be admitted as States, they should come into the Union with or without slavery, as the people de- termined. I meant to knock in the head this Abolition doctrine of Mr. Lincoln's, that there shall be no more slave States, even if the people want them. And it does not do for him to say, or for any other Black Republican to say, that there is nobody in favor of the doctrine of no more slave States, and that nobody wants to interfere with the right of the people to do as they please. What was the origin of the Mis- souri difficulty and the Missouri Compi-omise ? The people of Missouri formed a Constitution as a slave State, and asked admission into the Union, but the Freesoil party of the North being in a majority, refused to admit her because she had slavery as one of her institutions. Hence this first slavery agitation arose upon a State and not upon a Territory, and yet Mr. Lincoln does not know why the word State was placed in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The wliole Abolition agitation arose on that doctrine of prohibiting a State from coming in with Slavery or not, as it pleased, and that same doctrine is here in tliis Republican platform of 1854 ; it has never been repealed ; and every Black Republican stands pledged by that platform, never 87 to vote for any man who is not in favor of it. Yet Mr. Lincoln does not know that there is a man in the world who is in favor of preventing a State from coming in as it pleases, notwithstanding. The Springfield platform says that they, the Repub- lican party, will not allow a State to come in under such circumstances. He is an ignorant man. Now you see that upon these very points I am as far from bringing Mr. Lincom up to the line as I ever was before. He does not want to avow his principles. I do ~ ""^^ to avow mine, as clear as sunlight in mid-day. Democracy is founded upon the ciernal principle of right. The plainer these principles are avowed before the peo- ple, the stronger will be the support which they will receive. I only wish 1 had the pov\er to make them so clear that they would shine in the heavens for every man, woman, and child to read. The first of those principles that I would proclaim would be in opposition to Mr. Lincoln's doctrine of uniformity between the different States, and I would declare instead the sovereign right of each State to decide the slavery question as well as all other domestic questions for themselves, without interference from any other State or power whatsoever. When that principle is recognized, you will have peace and harmony and frater nal feeling between all the States of this Union ; until you do recognize that doo trine, there will be sectional warfixre agitating and distracting the countiy. What does Mr. Lincoln propose ? He says that the Union cannot exist divided into free and slave States. If it cannot endure thus divided, then he must strive to make them all free or all slave, Avhich will inevitably bring about a dissolution of the Union. Gentlemen, I am told that my time is out, and I am obliged to stop. SECOND JOINT DEBATE, AT FREEPORT, August 27, 1858. MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : On Saturday last. Judge Douglas and myself first met in public discussion. He spoke one hour, I an hour and a half, and he replied for half an hour. The order is now reversed. I am to speak an hour, he an hour and a half, and then I am to reply for half an hour. I propose to devote myself during the first hour to the scope of what was brought within the range of his half- hour speech at Ottawa. Of course there was brought within the scope in that half- hour's speech something of his own opening speech. In the course of that opening a'srument Judge Douglas proposed to me seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech of an hour and a half, I attended to some other parts of his speech, and inci- dentally, as I thought, answered one of the interrogatories then. I then distinctly intimated to him that I would answer the rest of his interrogatories on condition only that he should agree to answer as many for me. He made no intimation at the time of the proposition, nor did he in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of mine. I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing with me as though I had refused to answer his interrogatories. I now pro- pose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will answer questions from me not exceeding the same numbei*. I give him an opportunity to resDond. The Judge remains silent. I now say that I will answer his interrogalo- ries, whether he answers mine or not ; and that after I have done so, I shall pro- pound mine to him. I have sui)posed myself, since the organization of the Republican party at Bloom- uigton, in May, 1856, bound as a party man by the platform:? of the party, then and since. If in any interrogatories which I shall answer 1 go be'yond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will be perceived that no one is responsible but myself. Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge's interrogatories as J. find them printed in the Chicago Times, and answer them seriatim. In order that there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my an- swers to' them. The first one of these interrogatoi'ies is in these words : Question 1. "I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law ?" Answer. I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. Q. 2. " I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more slave States into the Union, even if the people want them?" A. I do not now, or ever did, stand pledged agamst the admission of any more slave States into the Union. Q. 3. "I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a Constitution as the peo^ile of that State may see fit to make ? " A. I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union, with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make. Q. 4. "I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of sla- \ery in the District of Columbia?" A. I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. (^. 5. "I desire him to answer w^hether he stands pledged to the prohibition of ihe slave-trade between the different States?" A. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the dif- it-rent States. Q. 6. " I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all ihe Territories of the United States, North as well as South of the Missouri Com- promise line?" A. I am imphedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the right and duty of (jongress to prohibit slavery in all the United States Territories. Q. 7. "I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein?" A. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory ; and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly as I might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the slavery question among our- selves. Now, my friends, it will be perceived upon an examination of these questions and a.iswers, that so far I have only answered that I was not pledged to this, that or the other. The Judge has not framed his interrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and I have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and have an- swered truly that I am not pledged at all upon any of the points to which I have answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his interrogatory. I am rather disposed to take up at least some of these questions, and state what I really think upon them. As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive Slave law, I have never hesitated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Southei-n States are entitled to a Congressional Fu- gitive Slave law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the ex- isting Fugitive Slave law, further than that I think it should have been framed so as 89 / to be free from some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening its efficien- cy. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or moditication of that law, I Avould not be the man to introduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of slavery. "in regai-d to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more slave States into tiie Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceed- ingly sorry ever to be put in a position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another slave Stale admitted into the Union ; but I must add, that if slavery shall he kept out of the Territories during the territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adopt the Con- stitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave Constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, l)ut to admit them into the Union. The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second, it being, as I con- ceive, the same as the second. The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to that, I have my mind very distinctly made up. I should be exceed- ingly glad to see slavery abolished jn the District of Columbia. I beheve that Con- gress possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. Yet as a member of Congress, I should not with my present views, be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless it w^ould be upon these conditions : i^irs^,_that the abolition should be gradual. Second, that it should be on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in the District; and t/iird, that compensation should be made to un- willing owners. With tliese three conditions, I confess I would be exceedmgly glad to see°Congress abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and, in the language of Henry Clay, " sweep from our Capital that foul blot upon our nation." In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say here, that as to the question of the abolition of the slave-trade between the different States, I can truly answer, as I have, that I am pledged to nothing about it. It is a subject to which I have not given that mature consideration that would make me feel authorized to state a po- sition so as to hold myself entirely bound by it. In other words, that question has never been prominently enough before me to induce me to investigatt; whether we really have the constitutional power to do it. I could investigate it if I had sufficient time, to brinsj myself to a conclusion upon that subject ; but I have not done so, and I say so frankly to you here, and to Judge Douglas. I must say, however, that if I should be of opinion that Congress does possess the constitutional power to abolish the slave-trade among the ditferent States, I should still not be in favor of the exer- cise of that power unless upon some conservative principle as I conceive it, akin to what I have said in relation to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. My answer as to whether I desire that slavery should be prohibited in all the Ter- ritories of the United States, is full and explicit within itself, and cannot be made clearer by any comments of mine. So I suppose in regard to the question whether I am opposed to the acquisition of any more territory unless slavery is first prohib- ited therein, my answer is such that I could add nothing by way of illustration, or making myself better understood, than the answer which I have placed in writing. Now in all this, the Judge has rae, and he has me on the record. I suppose ho had flattered himself that I was really entertaining one set of opinion^ for one place and another set for another place— that I was afraid to say at one place what I ut- tered at another. What I am saying here I suppose I say to a va.4 audience as strono-ly tending to Abolitionism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I believe I am'saying that which, if it would be offensive to any pf^rsons and render them ene- mies to myself, would be oflfensive to persons in this audience. I now proceed to propound to the Judge the interrogatories, so far as I have framed them. I will bring forward a new installment when I get them ready. I will bring them forv/ard now, only reaching to number four. 90 The first one is : Question 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State Constitution, and ask admission into the Union under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the English bill — some ninety-three thousand — will you vote to admit them ? Q. 2. Can the people of a United States Territory, in any la%Yful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution ? Q. 3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that States cannot exi'lude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adopting and following such decision as a rule of jjolitical action? Q. 4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question ? As introductory to these interrogatories which Judge Douglas propounded to me at Ottawa, he read a set of resolutions which he said Judge Trumbull and myself had participated in adopting, in the first Republican State Convention, held at Spring- field, in October, 1854. lie insisted that I and Judge Trumbull, and perhaps the entire RepubUcan party, were responsible for the doctrines contained in the set of resolutions which he read, and I understand that it was from that set of resolutions that he deduced the interrogatories Avhich he propounded to me, using these resolu- tions as a sort of authority for propounding those questions to me. Now I say here to-day that I do not answer his interrogatories because of their springing at all from that set of resolutions which he read. I answered them because Judge Douglas thought fit to ask them. I do not now, nor never did, recognize any responsibility upon myself in that set of resolutions. When I replied to him on that occasion, I assured him that I never had anything to do with them. I repeat here to-day, that I never in any possible form had anything to do with that set of resolutions. It turns out, I believe, that those resolutions were never passed in any Convention held in Springfield. It turns out that they were never passed at any Convention or any public meeting that I had any part in. I believe it turns out in addition to all this, that there was not, in the fall of 1854, any Convention holding a session in Spring- field, calling itself a Republican vState Convention ; yet it is true there was a Con- vention, or assemblage of men calling themselves a Convention, at Springfield, that did pass some resolutions. But so little did I really know of the proceedings of that Convention, or Avhat set of resolutions they had passed, though having a general knowledge that there had been such an assemblage of men there, that when Judge Douglas read the resolutions, I really did not know but they had been the resolutions passed then and there. I did not question that they were the resolutions adopted. For I could not bring myself to suppose that Judge Douglas could say what he did upon this subject without knowing that it was true. I contented myself, on that oc- Jiision, with denying, as I truly could, all connection with them, not denying or affirm- ing whether they were passed at Springfield. Now it turns out that he had got hold of some resolutions passed at some Convention or public meeting in Kane county I Avish to say here, that I don't conceive that in any fair and just mind this discovery relieves me at all. I had just as much to do with the Convention in Kane county as tliat at Springfield. I am just as much responsible for the resolutions at Kane county as those at Springfield, the amount of the responsibility being exactly nothing in either case ; no more than there would be in regard to a set of resolutions passed in the moon. I allude to thisextraoi-dinary matter in this canvass for some further purpose than anything yet advanced. Judge Douglas did not make his statement upon that oc- casion as matters that he believed to be true, but he stated them roundly as beitiff true, in such form as to pledge his veracity for their truth. Wlien the wliole matter turns out as it does, and when we consider who Judge Douglas is — that he is a dis- tinguished Senator of the United States — that he has served nearly twelve years as 6uch — that his character is not at all limited as an ordinary Senator of the United 9t States, but that his name has become of world-wide renown — it is mos,, extraordinary that he should so far forget all the suggestions of justice to an adversary, or of pru dence to himself, as to venture upon the assertion of that which the slightest inves tip-ation would have shown hun to be wholly false. I can only account for his hav- ing done so upon th e supposition that that evil genius which has attended him throuo-h his life, giving to him an apparent astonishing prosperity, such as to lead very many good men to doubt there being any advantage in virtue over vice — I say I can only account for it on the supposition that that evil genius has at last made up its mind to forsake him. . , . And I may add that another extraordinary feature of the Judge's conduct uithis canvass — made more extraordinary by this incident — is, that he is in the habit, m ahnost all the speeches he makes, of charging falsehood upon his adversaries, myself and others. I now ask whether he is able to find in any thing that Judge Trumbull, for instance, has said, or in any thing that I have said, a justification at all compared with what we have, in this instance, for that sort of vulgarity. I have been in the habit of charging as a matter of belief on my part, that, in the introduction of the Nebraska bill into Congress, there was a conspiracy to make slavery perpetual and national. I have arranged from time to time the evidence which establishes and proves the truth of this charge. I recurred to this chargeat Ottawa. I shall not now have time to dwell upon it at very great length ; but, m- asmuch as Judge Douglas in his reply of half an hour, made some pomts upon me in relation to it, I propose noticing a few of them. The Judge insists that, in the first speech I made, in which I very distmctly made that charge^ he thought for a good while I was in fun ! — that I was playful — that 1 was no" sincere about it— and that he only grew angry and somewhat excited when he found that I insisted upon it as a matter of earnestness. He says he char- acterized it as a falsehood as fixr as I imphcated his moral character in that transac- tion. Well, I did not know, till he presented that view, that I had implicated his moral character. He is very much in the habit, when he argues me up into a posi- tion I never thought of occupying, of very cosily saying he has no doubt Lincoln is " conscientious " m saying so. He should remember that I did not know but what he was altogether " conscientious " in that matter. I can conceive it possible for men to conspire to do a good thing, and I really find nothing in Judge Douglas's course or arguments that is contrary to or inconsistent with his belief of a conspir- acy to nationalize and spread slavery as being a good and blessed thing, and so I hope he will understand that I do not at all question but that in all this matter he is en- tirely " conscientious." . . But to draw your attention to one of the points I made m this case, beginning at the be he had made substantially the »™. S.^^ atS f rts.amX ,Te 2,7'"^ """ excludmg his dear self from the catesorv , J V^™,^ "" '""■'"'"*' evidence which I brought forw^aTra^he 'hh t',n, f ^r^dT'^ritow wh I ft;:?hi:'=r'' "" ^'""f "'« P-Ple .» exclude slavery fiLuheliS Which latal blow he assumed as m ev dence in an articl.^ in th^ W.^h- 1 ^™"s, published "by authority." I ask by whosrauLr t ' ?-rI r "= " ^''"'^ identical pro4ion in th'e Lecompton'cWurn "^Sade W%^^^^^^ of that Constitution. Advocated by whom ? By all the membe ^ 'of H ? ' 'Ltom^Z' C^sti^llr '^" ''' '"'"^-''» °' ^^JlZ^^vltlS^Z fatJi 'blow :£ti:;-%s;™dt t tt:Si;.^L'isri'° "t *■" -"^ ^ that eharp-being°ide„tieal with the o;e;hiclfL'Thikf\'^™t'y a^:r:,t''n';ibts\;-"s:x:rarfr't:^:rT^''™'""^^ framing that instr„,„en,. ^^I mtilf ^^rbeten^ri tnSdl^'TLr^hlS my ,ps« d,x,l may not be as great as his, yet it somewhat reduce™ ,e for™ o?!- MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Lin'irinrg ht™Tr;.reTm:bf r.ht''va:'™'',^°" "-^'^ "-'-^^ "o M- parlous political parties. Not^ tVo°etn:SM:tr'ire'rs:'f":oi ..sembled for .he purpose of a fair discussion, than that kind lud rl^pectM at.Sa 94 that is yielded not only to your political friends, but to those who are opposed to you " rLm'glad that at la.t I have brought ^Ir. Lincoln to f --^^Th ' tttl^^^ better define his position on certain poht.cal questions to wh.ch Ij^^^^^ ^;^^^^^^^ ■At Ottawa He there showed no disposition, no inehnation, to answer them, i uia nne liS's weTLed. \ desired simply to know, inasmuch as he had been nomina- ted t the fi-t, la tand only choice ot' his party, whether he concurred - tlie pla^ folwlchth; parlyhad adopted for its government. In a few moment. I w 11 me Sa-k ™u ,e hTno' presented i„,eAoga.ories whiel, have ever received the "notion of the party with >.Meh I am acung, and henee he has no other foundatton '■°f1« he"Lter7rkl""'J'the people of Kansas shall form a Constitntion hy meanslnliret t-oper and nnobjectioLtL and ask admission -'» ' - D-o" - > r^'iirL'-xfiJi^s-r-'^^^^^^^^^^^ answer that interrogatory himself before l,e put tt ^ -'l^^^^^^^^^'^Z't r0^gon..thoaggaf^eS^=..heoans^^^^^ T fninln »„swer his own (luestion and tell me whether he is fighting liumbull on that Lincoln answei Ills »""'}'"= . . (ion. In reference to Kansas, it is my i^" "' ,r •,. *e iL popnhtron enougTto eonstitnte a slave State, she has people °^''''"'^'trX!^iZI l^Tuot^A., Kansas an exceptional case to the other ITatS o he UnLf I hold It to he a sonnd rule of universal ap,>lication to reqmre f Terr" oy to contain the requisite population for a member ot Congress, before it a ieriitoiy 10 CO :„i„^,j,e Uni„n. I made that proiiosition in the Senate m Tso'e and I rTnewed t d ring tie last session, in a bill providing that no Territo^ if the United Sla.:s should fo?m a Constitution and -PPU '- -J"--; ^I^tl fr 95 to take his own medicine. If he differs with Mr. Trumbull, let him answer his argument against the admission of Oregon, instead of poking questions at me. The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, can the people of a Ter- ritory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a Sta,te Constitution? I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from j every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State Constitu- tion. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not what way the Supreme Court may here- after decide as to the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those police reg- ulations can only be established by the local legislature, and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation eifectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the con- trary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point. In this connection, I will notice the charge which he has introduced in relation to Mr. Chase's amendment. I thought that I had chased that amendment out of Mr. Lincoln's brain at Ottawa ; but it seems that still haunts his imagination, and he is not yet satisfied. I had supposed that he would be ashamed to press that question further. He is a lawyer, and has been a member of Congress, and has occupied his time and amused you by telling you about parliamentary proceedings. He ought to have known better than to try to palm off his miserable impositions upon this intelli- gent audience. The Nebraska bill provided that the legislative power, and authority of the said Territory, should extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the organic act and the Constitution of the United States. It did not make any exception as to slavery, but gave all the power that it was possible for Congress to give, without violating the Constitution to the Territorial Legislature, with no excep- tion or limitation on the. subject of slavery at all. The language of that bill which I have quoted, gave the full power and the full authority over the subject of slavery, affirmatively and negatively, to introduce it or exclude it, so far as the Constitution of the United States would permit. What more could Mr. Chase give by his amendment ? Nothing. He offered his amendment for the identical purpose for wliich Mr. Lincoln is using it, to enable demagogues in the country to try and deceive the people. His amendment was to this effect. It provided that the Legislature should have the power to exclude slavery : and General Cass suggested, " why not give the power to introduce as well as exclude ?" The answer was, they have the power already in the bill to do both. Chase was afraid his amendment would be adopted if he put the alternative proposition and so make it fair both ways, but would not yield. He offered it for the purpose of having it rejected. He offered it, as he has himself avowed over and over again, simply to make capital out of it for the stump. He expected that it would be capital for small politicians in the country, and that they would make an effort to deceive the people with it, and he was not mistaken, for Lincoln is carrying out tlie plan admirably. Lincoln knows that the Nebraska bill, without Chase's amendment, gave all the power which the Constitution would permit. Could Congress confer any more? Could Congress go beyond the Constitution of the country? We gave all a full grant, with no exception in regard to slavery one 96 way or the other. We left that question as we left all others, to be decided by the people for themselves, just as they pleased. I will not occupy my time on this question. I have argued it before all over Illinois. I have argued it in this beau- tiful city of Freeport ; 1 have argued it in the North, the South, the East, and the West, avowing the same sentiments and the same principles. I have not been afraid to avow my sentiments up here tor fear I would be trotted down mto Egypt. The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented is, if the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that a State of this Union cannot exclude slavery from its own limits, will I submit to it ? I am amazed that Lincoln should ask such a ques- tion. [ " A school-boy knows better."] Yes, a school-boy does know better. Mr. Lincohi's object is to cast an imputation upon the Supreme Court. lie knows that there never was but one man in America, claiming any degree of intelligence or de- cency, who ever for a moment pretended such a thing. It is true that the Washing- ton Union, in an article published on the 17th of last December, did put forth that doctrine, and I denounced the article on the floor of the Senate, in a speech which Mr. Lincoln now pretends was against the President. The Union had claimed that slavery had a right to go into the free States, and that any provision in the Constitu- tion or laws of the free vStates to the contrary were null and void. I denounced it in the Senate, as I said before, and I was the first man who did. Lincoln's friends, Trumbull, and Seward, and Hale, and Wilson, and the whole Black Republican side of the Senate, were silent. They left it to me to denounce it. And what was the reply made to me on that occasion ? Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, got up and undertook to lecture me on the ground that I ought not to have deemed the m-ticle worthy of notice, and ought not to have replied to it ; that there was not one man, woman or child south of the Potomac, in any slave State, who did not repudiate any such pre- tension. Mr. Lincoln knows that that reply was made on the spot, and yet now he asks this question. He might as well ask me, suppose Mr. Lincoln should steal a horse, would I sanction it ; and it would be as genteel in me to ask him, in the event he stole a horse, what ought to be done with him. He casts an imputation upon the Supreme Court of the United States, by supposing that they would violate the Consti- tution of the United States. I tell him that such a thing is not possible. It would be an act of moral treason that no man on the bench could ever descend to. Mi-. Lincoln himself would never in his partisan feelings so far forget what was right as to be guilty of such an act. The fourth question of Mr. Lincoln is, are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard as to how such acquisition may affect the Union on the slavery questions ? This question is very ingeniously and cunningly put. The Black Republican creed lays it down expressly, that under no circumstances shall we acquire any more territory unless slavery is first prohibited in the country. I ask Mr. Lincoln whether he is in favor of that proposition. Are you [addi*essing Mr. Lincoln] opposed to the acquisition of any more territory, under any circum- stances, unless slavery is prohibited in it? That he does not like to answer. When I ask him whether he stixnds up to that article in the platform of his party, he turns, Yankee-fashion, and without answering it, asks me whether I am in favor of acquiiing territory witliout regard to how it may affect the Union on the slaveiy question. I answer that whenever it becomes necessary, in our growth and progress, to acquire more territory, that I am in favor of it, without reference to the question of slavery, and when we have acquired it, I will leave the people free to do as they please, either to make it slave or free territoiy, as they prefer. It is idle to tell me or you that we have territory enough. Our fathei'S supposed that we had enough when our territory extended to the Mississippi river, but a few years' growth and expansion satisfied them that we needed more, and the Louisiana territory, from the West branch of the Mississippi to the British possessions, was acquu'ed. Then we acquired Oregon, then California and New Mexico. We have enough now for the present, but this is a young and a growing nation. It swai'ms as often as a hive of bees, and as new swai-ms are turned out each year, there must be hives in which 97 they can gather and make their honey. In less than fifteen years, if the same pro- gress that has distinguished this country for the last fifteen years continues, every foot of vacant land between this and the Pacific ocean, owned by the United States, will be occupied. Will you not continue to increase at the end of fifteen years as well as now ? I tell you, increase, and multiply, and expand, is the law of this na- tion's existence. You cannot limit this great Republic by mere boundary lines, say- ing, " thus far shall thou go, and no further." Any one of you gentlemen might as well say to a son twelve years old that he is big enough, and must not grow any lar- ger, and in order to prevent his gi-owth put a hoop around him to keep him to his present size. What would be the result ? Either tlie hoop must burst and be rent asunder, or the child must die. So it would be with this great nation. With our natural increase, growing with a rapidity unknown in any other part of the globe, with the tide of emigration that is fleeing from despotism in tlie old world to seek ref- uge in our own, there is a constant torrent pouring into this country that requires more land, more territory upon which to settle, and just as fast as our interests and our destiny require additional territory in the North, in the South, or on the Islands of the ocean, I am for it, and when we acquire it, will leave the people, according to the Nebraska bill, free to do as they please on the subject of slavery and every other question. I trust now that Mr. Lincoln will deem himself answered on his four points. He racked his brain so much in devising these four questions that he exhausted himself, and had not strength enough to invent the others. As soon as he is able to hold a council with his advisers, Lovejoy, Farnsworth, and Fred Douglass, he will fram« and propound others. [ " Good, good." ] You Black Republicans who say good, I have no doubt think that they are all good men. I have reason to recollect that some people in this country think that Fred Douglass is a very good man. The last time I came here to make a speech, while talking from the stand to you, people of Free- port, as I am doing to-day, I saw a carriage, and a magnificent one it was, drive up and take a position on the outside of the crowd ; a beautiful young lady was sitting on the box-seat, whilst Fred Douglass and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage acted as di-iver. 1 saw this in your own town. [ " "Wliat of it ? " ] All I have to say of it is this, that if you. Black Republicans, think that the negro ought to be on a social equality with your wives and daughters, and ride in a caj-riage with your wife, whilst you drive the team, you have perfect right to do so. I am told that one of Fred Douglass's kinsmen, another rich black negro, is now traveling in this part of the State making speeches for his friend Lincoln as the champion of black men. [ " What have you to say against it ? "] All I have to say on that subject is, that those of you who believe that the negro is your equal and ought to be on an equaUty with you socially, politically, and legally, have a right to entertain those opinions, and of course will vote for Mr. Lincoln. I have a word to say on Mr. Lincoln's answer to the interrogatories contained in my speech at Ottawa, and which he has pretended to reply to here to-day. Mr. Lincoln makes a great parade of the fact that I quoted a platform as having been adopted by the Black Republican party at Springfield in 1854, which, it turns out, was adopted at another place. Mr. Lincoln loses sight of the thing itself in his ec- stacies over the mistake I made in stating the place where it was done. He thinks that that platform was not adopted on the right " spot." When I put the direct questions to Mr. Lincohi to ascertain whether he now stands pledged to that creed — to the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law, a refusal to admit any more slave States into the Union even if the people want them, a determination to apply the Wilmot Proviso, not only to all the territory we now have, but all that we may hereafter acquire, he refused to answer, and his fol- lowers say, in excuse, that the resolutions upon which I based my interrogatories were not adopted at the " ngJit spot." Lincoln and his political friends are great on "spots." In Congress, as a representative of this State, he declared the Mexican war to be unjust and infamous, and would not support it, or acknowledge his own 98 country to be right in the contest, because he said that American blood was not shed on American soil in the " right spot." And now he cannot answer the ques- tions I put to him at Ottawa because the resolutions I read were not adopted at the " right spot" It may be possible that I was led into an error as to the spot on which (he, resolutions I then read were proclaimed, but I was not, and am not in error as to the fact of their forming the basis of the creed of the Republican party when that party was first organized. I will state to you the evidence 1 had, and upon which I relied for my statement that the resolutions in question were adopted at Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854. Although I was aware that such resolutions had been passed ih this district, and nearly all the northern Congressional Districts and County Conventions, I had not noticed whether or not they had been adopted by any State Convention. In 1856, a debate arose in Congress between Major Thomas L. Harris, of the Springfield District, and Mr. Norton, of the Joliet Dis- trict, on pohtical matters connected with our State, in the course of which, Major Harris quoted those resolutions as having been passed by the first Republican State Convention that ever assembled in Illinois. I knew that Major Harris was re- markable for his accuracy, that he was a very conscientious and sincere man, and I also noticed that Norton did not question the accuracy of this statement. I therefore took it for granted that it was so, and the other day when I concluded to use the resolutions at Ottawa, I wrote to Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, at Springfield, calling his attention to them, telling him that I had been informed that Major Harris was lying sick at Springfield, and desiring him to call upon him and ascertain all the facts concerning the resolutions, the time and the place where they were adopted. In reply, Mr. Lanphier sent me two copies of his paper, which I have here. The first is a copy of the State Register, published at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's own town, on the 16th of October, 1854, only eleven days after the adjournment of the Convention, from which I desire to read the following : " During the late discussions in this city, Lincoln made a speech, to which Judge Douglas replied. In Lincoln's speech he took the broad ground that, according to the Declaration of Independence, the whites and blacks are equal. From this he drew the conclusion, which he several times repeated, that the white man had no right to pass laws for the government of the black man without the nigger's consent. This speech of Lincoln's was heard and applauded by all the Abolitionists assembled in Springfield. So soon as Mi-. Lincoln was done speaking, Mr. Codding arose and requested all the delegates to the Black Republican Convention to withdraw into the Senate chamber. They did so, and after long deliberation, they laid down the fol- lowing Abolition platform as the platform on which they stood. We call the particu- lar attention of all our readers to it." Then follows the identical platform, word for word, which I read at Ottawa. Now, that was published in Mr. Lincoln's own town, eleven days after the Convention was held, and it has remained on record up to this day never contradicted. When I quoted the resolutions at Ottawa and questioned Mr. Lincoln in relation to them, he said tliat his name was on the committee that reported them, but he did not serve, nor did he think he served, because he was, or thought he was, in Taze- well county at the time the Convention was in session. He did not deny that the resolutions were passed by the Springfield Convention. He did not know better, and evidently thought that they were, but afterward his friends declared that they had discovered that they varied in some respects from the resolutions passed by that Convention. I have shown you that I had good evidence for believing that the res- olutions had been passed at Springfield. Mr. Lincoln ought to have known better; but not a word is said about his ignorance on the subject, whilst I, notwithstanding the circumstances, am accused of forgery. Now, I will show you that if I have made a mistake as to the place where these resolutions were adopted — and when I get down to Springfield I will investigate the matter and see whether or not I have — that the principles they enunciate were adopted as the Black Republican platform [" white, white "J, in the various counties and 99 C„„g.es.io.al Districts *-S^-' *-7*;:l°VSai'^£p"b.t^t tn^ritf f« form was adopted in nearly every count ">" «»7 ^;,^^'^^ ,„ jir. Denio, who sat on the Legislature in tl,at y''<>\^''\^Xll.^ ^^X"nny' \M«f man tliit it was the the stand near Deacon Bross] "h" J^""" f ™' ''J ^j b„°„.iir,n,; to call Denio creed of the Black Republiffltn party i"' '>«« ™'=- t^,""",, I wilFnow read the as a »i.ness or any ot er ^^^^;^^^^^^ tVo.h'of August, 1854, which Toir wSnrttr C:;!g.ess. You elected hint on the fohow.ng p atto™,: nsi;:±tt'SirrLfjf»^uu«.o,^^^ Kausas aod Nebraska to_ the posuiou f J^,fe;.^.'"7"4ich it exists ; to prohibit tlie admmsiOD- of tive Slave law ; to restrict slav^Ty to ^^^seJi^Xe. J ;^;^ ^om all the Territories over which the any more slave States mto the Un>on, to exclude smery ^ ^gitioa of any more Temto- General Government has exclusive J^^'f^f^ J'};,,^,^,^ ^^^^ have been prohibited, ries unless the introductK)n of ^^^J^ e nriucinTes 'v^ ^viU use such constitutional and lawful Resolved, That in furtherance of the epWle^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^r^ support no man for means as shall seem bes adapted to. t^"r^^^o™P^^^'-?7^^^ 'positively committed to the support of ^ rfnSpt ? Jwi^o'^^^^Xnir^aM cTndu^ct is nofa guaranty that he . rehable Mr. Lincoln charges that I ^^^ jou a^^^^^^^^^^ i„ Galena last W.US elected to Congress He thought hat )^u 1 ad ^^ ; ^,^^^ ,^^ 1^^^ ,,b- :::;i^r;r::j wf ;^^r 1^1 - ttn^^^ ^^ ^- - ^« - ^^ - - leait\y afowi:; that it is^our P^atfor. ^d ngh^ ^^^^^ ^^^ In the adoption of that platform, ^^^ ,^^^^^"^ .^,^X ^le.^^ Fugitive Slave admission of any more slave ^^^^^^' ^'\^ "^ > t' ^^ or Federal offices law, but you pledged yourselves "ot to vote ior any man .^^^^^ Si.^il^ who was not committed \^^^'^- J^ cZention here, and now with resolutions to ^^ose were adopt^^^^^^^^ J ,,„timents now as your admissions ,^f ,f ^y/^iy^'^f £l,. Lincoln, your candidate for the U. S. Sen- they did then, what ^^^J^W the responsibiUty of this platform, because it was not ate, who IS -"«-P^"f;;^^^^S\^th thTt t wa^s adopted in Springfield, but it turns adopted in the right spot 1 thou^ui "^' K ^ ■ eounties which out it was not, that it was adopted at ^^^^f/'J^nto th next district, I will show comprise this Congressional I^i^t^f^- , j;;^'" J °^ ^„ throuoh the State, until I nail rti'rp:Si£rsT:^nini'':^:ir^.aci.^;uui.;np..ty t;.„i,e_" CouMn't >.n -f ■f^XCyolT^e're'beconting a little hrown when yo^'^S'iirC^ngrel'voi^dforUte Cri^enden-Montgo.ery hiMut su.ce you have backed out from that position and gone back to Abolitionism, you are black and not brown. •' Gentlemen, I have shown you what your platform was in 1854. You still adhere to It. Ihe same platform was adopted by nearly all the counties where the Black Republican party had a majority in 1854. I wish now to call your attention to the action of your representatives in the Legislature when they assembled together at bpringheld. In the first place, you must remember that this was the organization ot a new party. It ,s so declared in the resolutions themselves, which say that vou are going to dissolve all old party ties and call the new party Republican: The old r"fn 17^ T, Ti Tk!'' '^r""' T ^"'""^ '^^ ^" ^^^' ^"^ the Democratic party IT I i5 ^""Jhilated and blotted out of existence, whilst in heu of these parties the i^lack Repubhcan partj. was to be organized on this Abolition platform. You know who the chief leaders were in breaking up and destroying these two great parties Lincoln on the one hand and Trumbull on the other, b'ein| disappointeVp liSln t and havmg retired or been driven to obscurity by an outraged constituency because 1 linl Wl" '^'i^T''^?.''^'"'^"*^^^^^''^""^"^ '^'^ two parties and lead the old Ime Wh.gsandold line Democrats captive, bound hand and foot, into the Ab- ohtion camp. Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass and Lovejoy were he -e to christen them whenever they were brought in. Lincoln went to tork to dissolve thedS Ime Wing party. Clay was dead, and although the sod was not yet green on h^ ^50 wirwl'frr' ''.''^"/'"^ '^"^^"^^ ^^^^^ S-^t Comp^omii measur nil . '7 ^ ^""^ ^°^ ^'^'*'' ^"^^ identified. Up to 1854 the old Whig party and the Democratic party had stood on a common platform so far as this sla? baS Thft-'y d W Tr"';. ""'" -"^'^^^ r' ^^ ^^^ '--^s differed about the bank, the taiiflT, distribution the specie circular and the sub-treasury, but we agreed the Uni'o^?"?l';r " "' '^' '^"^ "°'; '^ P'-^^^''^'^"^ the peace^and harmonrof the Union. The Compromise measures of 1850 were introduced by Clay were de- fended by Webster and supported by Cass, and were approved by FHrn^re and sanctioned by the National men of both parties. They constituted a^commr plank uj^on whK-h both Whigs and Democrats stood. In 1852 the Whig par^^n its S National Convention at Baltimore, indorsed and approved these meaTuies of Cat and so did the National Convention of the Democratic parly held h^Le y S' Thus he old hue Whigs and the old line Democrats stood pledged to the IZl principle of self-government, which guaranties to the people of eal TerSorf the righttodec.de the savery question for themselves. In 1854, after the dead, of the%vtt Ztt; dis'.Y"'''^ r ^'^. p^- ^ ''':''' ^^"«^^^' -deAook to Xls m: tne wing party, by dissolving ,t, transferring the members into the Abolition camn and making tliem train under Giddings, Fred Dou-lass Loveiov P Lt F ?iF and other Abolition leaders. Trumb'uli undertooki:iistr The D L!^^^^^^^^^ by taking old Democrats into the Abolition camp. Mr. Lincohi was aided in'^s effor^ by many leading Whigs throughout the State. Your m nler of Sngret Mr Washburne being one of the most active. Trumbull was aided by many rene- gades rom the Democratic party, among whom were John WentworthA^ Turner and others, with whom you are familiar. "^vvorin, xom lurner, [Mr. Turner, who was one of the moderators, here interposed and said that he had drawn the resolutions which Senator Douglas had read 1 Mr. Douglas>-Yes and Turner says that he drew these resolutions, f" Huria or Turner " " Hurra for Douglas."] That is right, give Turner cheers for drawW he resolutions If you approve them. If he drew those resolution he ^iU not Zf ihat they are the creed of the Black Republican party. ^ Mr. Turner—" They are our creed exactly." ;haf thf'rfed'Tf^the 'bm"i?'" t,"" '"^ ''-^'^"'^ ^" ''''^' ^'^' burner says jat tne creed ot the Black Republican party is the admission of no more slave Hates and ye Mr. Lincoln declares that he would not hke to be placed in a nosi^?In .here he would have to vote for them. All I have to say to frie^nd llncofn^s tha" [ do not think there is much danger of his being placed in such a posU on? ^ Mr 101 Lincoln would be very sorry to be placed in such an embarrassing position as to he obliged to vote on the admission of any more slave States, I propose, out of mere kindness, to relieve him from any such necessity. When the bargain between Lincoln and Trumbull was completed for Abolitionizing the Whig and Democratic parties, they " spread " over the State, Lincoln still pre- tending to be an old line Whig, in order to " rope in " the Whigs, and Trumbull pretending to be as good a Democrat as he ever was, in order to coax the Democrats over into the Abolition ranks. They played the part that " decoy ducks " play down on the Potomac river. In that part of the country tiiey make artificial ducks and put them on the water in places where the wild ducks are to be found, for the purpose of decoying them. Well, Lincoln and Trumbull played the part of these " decoy ducks " and deceived enough old line Whigs and old line Democrats to elect a Black Repubhcan Legislature. When that Legislature met, the first thing it did was to elect as Speaker of the House, the very man who is now boasting that he wrote the Abolition platform on which Lincoln will not stand. I want to know of Mr. Turner whether or not, when he was elected, he was a good embodiment of Republican principles ? Mr. Turner — " I hope I was then and am now." Mr. Douglas — He swears that he hopes he was then and is now. He wrote that Black Republican platform, and is satisfied with it now. I admire and acknowledge Turner's honesty. Every man of you know that what he says about these resolu- tions being the platform of the Black Republican party is true, and you also know that each one of these men who are shufliing and trying to deny it are only trying to cheat the people out of their votes for the purpose of deceiving them still more after the election. I propose to trace this thing a little further, in order that you can see what additional evidence there is to fasten this revolutionary platform upon the Black Repubhcan party. When the Legislature assembled, there was an United States Senator to elect in the place of Gen. Shields, and before they proceeded to ballot, Lovejoy insisted on laying down certain principles by which to govern the party. It has been published to the world and satisfactorily proven that there was, at the time the alhance was made between Trumbull and Lincoln to Abolitionize the two parties, an agreement that Lincoln should take Shields's place in the United States Senate, and Trumbull should have mine so soon as they could conveniently get rid of me. When Lincoln was beaten for Shields's place, m a manner I will refer to in a few minutes, he felt very sore and restive ; his friends grumbled, and some of them came out and charged that the most infamous treachery had been prac- ticed against him ; that the bargain was that Lincoln was to have had Shields's place, and TioimbuU was to have waited for mine, but that Trumbull having the control of a few Abolitionized Democrats, he prevented them from voting for Lincoln, thus keeping him witliin a few votes of an election until he succeeded in forcing the party to di-op°him and elect Trumbull. Well, Trumbull having cheated Lincoln, his friends made a fuss, and in order to keep them and Lincoln quiet, the party were obHged to come forward, in advance, at the last State election, and make a pledge that they would go tor Lincoln and nobody else. Lincoln could not be silenced in any other way. Now, there are a great many Black Republicans of you who do not know this thing was done. ["White, white," and great clamor,] I wish to remind you that while Mr 'Lincoln was speaking there was not a Democrat vulgar and blackguard enough to interrupt him. But 1 know that the shoe is pinching you. I am clinching Lin- coln now, and you are scared to death for the result. I have seen this thing be- fore. I have seen men make appointments for joint discussions, and the moment their man has been heard, try to interrupt and prevent a fair hearing of the other side. I have seen your mobs before, and defy your wrath. [Tremendous ap- plause.] My friends, do not cheer, fo*r I need my whole time. The object of the opposition is to occupy my attention in order to prevent me from giving the whole evidence and nailmg this double dealing on the Black Republican party. As I have 102 before said, Lovejoy demanded a declaration of principles on the part of the Black Republicans of the Legislature before going into an election for United States ben- ator. He offered the foUowing preamble and resolutions which I hold m my hand: Whereas Humaa slavery is a violation of the principles of natural and revealed rights ; and whTrcas the fathers o? the 'Revolution, fully imbued with the ^y>-^\^l ^::ZS^^ ^^^ freedom to be the inalienable birthright of all men ; and ^^^^^.^•'^^^' ^^^^P^ ?.™^ , ? 1^^ tion of the United States avers that that instrument was ordained to establ sh justice and secure rblesS^rof libery to ourselves and our posterity ; and whereas, in furtherance of the abov« D LciplTslaverv was forever prohibited in the old North-west Terntory, and more recently in ainhatTlnTitlry lying west and north of the State of Missouri, by the act ot the Pedcral Gov- ern nent and whfeas, the repeal of the prohition last referred to, was contrary to the wishes of thneiofimnoi't a violation of an implied compact, long deemed sacred by the citizens of Ihe Eted Statesand a wide departure from the uniform action of the General Government m relation to the extension of slavery ; therefore, . ,, • rrv,,. ^,„. Q^nator^ in Congress Resolved, hy Ih^ House of Representatives, the Semte comurnn^ therein, That oui Senators in t-'Ongrees be iSrul ed, and our Representatives requested to introduce,_if not otherwise introduced, and to vote foi a bill to restore such prohibition to the aforesaid Territories, and also to extend a sim.^r prohibTtion to all territory which now belongs to the United States, or which may hereafter come "'tLtf'fifour Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to vote atfn'st the amission of any Stale into the Union, the Constitution of which does not pro- Wbit lavery. whether the territory out of which such State_ may ^ave been formed shall have been acquired by conquest, treaty, purchase, or from original territory of the United ^^ttolved That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested to introduce and vote for a bill to repeal an act entitled '• an act respecting fugitives f'-om justice and nersons escaping from the service of their masters ; and, failing in that for such a mod.ficat on o? it^as sSairsecui-e the right of Mcas carpus and trial by jury before the regulariy-constituted authorities of the State, to all persons claimed as owing service or labor. Those resolutions were introduced by Mr. Lovejoy immediatey preceding the election of Senator. They declared first, that the Wilmot Proviso must be applied to all territory north of 36 deg. 30 min. Secondly, that it must be app bed to all territory south of 36 deg. 30 min. Thirdly, tliat it must be applied to all the ter- ritory now owned by the United States, and finally, that it must be applied to all terriiory hereafter to be acquired by the United States. The next resolution declares that no more slave States shall be admitted into this Union under any circumstances whatever, no matter whether they are formed out of territory now owned by us or that we may hereafter acquire, by treaty, by Congress, or in any manner wl.atever. The next resolution demands the unconditional repeal ot the Fugitive Slave law, al- though its unconditional repeal would leave no provision for carrying out that clause of the Constitution of the United States which guaranties the surrender oi iugitives. If thev could not get an unconditional repeal, they demanded that that law sl>ould be so modified as to make it as nearly useless as possible. Now, I want to show you who voted for these resolutions. When the vote was taken on the first resolution it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 41, nays 32. You will find that this is a strict party vote, between the Democrats on the one hand, and the Black Republicans on the other. TCries of " White, white," and clamor.] I know your name, and always cali things by their right name. The point I wish to call your attention to, is this : that these resolutions were adopted on the 7th day of February, and that on the 8th they went into an election for a United States Senator, and that day every man who voted for these resolutions, with but two exceptions, voted for Lincoln tor the United States Senate. [" Give us their names."] I will read the names over to you if you want them, but I beheve your object is to occupy my time. On the next resolution the vote stood-yeas 33, nays 40, and on the third resolution _veas 35 nays 47. I wish to impress it upon you, that every man who voted tor those resolutions, with but two exceptions, voted on the next day for Lincoln ^o;* U- ^- ^enator. Bear in mind that the members who thus voted lor Lincoln were elected to the Leg- islature pledged fo vote for no man for olfice under the State or Federal Govern- ment who was not committed to this Black Republican platform. They were all so pled-ed Mr. Turner, who stands by me, and who then represented you, and who 103 says that he wrote those resolutions, voted for Lincoln, when he was pledged not to do so unless Lincoln was in favor of those resolutions. I now ask Mr. Turner [turning to Mr. Turner], did you violate your pledge in voting for Mr. Lincoln, or did he commit himself to your platform before you cast your vote for him ? I could go through the whole list of names here and show you that all the Black Republicans in the Legislature, who voted for Mr. Lincoln, had voted on the day previous for these resolutions. For instance, here are the names of Sargent and Little of Jo Daviess and Carroll, Thomas J. Turner of Stephenson, Lawrence of Boone and McHenry, Swan of Lake, Pinckney of Ogle county, and Lyman of Winnebago. Thus you see every member from your Congressional District voted tor Mr. Lincohi, and they were pledged not to vote for him unless he was committed to the doctrine of no more slave States, the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, and the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. Mr. Lincoln tells you to-day that he is not pledged to any such doctrine. P^ither Mr. Lincoln was then committed to those propositions, or Mr. Turner violated his pledges to you when he voted for him. Either Lincoln was pledged to each one of those propositions, or else every Black Re- publican Representative from this Congressional District violated his pledge of honor to his constituents by voting for him. I ask you which horn of the dilemma will you take? Will you hold Lincoln up to the platform of his party, or will you accuse every Representative you liad in the Legislature of violating his pledge of honor to his con- stituents? Tliere is no escape for you. Either Mr. Lincoln was committed to those propositions, or your members violated their faith. Take either horn of the dilemma you choose. There is no dodging the question ; I want Lincoln's answer. He says he was not pledged to repeal the Fugitive Slave law, that he does not quite like to do it; he will not introduce a law to repeal it, but thinks there ought to be some law ; he does not tell what it ought to be ; ujwn the whole, he is altogether undecided, and don't know what to tliink or do. That is the substance of his answer upon the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. I put the question to him distinctly, whether he in- dorsed that part of the Black Republican platform which calls for the entire abroga- tion and repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. He answers no ! that he does not indorse that, but he does not tell what he is for, or what he will vote for. His answer is, in fact, no answer at all. Why cannot he speak out and say what he is for and what he will do ? In regard to there being no more slave States, he is not pledged to that. He would not like, he says, to be put in a position where he would have to vote one way or another upon that question. I pray you, do not put him in a position that would embarrass him so much. Gentlemen, if he goes to the Senate, he may be put in that position, and then which way will he vote? [A Voice — " How will you vote ?"] Mr. Douglas — I will vote for the admission of just such a State as by the form of their Constitution the people show they want ; if they want slavery, they shall have it ; if they prohibit slavery it shall be prohibited. They can form their insti- tutions to please themselves, subject only to the Constitution ; and I for one stand ready to receive them into the Union. Why cannot your Black Re2)ublican candi- dates talk out as plain as that when they are questioned ? I do not Avant to cheat any man out of his vote. No man is deceived in regard to my principles if I have the power to express myself in terras explicit enough to convey my ideas. Mr. Lincoln made a speech when he was nominated for the United States Senate which covers all these Abolition platforms. He there lays down a proposition so broad in its abolitionism as to cover the whole ground. '•Li my opinion it [the slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of Slavery will arrest the fur- 104 ther spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States — old as well as new, North as well as South." There you find that Mr. Lincoln lays down the doctrine that this Union cannot endure divided as our fathers made it, with free and slave States. He says they must all become one thing, or all the other ; that they must all be free or all slave, or else the Union cannot continue to exist. It being his opinion that to admit any more slave States, to continue to divide the Union into free and slave States, will dissolve it I want to know of Mr. Lincoln whether he will vote for the admission of another slave State. He tells you the Union cannot exist unless the States are all free or all slave ; he tells you that he is opposed to making them all slave, and hence he is for making them all free, in order that the Union may exist ; aiid yet he will not say that he will not vote against another slave State, knowing that the Union must be dissolved if he votes for it. I ask you if that is fair dealing ? The true intent and inevitable conclusion to be drawn from his first Springfield speech is, that he is opposed to the admission of any more slave States under any circumstance. If he is so opposed, why not say so ? If he believes this Union cannot endure divided into free and slave States, that they must all become free in order to save the Union, he is bound as an honest man, to vote against any more slave States. If he believes it he is bound to do it. Show me that it is my duty in order to save the Union to do a par- ticular act, and I will do it if the Constitution does not prohibit it. I am not for the dissolution of the Union under any circumstances. I will pursue no course of con- duct that will give just cause for the dissolution of the Union. The hope of the friends of freedom throughout the world rests upon the perpetuity of this Union. The down-trodden and oppressed people who are suffering under European despot- ism all look with hope and anxiety to the American Union as the only resting place and permanent home of freedom and self-government. Mr. Lincoln says that he believes that this Union cannot continue to endure with slave States in it, and yet he will not tell you distinctly whether he will vote for or against the admission of any more slave States, but says he would not like to be put to the test. I do not think he will be put to the test. I do not think that the people of Illinois desire a man to represent them who would not like to be put to the test on the performance of a high constitutional duty. I will retire in shame from the Sen- ate of the United States when I am not willing to be put to the test in the perform- ance of my duty. I have been put to severe tests. I have stood by my principles in fair weather and in foul, in the sunshine and in the rain. I have defended the gi'eat principles of self-government here among you when Northern sentiment ran in a torrent against me, and I have defended that same great principle when Southern sentiment came down like an avalanche upon me. I was not afraid of any test they put to me. I knew I was right — I knew my principles were sound — I knew that the people would see in the end that I had done right, and I knew that the God of Heaven would smile upon me if I was faithful in the performance of my duty. Mr. Lincoln makes a charge of corruption against the Supreme Court of the United States, and two Presidents of the United States, and attempts to bolster it up by saying that I did the same against the Washington Union. Suppose I did make that charge of corruption against the Washington Union^ when it was true, does that justify him in making a false charge against me and others ? That is the question I would put. He says that at the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, and before it was passed, there was a conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court, Pres- ident Pierce, President Buchanan and myself by that bill, and the decision of the court to break down the barrier and establish slavery all over the Union, Does he not know that that charge is historically false as against President Buchanan ? He knows that Mr. Buchanan was at that time in England, representing this country with distinguished ability at the Court of St. James, that he was there for a long 105 time before, and did not return for a year or more after. He knows that to be true, and that fact proves his charge to be false as against Mr. Buchanan. Then again, I wish to call his attention to the fact that at the time the Nebraska bill was passed, the Dred Scott case was not before the Supreme Court at all ; it was not upon the docket of the Supreme Court ; it had not been brought there, and the Judges in all proba- bility knew nothing of it. Thus the history of the country proves the charge to be false as against them. As to President Pierce, his high character as a man cf in- tegrity and honor is enough to vindicate him from snch a charge ; and as to myself, I pronounce the charge an infamous lie, whenever and wherever made, and by whom- soever made. I am willing that Mr. Lincoln should go and rake up every public act of mine, every measure I have introduced, re2)ort I have made, speech delivered, and criticise them, but when he charges upon me a corrupt conspiracy for the pur- pose of perverting the institutions of the country, I brand it as it deserves. I say the history of the country proves it to be false, and that it could not have been pos- sible at the time. But now he tries to protect himself in this charge, because I made a charge against the Washington Union. My speech in the Senate against the Washington Union was made because it advocated a revolutionaiy doctrine, by de- claring that the free States had not the right to prohibit slavery within their own limits. Because I made that charge against the Washington Union, Mr. Lincoln says it was a charge against Mr. Buchanan. Suppose it was ; is Mr. Lincoln the peculiar defender of Mr. Buchanan ? Is he so interested in the Federal Adminis- tration, and so bound to it, that he must jump to the rescue and defend it fi-om every attack that I may make against it ? I understand the whole thing. The Washing- ton Union, under that most corrupt of all men, Cornelius Wendell, is advocating Mr. Lincoln's claim to the Senate. Wendell was the printer of the last Black Republican House of Representatives ; he was a candidate before the present Democratic House, but was ignominiously kicked out, and then he took the money which he had made out of the public printing by means of the Black Republicans, bought the Washing- ton Union, and is now publishing it in the name of the Democratic party, and advo- cating Mr. Lincoln's election to the Senate. Mr. Lincoln therefore considers an at- tack upon Wendell and his corrupt gang as a personal attack upon him. This only proves what I have charged, that there is an alliance between Lincoln and his suj)- porters, and the Federal oifice-holders of this State, and Presidential aspirants out of it, to break me down at home. Mr. Lincoln feels bound to come in to the rescue of the Washington Union. In that speech which I delivered in answer to the Washington Union, I made it dis- tinctly against the Union, and against the Union alone. I did not choose to go be- yond that. If I have occasion to attack the President's conduct, I will do it in lan- guage that will not be misunderstood. When I differed with the President, I spoke out so that you all heard me. That question passed away ; it resulted in the triumph of my principle by allowing the people to do as they please, and there is an end of the controversy. Whenever the great principle of sclf-goverament — the right of the people to make their own Constitution, and come into the L'nion with slavery or with- out it, as they see proper, shall again arise, you will find me standing firm in defense of that principle, and fighting whoever fights it. If Mr. Buchanan stands, as I doubt not he will, by the recommendation contained in his Message, that hereafter all State Constitutions ought to be submitted to the people before the admission of the State into the Union, he will find me standing by him firmly, shoulder to shoulder, in car- rying it out. I know Mr. Lincoln's object ; he wants to divide the Democratic party, in order that he may defeat me and get to the Senate. Mr. Douglas's time laere expired, and he stopped on the moment. 106 MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. My Friends : It will readily occur to you that I cannot, in half an hour, notice all the things that so able a man as Judge Douglas can say in an hour and a half; and I hope, therefore, if there be any thing that he has said upon which you would like to hear something from me, but which I omit to comment upon, you will bear in mind that it would be expecting an impossibility for me to go over his whole ground. I can but take up some of the points that he has dwelt ujxm, and employ my half- hour specially on tliem. The first thing I have to say to you is a word in regard to Judge Douglas's dec- laration about the "vulgarity and blackguardism" in the audience — that no such thing, as he says, was shown by any Democrat while I was speaking. Now, I only Avish, by way of reply on this subject, to say that while / was speaking, / used no "vulgarity or blackguardism" toward any Democrat. Now, my friends, I come to all this long portion of the Judge's speech — perhaps half of it — which he has devoted to the various resolutions and platforms that have been adopted in the different counties in the different Congressional Districts, and in the Illinois Legislature — wliich he supposes are at variance with the positions I have assumed before you to-day. It is true that many of these resolutions are at variance with the positions I have here assumed. All I have to ask is that we talk reasona- bly and rationally about it. I happen to know, the Judge's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, that I have never tried to conceal my opinions, nor tried to deceive any one in reference to them. He may go and examine all the members who voted for me for United States Senator in 1855, after the election of 1854. They were pledged to certain things here at home, and were determined to have pledges from me, and if he will find any of these persons who will tell him any thing inconsistent with what I say now, I will resign, or rather retire from the race, and give him no more trouble. The jilain truth is this : At the introduction of the Nebraska policy, we believed there was a new era being introduced in the history of the Republic, which tended to the spread and perpetuation of slavery. But in our opposition to that measure we did not agree with one another in every thing. The people in the north end of the State were for stronger measures of opposition than we of the cen- tral and Southern portions of the State, but we were all opposed to the Nebraska doctrine. We had that one feeling and that one sentiment in common. You at the north end met in your Conventions and passed your resolutions. We in the middle of the State and further south did not hold such Conventions and pass the same res- olutions, although we had in general a common view and a common sentiment. So that these meetings which the Judge has alluded to, and the resolutions he has read from, were local, and did not spread over the whole State. We at last met together in 1856, from {ill parte of the State, and we agreed upon a common platform. You, who held more extreme notions, either yielded those notions, or if not wholly yield- ing them, agreed to yield them practically, for the sake of embodying the opposition to the measures which the opposite party were pushing forward at that time. We met you then, and if there was any thing yielded, it was for practical purposes. We agreed then upon a platform for the party throughout the entire State of Illinois, and now we are all bound as a party, to that platform. And I say here to you, if any one expects of me — in the case of my election — that I will do any thing not signified by our Repubhcan platform and my answers here to-day, I tell you very frankly that person will be deceived. I do not ask for the vote of any one who supposes that I have secret purposes or pledges that I dare not speak out. Cannot the Judge be satisfied ? If he fears, in the unfortunate case of my election, that my going to Washington wdll enable me to advocate sentiments contrary to those which I ex- pressed when you voted for and elected me, I assure him that his fears are wholly needless and groundless. Is the Judge really afraid of any such thing? I'll tell you what he is afraid of. He is afraid we'll all pull together. This is what alarms 107 To Fnr mv nirt I do hope that all of us, entertaining a him more than any thing else. ^^' ^^J"^^'^^^^ ,^ ^, a design to nationalize and common sentiment u. opposition to wh.^a^^^^^^^ ^.^^^^^, ^^^ ^^ perpetuate slavery, wi 1 waive minor ^^^^^ ^"^^^/^^^^^^^ ,hi, struggle. What are [he^dead past ^r^^f^^^:^^^ I occupy-ground which your ««"t"««;^V, ^2dtoX k^^^^^^^^ Douglas does his-my views though pardy I occupy as frankly and boldly as ^"^^^ in nroordance with your feelings as his coinciding with yours, are not as V%^f}Vl^'^'Z^^^ I hope to dtnil in all chooses to entertain of me. , . _if ._ .Ug abolition tendencies of a speech of The .Judge has again '^f ^'^^f ^ ^",°^.f ^ f h^,\! ,^'Xn tried to answer what he is mine, made at Springfield in June If'^' ^ ^^^^^^J^'^^ t^,., ^ith disgust from the which frighten Judge Douglas. questions. If I have the The Judge complains that I did not ^f ^ fl'T^^'^'^^ ,o fairly. If it can be sense to comprehend and answer tl--;i-f ^A^w^^^^^^^^ aver^ have not the pointed out to me how I can more f"lY,'^f^^^fj^yj;;rde lar^ I would in any event Lnse to see how it is to be done J^^/^^^ /^e Untn. If I have been fairly vote for the admission of a slave ff^'^^'^J'^^^^^^ reported he will see th^^ ^ did give an exp li^^^^^^^ no^ merely say that I ^^^^^Z^^^een excluded should present out to tie test, and a reintoiy tiom wmui » j . , o,.ji„ary tl„„g and LrsBlf with a State Constitutton -";,"°:'"« ^'-i^lVa^oid vo« g for he/admilsion. wholly unlikely to happen-I ffjV." id Jo and he wants thif audience to under- fta^'^^rS ::trafrYr Jiute ;:'reported in the prhtted speech that he cannot help seeing it. admission of a slave State I would be voting for He says if 1/ -^^^ vo*^ tec^selZ^l^^t the Union cannot permanently exist a dissolution of the Union, l^ecause x i Government can endure half slave and half free. ^1^1?^ vet I do not admit, nor does it at all follow, permanently half slave and ^alt ftee, ye 1 do "«J ^ ' ^^ ^^^ ,^,^,racter and that the admission of a singe ^1^^^. ^^^^ ^^^^^^ P ^ ."^ • \,4 ^ establish this as a-^vei.aU a^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^l,^^ ^^,,,,3 j ing up these quibbles. -Betorc leavin i j . ■ , ^Y^^^ ^y ^^iH find my co'nfidei^ ^^'\^'^ :l:\irJ7 ^l Z^^^ ^oi^ and fufly answered every question which he ha^ ask^^ ^^^ ^ .„^_ j/^^t that so ? The two speeches than he has answered those which I p^ ^^ ^^^^^ .^ ^^ ..^, .^^ -Z^r"^^^^'^^^ --^ '"''''' ^"' circumstantially answered ^^^XaJ^ouglas says he made ^ ch^Sll^^^^^ti?;-- -^-^ alone, of entertaining a jnirpose to -^ the S a e ot t^^ ^_p^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^.^ ^^^ from their limits. I. ""^^7^^''^.,. '7 the Union alone. I will undertake to prove make his charge against the editor ot the j7/»ona^^^^^ ^ .^^ by the record here, that he made ^^at chai e^n. ^^^j^^ ^^^^ ^,^.^.^^5^^ than the editor of tj- Washington ^.ron. I am Jite a .^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ and dodging around the form 11 which ^^ put it but 1 c ^^^-^^^^ Will i:ti -t^ ^^^^^pS^^iS^^ SMt^ylrlt CjCrrwil^sf^ Wlide/ I ^ n„t detendmg 108 Buchanan, and I will tell Judge Douglas that in my opinion, when he made that charge, he had an eye farther north than he was to-day. He was then fighting against people who called him a Black Republican and an Abolitionist. It is mixed all through his speech, and it is tolerably manifest that his eye was a great deal farther north than it is to-day. The Judge says that though he made this charge, Toombs got up and declared there was not a man in the United States, except the editor of the Union, who was in favor of the doctrines put forth in that article. And thereupon, I understand that the Judge withdrew the charge. Although he had taken extracts from the newspaper, and then from the Lccompton Constitution, to show the existence of a conspiracy to bring about a "fatal blow," by which the States were to be deprived of the right of excluding slavery, it all Avent to pot as soon as Toombs got up and told him it was not true. It reminds me of the story that John Phajnix, the California railrosid surveyor, tells. He says they started out from the Plaza to the Mission of Dolores. They had two ways of determining distances. One was by a chain and pins taken over the ground. The other was by a "go-it-o meter" — an inven- tion of his own — a thfee-legged instrument, with which he computed a series of tri- angles between the points. At night he turned to the chain-man to ascertain what distance they had come, and found that by some mistake he hfid merely dragged the chain over the ground without keeping any record. By the "go-it-ometer" he found he had made ten miles. Being skeptical about this, he asked a drayman who was passing how far it was to the plaza. The drayman replied it was just half a mile, and the surveyor put it down in his book — just as Judge Douglas says, after he had made his calculations and computations, he took Toombs's statement. I have no doubt that after Judge Douglas had made his diarge, he was as easily satisfied about its truth as the surveyor was of the drayman's statement of the dis- tance to the plaza. Yet it is a fact that the man who put forth all that matter which Douglas deemed a "fatal alow" at State sovereignty, was elected by the Democrats; as public printer. NoAv, gentlemen, you may take Judge Douglas's speech of March 22d, 1858, beginning about the middle of page 21, and reading to the bottom of page 24, and you will find the evidence on which I say that he did not make his charge against the editor of the Union alone. I cannot stop to read it, but I will give it to the reporters. Judge Douglas said : "Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly by the Washington Union editorially and apparently authoritatively, and every man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a Freesoiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primary object of all government at its original insti- tution is the protection of persons and property ; second, that the Constitution of the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States ; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and especially declaring it forfeited, ai"e dii'ect violations of the original intention of the Government and Constitution of the United States; and fourth, that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner." "Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th of November, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesion of the Union to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words : "•Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed question is settled. The prob- lem is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone' — "And a column, nearly, of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put foi-th editorially m the Union. What is it ? ^ 109 "'Article 7, Section 1. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as invariable as the right of the owner of any property whatever.' " Then in the schedule is a provivreviously said, by the joint action of tlie Union Whigs and Union Democrats in opposition to Northern Abolitionists and Southern Disunionists. In 1858, when thtural quotation, this language of our Lord and Master, is applicable to the American Union and the American Constitution ? AYashington and his compeers, in tilt. Convention that framed the Constitution, made this Government divided into free and slave States. It was composed then of thirteen sovereign and independent States, each having sovereign authority over its local and domestic institutions, and all bound together by the Federal Constitution, Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the Federal Constitution, joining free and slave States together, to a house divided against itself, and says that it is contrary to the law of God and cannot stand. When did he learn, and by what authority does he proclaim, tliat this Gov- ernment is contrary to the law of God and cannot stand ? It has stood thus divided 116 into free and slave States from its organization up to this day. During that period we have increased from four millions to thirty millions of people ; we have extended our territory from the Mississippi to the Pacific ocean ; we have acquired the Flori- das and Texas, and other territory sufficient to double our geographical extent ; we have increased in population, in wealth, and in power beyond any example on earth ; we have risen from a weak and feeble power to become the terror and admiration of tlie civilized world ; and all this has been done under a Constitution which Mr. Lin- coln, in substance, says is in violation of the law of God, and under a Union divided into free and slave States, which Mr. Lincoln thinks, because of such division, can- not stand. Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those who framed the Govern- ment. Washington did not believe, nor did his compatriots, that the local laws and domestic institutions that were well adapted to tlic Green Mountains of Vermont were suited to the rice plantations of South Carolina ; they did not believe at that day that in a Republic so broad and expanded as this, containing such a variety of climate, soil, and interest, that uniformity in the local laws and domestic institutions was either desirable or possible. They believed then as our experience lias proved to us now, that each locality, having different interests, a different climate and dif- ferent suri'oundings, required difiei'ent local laws, local policy and local institutions, adapted to the wants of that locality. Thus our Government was formed on the principle of diversity in the local institutions and laws, and not on that of uniformity. As my time flies, I can only glance at these points and not present them as fully OS I would wish, because I desii'e to bring all the points in controversy between the two parties before you in order to have Mr. Lincoln's reply. He makes war on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case known as the Dred Scott case. I wish to say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no war to make on that decision, or any other ever rendered by the Supreme Court. I am content to take that decision as it stands delivered by the highest judicial tribunal on earth, a tribunal established by the Constitution of the United States for that purpose, and hence that decision becomes the law of the land, binding on you, on me, and on every other good citizen, whether we hke it or not. Hence I do not choose to go into an argument to prove, before this audience, whether or not Chief Justicx* Taney understood tlie law better than Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln objects to that decision, first and mainly beciuise it deprives the negro of the rights of citizenship. I am as much opposed to his reason for that objection as I am to the objection itself. I hold that a negro is not and never ought to be a citizen of the United States. I hold that this Government was made 0!i the while basis, by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and sh?'ild be administered by white men and none otliers. I do not believe that the Almighty made the negro capable of self-government. I am aware that all the Ab- olition lecturers that you find traveling about through the country, are in the habit of reading the Declaration of Independence to prove that all men were created eq'jal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. Lincoln is very much in the habit of following in the track of Lovejoy in this particular, by reading that part of the Dec- laration of Independence to prove that the negro was endowed by tlie Almighty with the inalienable right of equality with white men. Now, I say to you, my fellow-citizens, that in my opinion, the signers of the Declaration had no reference to the negro whatever, when they declared all men to be created equal. They de- sired to express by that phrase white men, men of European birth and European descent, and had no reference either to the negro, the savage Indians, the Fejee, the Malay, or any other inferior and degraded iTicc, when they spoke of the equality of men. One great evidence that such Avas their understanding, is to be found in the fact that at that time every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding coliftny, every signer of the Declaration represented a slaveholding constituency, and we know that n.) one of them emancipated his slaves, much less offei-ed citizenship to 117 tbem when they signed the Declaration ; and yet, if they intended to declare that the negro was the equal of the white man, and entitled by divine right to an equal- ity with him, they were bound, as honest men, that day and hour to have put their negroes on an equality with themselves. Instead of doing so, with uplifted eyes to heaven they implored the divine blessing upon them, during the seven years' bloody war they had to fight to maintain that Declaration, never dreaming that they were violating divine law by still holding the negroes in bondage and depriving them of equality. My friends, I am in favor of pi'eserving this Government as our fathers made it. It does not follow by any means that because a negro is not your equal or mine, that hence he must necessarily be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow that we ought to extend to the negro every right, every privilege, every immunity which lie is capa- ble of enjoying, consistent with the good of society. When you ask me what these rights are, what their nature and extent is, I tell you that that is a question which each State of this Union must decide for itself. Illinois has already decided the question. We have decided that the negro must not be a slave within our hmits, but we have also decided that the negro shall not be a citizen within our limits ; that he shall not vote, hold office, or exercise any political rights. I maintain that Illi- nois, as a sovereign State, has a right thus to fix her policy with reference to the relation between the white man and the negro ; but while we had tiiat right to de- cide the question tor ourselves, we must recognize the same right in Kentucky and in every other State to make the same decision, or a different one. Having decided our own policy with reference to the black race, we nmst leave Kentucky and Mis- souri and every other State perfectly free to make just such a decision as they see proper on that question. Kentucky has decided that question for herself. She lias said that within her limits a negro shall not exercise any political rights, and she has also said that a por- tion of the negroes under the laws of that State shall be slaves. She had as much light to adopt that as her policy as we had to adopt the contrary for our policy. New York has decided that in that State a negro may vote if he has $250 worth of property, and if he owns that much he may vote upon an equality with the white man. I, for one, am utterly opposed to negro suffrage any where and under any cir- cumstances ; yet, inasmuch as the Supreme Court have decided in the celebrated Dred Scott case that a State has a right to confer the privilege of voting upon free negroes, I am not going to make war upon New York because she has adopted a policy repugnant to my feelings. But New York must mind her own business, and keep her negro suffrage to herself, and not attempt to force it upon us. In the State of Maine they have decided that a negro may vote and hold office on an equality with a white man. I had occasion to say to the Senators from Maine, in a discussion last session, that if they thought that the white people Avithin the limits of their State were no better than negroes, I would not quarrel with them for it, but they must not say that my white constituents of Illinois were no better than negroes, or we would be sure to quarrel. The Dred Scott decision covers the whole question, and declares that each State has the right to settle this question of suffrage for itself, and all questions as to the dilations between the white man and the negro. Judge Taney expressly lays down the doctrine. I receive it as law, and I say that while those States are adopting reg- ulations on that subject disgusting and abhorrent, according to my views, I will not make war on them if they will mind their own business and let us alone. I now come back to the question, why cannot this Union exist foi'ever divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it ? It can thus exist if each State will carry out the principles upon which our institutions were founded, to wit : the right of each State to do as it pleases, without meddling with its neighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and this Union will not only live forever, but it will extend and expand until it covers the whole continent, and makes this confederacy one grand, ocean-bound Republic. We must bear in mind that we are yet a young nation, 118 growing with a rapidity unequaled in the history of the world, that our national in- crease is great, and that the emigration from the old woi'ld is increasing, requiring us to expand and acquire new territory from time to time, in order to give our peo pie land to live upon. If we live upon the principle of State rights and State sov- ereignty, each State regulating its own affairs and minding its own business, we can go on and extend indefinitely, just as fast and as far as we need the territory. The time may come, indeed has now come, when our interests would be advanced by the acquisition of the Island of Cuba. When we get Cuba we must take it as we find it, leaving the people to decide the question of slavery for themselves, without inter- ference on the part of the Federal Government, or of any State of this Union. So, when it becomes necessary to acquire any portion of Mexico or Canada, or of this continent or the adjoinmg islands, we must take them as we find them, leaving the people free to do as they please — to have slavery or not, as they choose. I never have inquired and never will inquire whether a new State, applying for admission, has slavery or not for one of her institutions. If the Constitution that is presented be the act and deed of the people, and embodies their will, and they have the requisite population, I will admit them with slavery or without it, just as that people shall determine. My objection to the Lecompton Constitution did not consist in the fact that it made Kansas a slave State. I would have been as much opposed to its admission under such a Constitution as a free State as I was opposed to its admission under it as a slave State. I hold that that was a question which that people had a right to decide for themselves, and that no power on earth ought to have interfered with that decision. In my opinion, the Lecompton Constitution was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will, and the recent election in that Territory, at which it was voted down by nearly ten to one, shows conclusively that I was right in saying, when the Constitution was pre- sented, that it was not the act and deed of the people, and did not embody their will. If we wish to preserve our institutions in their purity, and transmit them unim- paired to our latest posterity, we must preserve with religious good faith that great principle of self-government which guaranties to each and every State, old and new, the right to make just such Constitutions as they desire, and come into the Union with their own Constitution, and not one palmed upon them. Whenever you sanc- tion the doctrine that Congress may crowd a Constitution down the throats of an unwilling people, against their consent, you will subvert the great fundamental prin- ciple upon which all our free institutions rest. In the future I have no fear that the attempt will ever be made. President Buchanan declai'ed m his annual message, that hereafter the rule adopted in the Minnesota case, requiring a Constitution to be sub- mitted to the people, should be followed in all future cases, and if he stands by that recommendation there will be no division in the Democratic party on that principle in the future. Hence, the great mission of the Democracy is to unite the fraternal fe(iling of the whole country, restore peace and quiet, by teaching each State to mmd its own business, and regulate its own domestic affairs, and all to unite in car- rying out the Constitution as our fathers made it, and thus to preserve the Union and render it perpetual in all time to come. Why should we not act as our fathers who made the Government ? There was no sectional strife in Washington's army. They were all bretliren of a common confederacy ; they fought under a common fiag that they might bestow upon their posterity a common destiny, and to this end they poured out their blood in common streams, and shared, in some instances, a amimon grave. 119 MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY. Ladies and Gentlemen: There is very much in the principles that Judge Douglas has here enunciated that I most cordially approve, and over which I shall have no controversy with him. In so far as he has insisted that all the States have the right to do exactly as they please about all their domestic relations, including that of slavery, I agree entirely with him. He places me wrong in spite of all I can tell him, though I repeat it again and again, insisting that I have no difference with him upon this subject. I have made a great many speeches, some of which have been printed, and it will be utterly impossible for him to find any thing that I have ever put in print contrary to what I now say upon this subject. I hold myself under constitutional obligations to allow the people in all the States, without interfer- ence, direct or indirect, to do exactly as they please, and I deny that I have any in- clination to interfere with them, even if there were no such constitutional obligation. I can only say again that I am placed improperly — altogether impropei'ly, in spite of all I can say — when it is insisted that I entertain any other view or purposes in re- gard to that matter. Wliile I am upon this subject, I will make some answers briefly to certain propo- sitions that Judge Douglas has put. He says, " Why can't this Union endure per- manently, half slave and half free ?" I have said that I supposed it could not, and I will try, before this new audience, to give briefly some of the reasons for entertain- ing that opinion. Another form of his question is, " Why can't we let it stand as our fathers placed it ?" That is the exact difficulty between us. I say, that Judge Douglas and his friends have changed them from the position in which our fathers originally placed it. I say, in the way our fathers originally left the slavery question, the institution was in the course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind rested in the belief that it loas in the course of ultimate extinction. I say when this Gov- ernment was first established, it was the policy of its founders to prohibit the spread of slavery into the new Territories of the United States, where it had not existed. But Judge Douglas and his friends have broken up that policy, and placed it upon a new basis by which it is to become national and perpetual. All I have asked or desired any where is that it should be placed back again upon the basis that the fothers of our Government originally placed it upon. I have no doubt that it would become extinct, for Jill time to come, if we but readopted the policy of the fathers by restricting it to the limits it has already covered — I'estricting it from the new Territories. I do not wish to dwell at great length on this branch of the subject at this time, but allow me to repeat one tiling that I have stated before. Brooks, the man who assaulted vSenator Sumner on the floor of the Senate, and who was complimented with dinners, and silver pitchers, and gold-headed canes, and a good many other things for that feat, in one of his speeches declaiied that when this Government was originally established, nobody expected that the institution of slaveiy would last until this day. Tiiat was but the opinion of one man, but it was such an opinion as we can never get from Judge Douglas or anybody in favor of slavery in the North at all. You can sometimes get it from a Southern man. He said at the same time that the framers of our Government did not have the knowledge that experience has taught us — that experience and the invention of the cotton-gin have taught us that the perpetuation of slavery is a necessity. He insisted, therefore, upon its being changed from the basis upon which the lathers of the Government left it to the basis of its perpetuation and nationalization. I insist that this is the difference between Judge Douglas and myself — that Judge Douglas is helping that change along. I insist upon this Government being placed where our fathers originally placed it. I remember Judge Douglas once said that he saw the evidences on the statute books of Congress, of a policy in the origin of Government to divide slavery and 120 freedom by a geographical line — that he saw an indisposition to maintain that policy, and therefore he set about studying up a way to settle the institution on the right basis — the basis which he thought it ought to have been placed upon at first ; and in that speech he confesses that he seeks to place it, not upon the basis that the fathers placed it upon, but upon one gotten up on " original principles." When he asks me why we cannot get along with it in the attitude where our fathers placed it, he had better clear up the evidences that he has himself changed it from that basis ; ♦.hat he has himself been chiefly instrumental in changing the policy of the fathers. Any one who will read his speech of the 22d of last March, will see that he there makes an open confession, showing that he set about fixing the institution upon an altogether different set of principles. I think I have fully answered him when he asks me why we cannot let it alone upon the basis where our fathers left it, by showing that he has himself changed the whole policy of the Government in that regard. Now, fellow-citizens, in regard to this matter about a contract that was made be- tween Judge Trumbull and myself, and all that long portion of Judge Douglas's speech on this subject — I wish simply to say what I have said to him before, that he cannot know whether it is true or not, and I do hiow that thei-e is not a word of truth in it. And I have told him so before. I don't want any harsh language in- dulged in, but I do not know how to deal with this persistent insisting on a stoiy that I know to be utterly without truth. It used to be a fashion amongst men that when a charge was made, some sort of proof was brought forward to establish it, and if no proof was found to exist, the charge was dropped. I don't know how to meet this kind of an argument. I don't want to have a fight with Judge Douglas, and 1 have no way of making an argument up into the consistency of a corn-cob and stop- ping his mouth with it. All I can do is, good-humoredly to say that, from the be- ginning to the end of all that story about a bargain between Judge Trumbull and myself, there is not a word of truth in it. I can only ask him to show some sort of evidence of the truth of his story. He brings forward hei-e and reads from what he contends is a speech by James H. Matheny, charging such a bargain between Trum- bull and myself. My own opinion is that Matheny did do some such immoral thing as to tell a story that he knew nothing about. I believe he did. I contradicted it in- stantly, and it has been contradicted by Judge Trumbull, while nobody lias produced any proof, because there is none. Now, whether the speech which the Judge brings forward here is really the one Blatlieny made I do not know, and I hope the Judge will pardon me for doubting the genuineness of this document, since his production of those Springfield resolutions at Ottawa. I do not wish to dwell at any great length upon this matter. I can say nothing when a long story like this is told, ex- cept it is not true, and demand that he who insists upon it shall produce some proof. That is all any man can do, and I leave it in that way, for I know of no other way of dealing with it. The Judge has gone over a long account of the old Whig and Democratic parties, and it connects itself with this charge against Trumbull and myself He says that they agreed upon a compromise in regard to the slavery question in 1850 ; that in a National Democratic Convention resolutions were passed to abide by that com- promise as a finality upon the slavery question. He also says that the Whig party ir. National Convention agreed to abide by and regard as a finality the Compromise of 1850. I understand the Judge to be altogether right about that; I understand that part of the history of the country as stated by him to be correct. I recollect that I, as a member of that party, acquiesced in that compromise. I recollect in the Presidential election which followed, when we had General Scott up for the Presidency, Judge Douglas was around berating us Whigs as Abolitionists, precisely as he does to-day — not a bit of difference. I have often heard him. We could do nothing when the old Whig party was alive that was not Abolitionism, but it has got an extremely good name since it has passed away. When that Compromise was made it did not repeal the old Missouri Compromise. 121 It left a region of United States territory half as large as the present territory of the United States, north of the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, in which slavery was prohibited by act of Congress. This compromise did not repeal that one. It did not aifect or propose to repeal it. But at last it became Judge Douglas's duty, as he thought (and I find no fault with him), as Chairman of the Committee on Terri- tories, to bi-ing in a bill for the organization of a Territorial Government — first of one, tlien of two Territories north of that line. When he did so it ended in his inserting a provision substantially repealing the Missouri Compromise. That was because the Compromise of 1850 had not repealed it. And now I ask why he could not liave let that compromise alone ? We wei-e quiet from the agitation of the slavery question. We were making no fuss about it. All had acquiesced in the Compromise measures of 1850. We never had been seriously disturbed by any abolition agita- tion before that period. When he came to form governments for the Territories north of the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, why could he not have let that matter stand as it was standing ? Was it necessary to the organization of a Territory ? Not at all. Iowa lay north of the line and had been organized as a Tei'ritory and come into the Union as a State without disturbing that Compromise. There was no sort of necessity for destroying it to organize these Territories. But, gentlemen, it would take up all my time to meet all the little quibbling arguments of Judge Doug- las to show that the JMissouri Compromise was repealed hj the Compromise of 1850. My own opinion is, that a careful investigation of all the arguments to sustain the posi- tion that that Compromise was virtually repealed by the Compromise of 1850, would show that they are the merest fallacies. I have the Report that Judge Douglas first brought into Congress at the time of the introduction of the Nebraska bill, which in its original form did not repeal the Missouri Compromise, and he there expressly stated that he had forborne to do so because it had not been done by the Compro- mise of 1850. I close this part of the discussion on my pai't by asking him the question again, " Why, when we had peace under the Missouri Compromise, could you not have let it alone ? " In complaining of what I said in my speech at Springfield, in which he says I ac- cepted my nomination for the Senatorship (where, by the way, he is at fault, for if ho will examine it, he will find no acceptance in it), he again quotes that portion ir v/hich I said that " a house divided against itself cannot stand." Let me say a word in regard to that matter. He tries to persuade us that there must be a variety in the diflTerent institutiom of the States of the Union ; that that variety necessarily proceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the face of the country, and the difference in the natural featurcb of the States. I agree to all that. Have these very matters ever produced any difficulty amongst us ? Not at all. Have w^e ever had any quarrel over the fact tiiat they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulate the commerce that springs from the production of sugar ? Or because we have a diiferent class relative to the production of flour in this State ? Have they produced any diiferences ? Not at all. They are the very cements of this Union. They don't make the house a house divided against itself They are the props that hold up the house and sustain the Union. But has it been so with this element of slavery ? Have we not jjjfvvays had (jnar- rels and difficulties over it? And when will we cease to have quarrels over i\ * Like causes produce like effiscts. It is worth while to observe that w^e have gene; ally had comparative peace upon the slavery question, and that there has been i ; cause for alarm until it was excited by the effort to spread it into new tCL-ntory Whenever it has been limited to its present bounds, and there has been no effort \% spread it, there has been peace. All the trouble and convulsion has proceeded froL* efforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus at the date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so again with the ann^ixation of Texas ; so with the territory acquired by the Mexican war, and it is so now. Whenever there has been an effort to spread it there has been agitation and resistance. Now, I appeal to this audience 122 (very few of whom are my political friends), as national men, whether we have reason to expect that the agitation in regard to this subject will cease while the causes that tend to reproduce agitation are actively at work ? Will not the same cause that produced agitation in 1820, when the Missouri Compromise was formed ■ — that which produced the agitation upon the annexation of Texas, and at other times — work out the same results always ? Do you think that the nature of man will be changed — that the same causes that produced agitation at one time will not have the same effect at another? This has been the result so far as my observation of the slavery question and my reading in history extends. What right have we then to hope that the trouble will cease — that the agitation will come to an end — until it shall either be placed back where it originally stood, and where the fathers originally placed it, or, on the other hand, until it shall entirely master all opposition ? This is the view I entertain, and this is the reason why I entertained it, as Judge Douglas has read from my Spring- field speech. Now, my friends, there is one other thing that I feel myself under some sort of obligation to mention. Judge Douglas has here to-day — in a very rambling way, I was about saying — spoken of the platforms for which he seeks to hold me responsi- ble. He says, "Why can't you come out and make an open avowal of principles in all places alike ?" and he reads from an advertisement that he says was used to notify tlie people of a speech to be made by Judge Trumbull at Waterloo. In commenting on it he desires to know whether we cannot speak frankly and manfully as he and his friends do ! How, I ask, do his friends speak out their own sentiments ? A Con- vention of his party in this State met on the 21st of April, at Springfield, and passed a set of resolutions which they proclaim to the country as their platform. This does constitute their platform, and it is because Judge Douglas claims it is his platform — that these are his principles and purposes — that he has a right to declare he speaks his sentiments "frankly and manfully." On the 9th of June, Col. John Dougherty, Gov. Reynolds and others, calling themselves National Democrats, met in Springfield and adopted a set of resolutions which are as easily understood, as plain and as definite in stating to the country and to the world what they believed in and would stand upon, as Judge Douglas's platform. Now, what is the reason, that Judge Douglas is not Avilling that Col. Dougherty and Gov. Reynolds should stand upon their own written and printed platform as well as he upon his ? Why must he look farther than their platform when he claims himself to stand by his platform ? Again, in reference to our platform : On the 1 6th of June the Republicans had their Convention and published their platform, which is as clear and distinct as Judge Douglas's. In it they spoke their principles as plainly and as definitely to the world. What is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing I should stand upon that platform ? Why must he go around hunting for some one who is supporting me, or has support^hould oppose the largest latitude in /rc« JSatl, Free Territorii and Free Speech. Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, the time has arrived when all men sJiould hefrer, whit*^!-: as well as others. Judge Douglas — ''W^hat is the date of those resolutions?* Mr. Lincoln — I understand it was in 1850, but I do not hxoxo it. I do not state a thing and say I know it, when I do not. But I have the highest behef that this is so. I know of no way to arrive at the conclusion that there is an en-or in it. I mean to put a case no stronger than the truth will allow. But what I was going to comment upon is an extract from a newspaper in DeKalb county, and it strikes me as being rather singular, I confess, under the circumstances. There is a Judge Mayo in that county, who is a candidate for the Legislature, lor the purpose, if he secures his election, of helping to I'e-elect Judge Douglas. He is the editor of a newspaper [DeKalb County Sentinel], and in that paper I find the extract I am going to read. It is part of an editorial article in which he was electioneering as fiercely as he could for Judge Douglas and against me. It was a curious thing, I think, to be in such a paper. I will agree to that, and the Judge may make the most of it : *' Our education has been such, that we have ever been rather in favor of the eqdaliti/ of the blacks ; that is, that they shoidd enjoy all the privileges of the whites where they reside. We are aware that this is not a very popular doctrine. We liave had many a confab with some who are now strong ' Republicans,' we taking the broad ground of equality and they the opposite ground. '• We \vere brought up in a State where blacks were voters, and we do not know of any inconvenience resulting from it, though perhaps it would not work as well where the blacks are more numerous. We have no doubt of the right of the whites to guard against such an evil, if it is one. Our opinion is that it would be best for all concerned to have the colored population in a State by themselves [in this I :igree with him] ; but if Avitliin the jurisdiction of the United States, we say by all means they should have the right to have their Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to vote for President. With us ' worth makes the man, and want of it the fellow.' AVe have seen many a * nigger ' that we thought more of than some white men.'' That is one of Judge Douglas's friends. Now I do not want to leave myself in an attitude where I can be misrepresented, so I will say I do not think the Judge is responsible for this article ; but he is quite as responsible for it as 1 would be if one of my friends had said it. I think that is fair enough. I have here also a set of resolutions passed by a Democratic State Convention in Judge Douglas's own good old State of Vermont, that I think ought to be good for him too : Resolved, That liberty is a right inherent and inalienable in man, and that herein all men are tqiuxl. Resolved, That we claim no authority in the Federal Government to abolish slavery in the several States, but we do claim for it Constitutional power perpetually to prohibit the introduc- tion of slavery into territory now free, ajjd abolish it wherever, under the jurisdiction of Congress, it exists. Resolved, That this power ought immediately to be exercised in prohibiting the introductioa. and existence of slavery iu New Mexico and California, in abolishing slavery and the slave- trade in the District of Columbia, on the high seas, and wherever else, under the Constitution, it can be reached. Resolved, That no more slave States should be admitted into the Federal Union, Re.'iolved. That the Government ought to return to its ancient policy, not to extend, nation- ttii/e or encourage, but to limit, localizi: and di.sconrage .slavery. 9 126 At Freeport I answered several interrogatories that had been propounded to me by Judge Douglas at the Ottawa meeting. The Judge has yet not seen fit to find any fault with the position that I took in regard to those seven interrogatories, which were certainly broad enough, in all conscience, to cover the entire ground. In my answers, which have been printed, and all have had the opportunity of seeing, I take the ground that those who elect me must expect that 1 will do nothing which will not be in accordance with those answers. I have some riglit to assert that Judge Doug- las has no fault to find Avith them. But he chooses to still try to thnist me upon difi'erent ground without paying any attention to my answers, the obtaining of wliich ft-om me cost him so much trouble and concern. At the same time, I propounded four interrogatories to him, claiming it as a riglit that he should answer as many interrogatories for me as I did for him, and 1 would reserve myself for a future in- stallment when I got them ready. The Judge in answering me upon that occasion, put in what I suppose he intends as answers to all four of my interrogatories. Tiie first one of these interrogatories I have before me, and it is in tiiese words : "Question 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State Constitution, and ask admission into the Union un- der it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the English bill — some ninety-three thousand — will you vote to admit them?" As I read the Judge's answer in the newspaper, and as I remember it as j)ro- nounced at the time, he does not give any answer which is equivalent to yes or no — I will or I wont. He answers at very considerable length, i-atlier quarreling with me for asking the question, and insisting that Judge Trumbull had done something that I ought to say something about ; and finally getting out such statements as in- duce me to infer that he means to be understood he will, in that supposed case, vote for the admission of Kansas. I only bring this forward now for the purpose of say- ing that if he chooses to put a different construction upon his answer he may do it. But if he does not, I shall from this time forward assume that he will vote for the admission of Kansas in disregard of the English bill. He has the right to remove any misunderstanding I may have. I only mention it now that I may here- after assume this to be the true construction of his answer, if he does not now choose to correct me. The second interrogatory that I propounded to him, was this : " Question 2. Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizer of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution ? " To this Judge Douglas answered that they can lawfully exclude slavery from the Territory prior to the formation of a Constitution. He goes on to tell us how it can be done. As I understand him, he holds that it can be done by the Tenitorial Legislature refusing to make any enactments for the protection of slavery in the Territory, and especially by adopting unfriendly legislation to it. For the sake of clearness I state it again; that they can exclude slavery from the Territory, 1st, by withholding what he assumes to be an indispensable assistance to it in the way of legislation ; and, 2d, by unfriendly legislation. If I rightly understand him, I wish to ask your attention for a while to his position. In the first place, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that any Congressional prohibition of slavery in the Territories is unconstitutional — that thoy have reached this proposition as a conclusion from then- former proposition, that the Constitution of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves, and from that other Constitutional provision, that no person shall ])e deprived of property without due process of law. Hence they reach the conclusion that as the Constitu- tion of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves, and prohibits any pei*son from being deprived of property without due process of law, to pass an act of Congress by which a man who owned a slave on one side of a line would be de- prived of him if he took him on the other side, is depriving him of that property without due process of law. That I understand to be the decision of the Su- 127 preme Court. I understand also that Judge Douglas adheres most firmly to that decision ; and the difficulty is, how is it possible for any power to exclude slavery from the Territory unless in violation of that decision ? That is the difficulty. In the Senate of the United States, in 1850, Judge Trumbull, in a speech, sub- stantially, if not directly, put the same interrogatory to Judge Douglas, as to whether the people of a Territory had the lawful power to exclude slavery prior to the for- mation of a Constitution ? Judge Douglas then answered at considerable length, and his answer will be found in the Cotigressional Globe, under date of June 9th, 185G. The Judge said that whether the people could exclude slavery prior to tiie formation of a Constitution or not was a question to he decided by the Supreme Court. He put that proposition, as will be seen by the Congressional Globe, in a variety of forms, all running to the same thing in substance — that it was a question tor the Supreme Court. I maintain that when he says, after the Supreme Court have decided the question, that the people may yet exclude slavery by any means whatever, he does virtually say, that it is not a question for the Supreme Court. He shifts his ground. I appeal to you whether he did not say it was a question for the Supreme Court? Has not the Supreme Court decided that question? When he now says the people may exclude slavery, does he not make it a question for the people ? Does he not virtually shift his ground and say that it is not a question for the court, but for the people ? This is a very simple proposition — a very plain and naked one. It seems to me that there is no difficulty in deciding it. In a variety of ways he said that it was a question for the Supreme Court. He did not stop then to tell us that whatever the Supreme Court decides, the people can by with- holding necessary " police regulations" keep slavery out. He did not make any such answer. I submit to you now, whether the new state of the case has not in- duced the Judge to sheer away from his original ground. "Would not this be the im- pression of every fair-minded man ? I hold that the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new country without police regulations is historically false. It is not true at all. I hold that the history of this country shows that the institution of slavery was originally planted upon this conti- nent without these '' police regulations " Avhich the Judge now thinks necessary for the actual establishment of it. Not only so, but is there not another ftict — how came this Dred Scott decision to be made ? It was made upon the case of a negro being taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota Territory, claiming his freedom be- cause the act of Congress pi'ohibited his being so held there. Will the Judge pre- tend that Dred Scott was not held there without police regulations ? There is at least one matter of record as to his having been held in slavery in the Ten-itory, not only Avithout police regulations, but in the teeth of Congressional legislation sup- posed to be valid at the time. This shows that there is vigor enough in slavery to plant itself in a new country even against unfriendly legislation. It takes not only law but the enforcement of law to keep it out. That is the history of this country upon the subject. I wish to ask one other question. It being understood that the Constitution of the United States guaranties property in slaves in the Territories, if there is any in- fringement of the right of that property, would not the United States Courts, organ- ized for the government of the Territory, apply such remedy as might be necessary in that case? It is a maxim held by the courts, that there is no wrong without its remedy ; and the courts have a remedy for whatever is acknowledged and treated as a wrong. Again : I Avill ask you, my friends, if you were elected members of the Legisla- ture, wiiat would be the first thing you would have to do before entering ujjon your duties ? Swear to support the Constitution of the United States. Suppose you believe, as Judge Douglas does, that the Constitution of the United States guaran- ties to your neighbor the right to hold slaves in that Territory — that they are hia property — how can you clear your oaths unless you give him such legislation as is necessary to enable him to enjoy that property ? What do you understand by sup- 128 porting the Constitution of a State, or of the United States ? Is it nce charge wtus true, why did not Trumbull make it in 1856, when I was discussing tlie questions of that day all over this State with Lincoln and him, and when it was pertinent to the then issue? He was then as silent as the grave on the subject. If that charge was true, the time to have brought it forward was the canvass of 1856, the year when the Toombs bill passed the Senate. When the facts were fresh in the public mind, when the Kansas question was the paramount question of tlie day, and When such a charge would have had a material bearing on the election, why did he and Lincoln remain silent then, knowing that such a charge could be made and proven if true ? Were they not false to you and false to the country in going through that entire campaign, concealing their knowledge of this enormous conspiracy which, Mr. Trumbull says, he then knew and would not tell ? Mr. Lincoln intimates, in his speech, a good reason why Mr. Ti'umbull would not tell, for, he says, that it might be true, as I proved that it was at Jacksonville, that Trumbull was also in the plot, yet that the fact of Trumbull's being in the plot would not in any way relieve me. He illustrates tliis argument by supposing himself on trial for murder, and says that it would he no extenuating circumstance if, on his trial, another man was found to be a party to his crime. Well, if Trumbull was in the plot, and concealed it in order to escape the odium which would have fallen upon himself, I ask you whether you can believe him now when he turns State's evidence, and avows his own infamy in order to implicate me. I am amazed that Mr. Lincoln should now come Ibrward and indorse that charge, occupying his whole hour in reading Mr. Trumbull's speech in support of it. Why, I ask, does not Mr. Lincoln make a speech of his own instead of taking up his time reading Trumbull's speech at Alton ? I supposed that Mr. Lincoln was capable of making a public speech on his own account, or I should not hav? accepted the banter fi'om him for a joint discussion. ["How about tl»e charges?"] Do not trouble yourselves, I am going to make my speech in my own way, and I trust, as the Democrats listened patiently and respectfully to Mr. Lincohi, that his friends will not interrupt me when I am answering him. When Mr. Trumbull returned from the East, the first thing he did when he landed at Chi- cago was to make a speech wholly devoted to assaults upon my pubhc character and public action. Up t>i3 charo-e since he made his speech in Chicago. Let us see. The Chicago Time.i took^up Trumbull's Chicago speech, compared it with the official records of Con- .^ress and proved that speech to be false m its charge that the original Toombs biU required a submission of the Constitution to the people. Trumbull then saw that he was caught— and his falsehood exposed— and he went to Alton, and, under the very walls of the penitentiary, made a new speech, in which he predicated his as- sault upon me in the allegation that I had caused to be voted into the Toombs bill a clause which prohibited the Convention from submitting the Constitution to the peo- ple and quoted what he pretended was the clause. Now, has not Mr. Trumbull en- tire'ly changed the evidence on which he bases his charge? The clause which he quoted in his Alton speech (which he has pubhshed and circulated broadcast over the State) as having been put into the Toombs bill by me, is in the following words : " And'^until the complete execution of this act, no other election shall be held m said Territory." Trumbull says that the object of that amendment wa^ to jirevent the Convention ti-oni submitting the Constitution to a vote of the people. Now I will show you that when Trumbull made that statement at Alton he knew it to be' untrue. I read from Trumbull's speech in the Senate on the Toombs bill on the night of its passage. He then said: , ^ . , ...• " There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have discovered, about submitting the Constitution, which is to be formed, to the people for their sanction or rejec- tion Perhaps the Convention will have the right to submit it, if it should think proper, but it is certainly not compelled to do so according to the provisions of the bill." ,„ . • ., o X -J Thus you see that Trumbull, when the bill was on its passage m the Senate, said th-it it was silent on the subject of submission, and that there was nothing in the bill one way or the other on it. In his Alton speech he says there was a clause in the bill preventiH"- its submission to the people, and that I had it voted in as an amendment. Thus I convict him of falsehood and slander by quoting from him on the passage of the Toombs bill in the Senate of the United States, his own speech, made on the ni<'-ht of July 2, 1856, and reported in the Congressional Globe for the fii-st session of°the thirty-fourth Congress, vol. 33. What will you think of a man who makes a false charge and falsifies the records to prove it? I will now show you that the clause which Trumbull says was put in the bill on my motion, was never put in at all by me but was stricken out on my motion and another substituted in its pluce. I call your attention to the same volume of the Congressional Globe to which I have al- ready referred, page 795, where you will find the following report of the proceedings of the Senate : r^ • r^ .. • "Ml-. Douo-las I have an amendment to offer from the Committee on iemtones. 148 On page 8, section 11, strike out the words 'until the complete execution of this axit, no other election shall be held in said Territory,' and insert the amendment which I hold in my hand."' You see from this that I moved to strike out the very words that Trumbull says I put in. The Committee on Territories overruled me in Committee and put the clause in, but as soon as I got the bill back into the Senate, I moved to strike it out and put another clause in its phice. On the same page you will find that my amend- ment was agreed to unanimously. I then offered another amendment, recognizing the right of the people of Kan>;as, under the Toombs bill, to order just such elections as they saw proper. You can find it on page 796 of the same volume. I will read it : " Mr. Douglas — I have another amendment to offer from the Committee, to fol- low the amendment which has been adopted. The bill reads now : ' And until the complete execution of this act, no other election shall be held in said Territory.' It has been suggested that it should be modified in this way : ' And to avoid conflict in the complete execution of this act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby postponed until such time as said Convention shall appoint,' so that they can appoint tiie day in the event that there should be a failure to come into the Union." The amendment was unanimously agreed to — clearly and distinctly recognizing the right of the Convention to order just as many elections as they saw proper in the execution of the act. Trumbull concealed in his Alton speech the fact that the clause he quoted had been stricken out in my motion, and the other fact that this other clause was put in the bill on my motion, and made the false charge that I in- coi'porated into the bill a clause preventing submission, in the face of the fact, that, on my motion, the bill was so amended befoi'e it passed as to recognize in express words the right and duty of submission. On this record that I have produced before you, I repeat my charge that Trum- bull did falsify the public records of the country, in order to make his charge against me, and I tell Mr. Abraham Lincoln that if he will examine these records, he will then know that what I state is true. Mr. Lincoln has this day indorsed Mr. Trum- bull's veracity after he had my word for it that that veracity was proved to be vio- lated and forfeited by the public records. It will not do for Mr. Lincoln in parad- ing his calumnies against me, to put Mr. Trumbull between him and the odium and responsibility which justly attaches to such calumnies. I tell him that I am as ready to prosecute the indorser as the maker of a forged note. I regret the neces- sity of occupying my time with these petty pei-sonal matters. It is unbecoming the dignity of a canvass for an office of the character for which we are candidates. When I commenced the canvass at Chicago, I spoke of Mr. Lincoln in terms of kindness as an old friend — I said that he was a good citizen, of unblemished charac- ter, agtiinst whom I had nothing to say. I repeated these complimentary remarks about hira in my successive speeches, until he became the indorser for these and other slanders against me. If thei'e is any thing personally disagreeable, uncourteous or disreputable in these personalities, the sole responsibihty rests on Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Trumbull and their backers. I will show you another charge made by Mr. Lincoln against me, as an offset to his determination of willingness to take back any thing that is incorrect, and to cor- rect any false statement he may have made. He has several times chai'ged that the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself, at the time I introduced the Nebraska bill in January, 1854, at Washington, entered into a con- spiracy to establish slavery all over this country. I branded this charge as a false- hood, and then he repeated it, asked me to analyze its truth and answer it. 1 told him, " Mr. Lincoln, I know what you are after — you want to occupy my time in personal matters, to pi'event me from showing up tlie revolutionary principles which tlie Abolition party — whose candidate you are — have proclaimed to the world." But he asked me to analyze his proof, and I did so. I called his attention to the fact that at tlie time the Nebraska bill was introduced, there was no such case as the 149 Dred Scott case pending in the Supreme Court, nor was it brought there for years afterward, and hence that it was impossible there could have been any such con- spiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court and the otlier parties involved. I proved by the record that the charge was false, and what did he answer ? Did he take it back like an honest man and say that he had been mistaken ? No ; he re- peated the charge, and said, tiiat although there was no such case pending that year, there was an understanding between the Democratic owners of Dred Scott and the Judges of the Supreme Court and other parties involved, that the case should be brought up. I then demanded to know who these Democratic owners of Dred Scott were. He could not or would not tell ; he did not know. In truth, there were no Democratic owners of Dred Scott on the face of the land. Dred Scott was owned at that time by the Rev. Dr. Cliaffee, an Abolition member of Congress from Springfield, Massachusetts, and his wife ; and Mr. Lincoln ought to have known that Dred Scott was so owned, for the reason that as soon as the decision was announced by the court. Dr. Chaffee and his wife executed a deed emancipating him, and put that deed on record. It w^as a matter of public record, therefore, that at the time the case was taken to the Supreme Court, Dred Scott was owned by an Abolition member of Congress, a friend of Lincoln's, and a leading man of his party, while the defense was conducted by Abolition lawyers — and thus the Abolitionists man- aged both sides of the case. I have exposed these facts to Mr. Lincoln, and yet he will not withdraw his charge of conspiracy. I now submit to you whether you can place any confidence in a man who continues to make a charge when its utter falsity is proven by the public records. I will state another fact to show how utterly reck- less and unscrupulous this charge against the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan and myself is. Lincoln says that President Buchanan was in the conspiracy at Washington in the winter of 1854, when the Nebraska bill was introduced. The history of tliis country shows that James Buchanan was at that time representing this country at the Court of St. James, Great Britain, witli distinguished ability and usefulness, that he had not been in the United States for nearly a year previous, and that he did not return until about three years after. Yet Mr. Lincoln keeps repeating this charge of conspiracy against Mr. Buchanan when tlie public records prove it to be untrue. Having pi-oved it to be false as far as the Supreme Court and President Buchanan are concerned, I drop it, leaving the pub- lic to say whether I, by myself, without their concurrence, could have gone into a conspiracy with them. My friends, you see that the object cleiirly is to conduct the canvass on personal matters, and hunt me down with charges that are proven to be false by the public records of the country. I am willing to throw open my whole public and private life to the inspection of any man, or all men who desire to inves- tigate it. Having resided among you twenty-five years, during nearly the whole of which time a public man, exposed to more assaults, perhaps more abuse than any man living of my age, or who ever did live, and having survived it all and stiU com- muidcd your confidence, I am willing to trust to your knowledge of me and my pub- li( conduct without making any more defense against these assaults. Fellow-citizens, I came here for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the country. I have no charges to make against Mr. Lin- coln, none against Mr. Trumbull, and none against any man who is a candidate, ex- cept in repelling their assaults upon me. If Mr. Lincoln is a man of bad character, I leave you to find it out ; if his votes in the past are not satisfactory, I leave others to asc(!rtain the fact ; if his course on the Mexican war was not in accordance with your notions of patriotism and fidelity to our own country as against a public enemy, 1 leave you to ascertain the fact. I have no assaults to make upon him, except to trace his course on the questions that now divide the country and engross so much of the people's attention. You know that prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political par- ties, on(! the Whig, the otlier the Democratic. I, as a Democrat for twenty yeare prior to that time, had been in public discussions in this State as an advocate of Dem- 150 ocratic principles, and I can appeal with confidence to every old line Whig within the hearing of my voice to bear testimony that during all that period I fought you Whigs like a man on every question tiiat separated the two parties. I had the high- est respect for Henry Clay as a gallant party leader, as an eminent statesman, and as one of the bright ornaments of this country ; but I conscientiously believed that the Democratic party was right on the questions which separated the Democrats from the Whigs. The man does not live who can say that I ever personally assailed Heniy Claj or Daniel Webster, or any one of the leaders of that great i)arty, whilst 1 combated with all my energy the measures they advocated. What did we differ about in those days? Did Whigs and Democrats differ about this slavery question? On the contrary, did we not, in 1850, unite to a man in favor of that system of Com- promise measures which Mr. Clay introduced, Webster defended, Cass supported, and Fillmore approved and made the law of the land by his signature. While we agreed on those Compromise measures, we differed about a bank, the tariff, distribu- tion, the specie circular, the sub-treasury, and other questions of that description. Now, let me ask you, which one of those questions on which Whigs and Democrats then differed now remains to divide the two great pai'tics ? Every one of those ques- tions which divided Whigs and Democrats has passed away, the country has outgrown them, they have passed into history. Hence it is immaterial whether you were right or I was right on the bank, the sub-treasury, and other questions, because they no longer continue living issues. What, then, has taken the place of those questions about which we once differed ? The slavery question has now become the leading and controUing issue ; that question on which you and I agreed, on which the Whigs and Democrats united, has now become the leading issue between the National De- mocracy on the one side, and the Republican or Abolition party on the other. Just recollect for a moment the memorable contest of 1850, when this country was agitated from its center to its circumference by the slavery agitation. All eyes in this nation were then turned to the three great lights that survived the days of the Revolution. They looked to Clay, then in retirement at Ashland, and to Webster and Cass in the United States Senate. Clay had i-etired to Ashland, having, as he supposed, performed his mission on earth, and was preparing himself for a better sphere of existence in another world. In that retirement he heard the discordant, harsh and grating sounds of sectional strife and disunion, and he aroused and came forth and resumed his seat in the Senate, that great theater of his great deeds. From the moment that Clay arrived among us he became the leader of all the Union men, whether Whigs or Democrats. For nine months we each assembled, each day, in the council-chamber. Clay in the chair, with Cass upon his right hand and Webster upon his left, and the Democrats and Whigs gathered around, forgetting differences, and only animated by one common, patriotic sentiment to devise means and measures by which we could defeat the mad and revolutionary scheme of the Northern Abolition- its and Southern disunionists. We did devise those means. Clay brought them for- ward, Cass advocated them, the Union Democrats and Union Whigs voted for them, Fillmore signed them, and they gave peace and quiet to the country. Those Com- promise measui-es of 1850 were founded upon the great fundamental principle that the people of each State and each Territory ought to be left free to form and regu- late their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Federal Constitution. I will ask every old line Democrat and every old line Whig within the hearing of my voice, if I have not truly stated the issues as they then presented themselves to the country. You recollect that the Abolitionists raised a howl of in- dignation, and cried for vengeance and the destruction of Democrats and Whigs both, who supported those Compromise measures of 1850. When I returned home to Chicago, I found the citizens inflamed and infuriated against the authors of those great measures. Being the only man in that city who was held responsible for af- firmative votes on all those measures, 1 came forward and addressed the assembled inhabitants, defended each and every one of Clay's Compromise measures as they passed the Senate and the House, and were approved by President Fillmore. Pre- 161 vious to that time, the city council had passed resolutions nullifying the act of Con- gress, and instructing the police to withhold all assistance from its execution ; but the people of Chicago listened to mj defense, and like candid, frank, conscientious men, wjien they became convinced that they had done an injustice to Clay, Webster, Cass, and all of us who had supported those measures, they repealed their nullifying resolutions and declared that the laws should be executed and the supremacy of the Constitution maintained. Let it always be recorded in history to the immortal lionor of the people of Chicago, that they returned to their duty when they found thai they were wrong, and did justice to those whom they had blamed and abused unjustly. When the Legislature of this State assembled that year, they proceeded to pass res- olutions approving the Compromise measures of 1850. When the Whig party as- sembled in 1852 at Baltimore in National Convention for the last time, to nominate Scott for the Presidency, they adopted as a part of their platform the Compromise measures of 1850 as the cardinal plank upon which every Whig would stand and by which he would regulate his future conduct. When the Democi-atic party assem- bled at the same place one month after, to nominate General Pierce, we adopted the same platform so far as those Compromise measures were concerned, agreeing that we would stand by those glorious measures as a cardinal article in the Democratic faith. Thus you see that in 1852 all the old Whigs and all the old Democrats stood on a common plank so far as this slavery question was concerned, differing on other questions. Now, let me ask, how is it that since that time so many of you Whigs have wan- dered from the true path marked out by Clay and carried out broad and wide by the great Webster? How is it that so many old line Democrats have abandoned the old faith of their party, and joined with Abolitionism and P'reesoilism to overturn the platform of the old Democrats, and the platform of the old Whigs ? You can- not deny tliat since 185-1 there has been a great revolution on this one question. How has it been brought about ? I answer, that no sooner was the sod grown green over he grave of the immortal Clay, no sooner Avas the rose planted on the tomb of the god-like Webster, than many of the leaders of the Whig party, such as Seward, of New York, and his followers, led off" and attempted to abolitionize the Whig party, and transfer all your old Whigs, bound hand and foot, into the Abolition camp. Seizing hold of the tempoi'ary excitement produced in this country by the inti'oduc- tion of the Nebraska bill, the disappointed politicians in the Democratic party united with the disappointed politicians in the Whig party, and endeavored to form a new party composed of all the Abolitionists, of abolitionized Democrats and abolitiouized Whigs, banded together in an Abolition platform. And who led that crusade against National principles in this State ? I answer, Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the Whigs, and Lyman Trumbull on behalf of the Democrats, formed a scheme by which they would abolitionize the two great parties in this State on condition that Lincoln should be sent to the United States Senate in place of General Shields, and that Trumbull should go to Congress from the Belle- ville District, until I would be accommodating enough either to die or resign for his benefit, and then he was to go to the Senate in my place. You all remember that during the year 1854, these two worthy gentlemen, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Ti-umbull, one an old line Whig and the other an old line Democrat, were hunting in partner- ship to elect a Legislature against the Democratic pai-ty. I canvassed the State that year from the time I returned home until the election came off, and spoke in every county that I could reach during that period. In the northern part of the State I found Lincoln's ally, in the person of Fred Douglass, the negro, preaching Abo- lition doctrines, while Lincoln was discussing the same principles down here, and Trumbull, a little farther down, was advocating the election of members to the Legis- lature who would act in concert with Lincoln's and Fred Douglass's friends. I wit- nessed an effort made at Chicago by Lincoln's then associates, and now supporters, to put Fred Douglass, the negro, on the stand at a Democratic meeting, to reply to the illustrious General Cass, when he was addressing the people there. They had 152 the same negro hunting me down, and thej now have a negro traversing the northern counties of the State, and speaking in behalf of Lincoln. Lincoln knows that wheii we wei'e at Freeport in joint discussion, there was a distinguished colored friend of his there then who was on the stump for him, and who made a speech there the night before we spoke, and another the night after, a short distance from Freeport, in favor of Lincoln, and in order to show how much interest the colored brethren felt in the success of their brother Abe, I have with me here, and would read it if it would not occupy too much of my time, a speech made by Fred Douglass in Poughkeepsie, N. y., a short time since, to a large Convention, in which he conjures all the friends of negro equality and negro citizenship to rally as one man around Abraham Lincoln, the perfect embodiment of their principles, and by all means to defeat Stephen A. Douglas. Thus you find that this Republican party in the northern part of the State had colored gentlemen for their advocates in 1854, in company with Lincoln and Trumbull, as they have now. When, in October, 1854, 1 went down to Spring- field to attend the State Fair, I found the leaders of this party all assembled together under the title of an anti-Nebraska meeting. It was Black Republicans up north, and anti-Nebraska at Springfield. I found Lovejoy, a high-priest of Abolitionism, and Lincoln, one of the leaders who was towing the old line Whigs into the Abo- lition camp, and Trumbull, Sidney Bi'eese, and Governor Reynolds, all making speeches against the Democratic party and myself, at the same place and in the same cause. The same men who are now fighting the Democratic party and the regular Democratic nominees in this State, were fighting us then. They did not then ac- knowledge that they had become Abolitionists, and many of them deny it now. Breese, Dougherty and Reynolds were then fighting the Democracy under the title of anti-Nebraska men, and now they are fighting the Democracy under the pretense that they are simon pare Democrats, saying that they are authorized to have every office-holder in Illinois beheaded who prefers the election of Douglas to that of Lin- coln, or the success of the Democratic ticket in preference to the Abolition ticket for members of Congress, State oflUcers, members of the Legislature, or any office in the State. They canvassed the State against us in 1854, as they are doing now, owning different names and different principles in different localities, but having a common object in view, viz : The defeat of all men holding national principles in opposition to this sectional Abolition party. They carried the Legislature in 1854, and when it assembled in Springfield they proceeded to elect a United States Senator, all voting for Lincoln with one or two exceptions, which exceptions prevented them from quite electing him. And why should they not elect him ? Had not Trumbull agreed that Lincoln should have Shields's place ? Had not the Abolitionists agreed to it ? Was it not the solemn compact, the condition on which Lincoln agreed to abolitionize the old Whigs that he should be Senator ? Still, Trumbull having control of a few abo- litionized Democrats, would not allow them all to vote for Lincoln on any one ballot, and thus kept him for some time within one or two votes of an election, until he wor- ried out Lincoln's friends, and compelled them to drop him and elect Trumbull in violation of the bargain. I desire to read you a piece of testimony in confirmation of the notoriously public facts which I have stated to you. Col. James H. Matheny, of Springfield, is, and for twenty years has been, the confidential personal and polit- ical friend and manager of Mr. Lincoln. Matheny is this very day the candidate of the Republican or Abolition party for Congress against the gallant Major Thos. L. Harris, in the Springfield District, and is making speeches for Lincoln and against me. I will read you the testimony of Matheny about this bargain between Lincoln and Trumbull when they undertook to abolitionize Whigs and Democrats only four years ago. Matheny being mad at Trumbull for having played a Yankee trick on Lincoln, exposed the bargain in a public speech two years ago, and I will read the published report of that speech, the correctness of which Mr. Lincoln will not deny : "The Whigs, Abolitionists, Know Nothings, and renegade Democrats, made a solemn compact for the purpose of carrying this State against the Democracy on this plan : 1st. That they would all combine and elect Mr. Trumbull to Congress, and 15^ thereby cany his district for the Legislature, in order to throw all the strength that could be obtained into that body against the Democrats. 2d. That when the Legis- ture should meet, the officers of that body, such as speaker, clerks, door-keepers, etc., would be given to the Abolitionists ; and 3d. That the Whigs were to have the United States Senator. That, accordingly, in good faith Trumbull was elected to Congress, and his district carried for the Legislature, and when it convened the Abo- litionists got all the officers of that body, and thus far the 'bond' was fairly executed. The Whigs, on their part, demanded the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that the bond might bs fulfilled, the other parties to the contract hav- ing already secured to themselves all that was called for. But, in the most perfidious manner, they refused to elect Mi-. Lincoln ; and the mean, low-lived, sneaking Trum- bull succeeded by pleading all that was required by any party, in thrusting Lincoln aside and foisting himself, an excrescence from the rotten bowels of the Democracy, into the United States Senate ; and thus it has ever been, that an honest man makes a bad bargain when he conspires or contracts with rogues." Lincoln's confidential friend, Matheny, thought that Lincoln made a bad bargain when he conspired with such rogues as Trumbull and the Abolitionists. I would like to know whether Lincoln had as high opinion of Trumbull's veracity when the latter agreed to support him for the Senate, and then cheated him as he does now, when Trumbull comes forward and makes charges against me. You could not then prove Trumbull an honest man either by Lincoln, by Matheny, or by any of Lincoln's friends. They charged every where that Trumbull had cheated them out of the bar- gain, and Lincoln found sure enough that it was a bad hargain to contract and con- .spire with rogues. And now I will exjilain to you what has been a mystery all over the State and Union, the reason why Lincoln was nominated for the United States Senate by the Black Republican Convention. You know it has never been usual for any party, or any Convention, to nominate a candidate for United States Senator. Probably this was the first time that such a thing was ever done. The Black Republican Conven- tion had not been called for that purpose, but to nominate a State ticket, and every man was surprised and many disgusted when Lincoln was nominated. Archie W^ilhams thought he was entitled to it, Browning knew that he deserved it, Wentworth was certain that he would get it. Peck had hopes, Judd felt sure that he was the man, and Palmer had claims and had made arrangements to secure it ; but to their utter amazement, Lincoln was nominated by the Convention, and not only that, but he received the nomination unanimously, by a resolution declaring that Abi'aham Lincoln was "the first, last, and only choice" of the Republican party How did this occur? Why, because they could not get Lincoln's friends to make another bargain with "rogues," unless the whole party would come up as one man and pledge their honor that they would stand by Lincoln first, last and all the time, and that he should not be cheated by Lovejoy this time, as he was by Trumbull before. Thus, by passing this resolution, the Abolitionists are all for him, Lovejoy and Farnsworth are canvassing for him, Giddings is ready to come hece in his behalf, and the negro speakers are already on the stump for him, and he is sure not to be cheated this time. He would not go into the arrangement until he got their bond for it, and Ti"umbull is compelled now to take the stump, get up false charges against me, and travel all over the State to try and elect Lincoln, in order to keep Lincoln's friends quiet about the bargain in which Trumbull cheated them lour yeai's ago. You see, now, why it is that Lincoln and Trumbull are so mighty fond of each other. They have entered into a conspiracy to break me down by these aissaults on my public character, in order to draw my attention from a fair exposure of tlie mode in which they attempted to abolitionize the old AVhig and the old Dem- ocratic parties and lead them captive into the Abolition camp. Do you not all remember that Lincoln Avent around here four years ago making speeches to you, and telling that you should all go for the Abolition ticket, and swearing that he was as eood a Whig as he ever was : and that Trumbull went all over the State making •8^ 164 pledges to the old Democrats, and trying to coax them into the Abolition camp, swearing by his Maker, with the uplifted liand, that he was still a Democrat, always intended to be, and that never would he desert the Democratic party. He got your votes to elect an Abolition Legislature, which passed Abolition resolutions, attempted to pass Abolition laws, and sustained Abolitionists for office, State and National. Now, tiie same game is attempted to be played over again. Then Lincoln and Trum- bull made captives of the old Whigs and old Democrats and carried them into the Abolition camp, where Father Giddings, thfe high-priest of Abolitionism, received and christened them in the dark cause just as fast as they were brought in. Gid- dings found the converts so numerous that he had to have assistance, and he sent for Jolm P. Hale, N. P. Banks, Chase, and other Abolitionists, and they came on, and with Lovejoy and Fred Douglass, the negro, helped to baptize these new converts as Lincoln, Trumbull, Breese, Reynolds, and Dougherty could capture them and bring them within the Abolition clutch. Gentlemen, they are now around making the same kind of speeches. Trumbull was down in Monroe county the other day assailing me, and making a speech in favor of Lincoln, and I will show you under what notice his meeting was called You see these people are Black Republicans or Abolitionists up north, while at Springfield to-day, they dare not call their Conven- tion "Republican," but are obliged to say "a Convention of all men opposed to the Democratic party," and in Monroe county and lower Egypt Trumbull advertises their meetings as follows : A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place at Waterloo, on Monday, September 12th inst., whereat Hon. Lyman Trumbull, Hon. John Baker, and othei\s, will address the people upon the different political topics of the day. Members of all parties are cordially invited to be pres- ent, and hear and determine for themselves. SeptembL'r 9, 1858. The Free DEMOCRAcr. Did you ever before hear of this new party called the "Free Democracy?" What object have these Black Republicans in changing their name in every county ? They have one name in the north, another in the center, and another in the South. When I used to pi'actice law before my distinguished judicial friend, whom I recognize in the crowd before me, if a man was charged with horse-stealing and the proof showed that he went by one name in Stephenson county, another in Sangamon, a third in Monroe, and a fourth in Randolph, we thought that the fact of his changing his name so often to avoid detection, was pretty strong evi- dence of his guilt. I would like to know why it is that this great Freesoil Abolition party is not willing to avow the same name in all parts of the State ? If this party believes that its course is just, why docs it not avow the same principles in the North, and in the South, in the East and in the West, wherever the American flag waves over American soil ? A voice — "The party does not call itself Black Republican in the North." Mr. Douglas — Sir if you,will get a copy of the paper published at Waukegan, fifty miles from Chicago, which advocates the election of Mr. Lincoln, and has his name flying at its mast-head, j'ou will find that it declares tliat " this paper is devoted to the (^use" of Black Repuhlicanism. I had a copy of it and intended to bring it down here into Egypt to let you see what name the party rallied under up in the northern part of the State, and to convince you that their principles ai-e as different in the two sections of the State as is their name. I am soriy that I have mislaid it and have not got it here. Their principles in the north are jet-black, in the center they are in color a decent mulatto, and in lower Egypt they are almost white. Why, I admired many of the white sentiments contained in Lincoln's speech at Jonesboro, and could not help but contrast them with the speeches of the same distinguished orator made in the northern part of the State. Down here he denies that the Black Republican party is opposed to the admission of any more slave States, under any circumstances, and says that they are willing to allow the people of each State, when it wants to come into the Union, to do just as it pleases on the question of slavery. In the North, you find Lovejoy, their candidate for Congress in the Bloomington 165 District Farnsworth, their candidate in the Chicago District, and Washburne, their candidate in the Galena District, all declaring that never will they conse.it under any circumstances, to admit another slave State, even if the people want it. Thus, while tbev avow one set of principles up there, they avow another and entirely different set down here And here let me recall to Mr. Lincoln the scriptural quotation which he h'ls apphed to the Federal Government, that a house divided against itself cannot stand' and ask him how does he expect this Abolition party to stand when in one- half of the State it advocates a set of principles which it has repudiated in the other "^I "am told that I have but eight minutes more. I would like to talk to you an hour and a half longer, but I will make the best use I can of Uie remaining eight minutes. Mr. Lincoln said in his first remarks that he was not in favor of the social and poHtical equality of the negro with the white man. Every where "P "o;-* j;^ ha^ declared that he was not in favor of the social and pohtical equality of the neero but he would not say whether or not he was opposed to negroes voting and netro citizenship. I want to know whether he is for or against negro citizenship .'' He declared his utter opposition to the Dred Scott decision, and advanced as a reason that the court had decided that it was not possible for a negro to be a citizen under the Constitution of the United States. If he is opposed to the Dred Scott decision for that reason, he must be in favor of confering the right and privilege of citizenship upon the negro! I have been trying to get an answer trom him on that point, but have never yet obtained one, and I will show you why. In every speech he made in the north he quoted the Declaration of Independence to piwe that all men were created equal, and insisted that the phrase "all men/' included th^ negro as well as the white man, and that the equality rested upon Divine law. Here is what he '"-rslSd^hke^ know if, taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where wil Tt stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another say it loes not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the «fiitiitp book in which we find it and bear it out." 'Itcoln mahitains there that the Declaration of Independence ^^f^^^^^'^^^^^^f^^ i^ enual to the white man, and that under Divine law, and it he behexe. so it ^vas ratlona for hU to advocate negro citizenship, which, when allowed, puts the negro on arequaUty under the law. ^I say to you in all f-kness gentlemen that in my opinion a ne^ro is not a citizen, cannot be, and ought not o be, under the Constitu- tfon r the United States. I will not even qualify my opnion to meet the declara- ton of Te of the Judges of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, "that a negro de^ fVom African parents, who was imported into this country as a slave negio ^« .^« ,V J that this Government was established on the :-hit t it Is Tde by white'men, for the benefit of white men and their no terityfbever,and never sUld be administered by any except white men. I de£- that a negro ought not to be a citizen, whether his parents were imported fnto tl is ountry as slave°s or not, or whether or not he was born here. It does not depend upon the place a negro's parents were born, or whether they were slaves or no , but upon the fact that he°is a negro, belonging to a race incapable of self-gov- ernment, md for that reason ought not to be on an equality with white men Mv f\'iends I am sorry that I have not time to pursue this argument further, as I m;It h-ive done but for the fact that Mr. Lincoln compelled me to occupy a portion S °my i^ in repelling those gross slanders and falsehoods that Trumbull has invent- Pd^S me and put in cfrculation. In conclusion, let me ask you why should ^is Go': nmenrbe ^divided by a geographical line-arraying all men North in one e^lat hostile party against all men South? Mr. Lincoln tells you, m his speech at SvSi<^S:id " diat a house divided against itself cannot stand ; that this Government, Sed into free and slave States, ca'miot endure permanently ; that they mus^ either be dl free or all slave; all one thing or aU the other." Why cannot this Govern- 156 inent endure divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it? Wlien this Government was established by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Hamilton, Franklin, and the other sages and patriots of that day, it was composed of free States and slave States, bound together by one common Constitution. We have existed and prospered from that day to this thus divided, and have increased with a rapidity never before equaled in wealth, the extension of territory, and all the ele- ments of power and greatness, until we have become the first nation on the face of the globe. Why can we not thus continue to prosper? We can if we will live up to and execute the Government upon those principles upon which our fathers estal>- lished it. During the whole period of our existence Divine Providence has smiled upon us, and showered upon our nation richer and more abundant blessings than have ever been conferred upon any other. MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. Fellow-citizens : It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour answer to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried one. I shall only be able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I shall have to totally omit others ibr the want of time. Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get fi'om me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in fovor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen, and without saying what was my ground of complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of com- plaint. Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly every thing that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them myself. Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that jK>wer. If the State of Illinois had that power I should be opposed to the exercise of it. Tliat is all I have to say about it. Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speeches south — that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north, and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very different cast of sentiment in tlK^ speeches made at the different points. I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that 1)e willfully misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and 1 dare him to point out any difference between my speeches north and south. While I am here perhaps I ought to say a word, if 1 have the time, in regard to the latter portion of the Judge's speech, which was a sort of decla- mation in refisrence to my having said I entertained the belief that this Government would not endure, half slave and half free. I have said so, and I did not say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhaps wotild require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in detail ; but let me ask you a few ques- tions. Have we ever had any peace on this slavery question ? When are we to liave peace upon it if it is kept in the position it now occupies ? How are we ever to have peace upon it? That is an important question. To be sure, if we will all i^top and allow .Judge Douglas and his friends to march on in their present career until they plant the institution all over the nation, here and wherever else our flag 157 •waves, and we acqiiiesce in it, there will be peace. But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is going to get the people to do that? They have been wrangling over this question for at least forty years. This was the cause of the agitation resulting in the IMissouri Compromise — this pi'oduced the troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the territory acquired in the Mexican war. Again, this was the trouble which was quieted by the Compromise of 1850, when it waa settled ^'■forever" as both the great political parties declared in their National Coa^entions. That "forever" turned out to be just four years, lohen Judge Domjlai, nitnseJf reopened it. When is it likely to come to an end ? He introduced the Nebraska bill in 1854 to put another end to the slavery agitation. He promised that it would finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton Constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the end of the slaveiy agitation. But in one speech, I think last winter, he did say that he didn't quite see when the end of the slavery agitation would come. Now he tells us again that it is all over, and the people of Kansas have voted down the Lecompton Constitution. How is it over? That was only one of the attempts at putting an end to the slavery agi- tation — one of these "final settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formed a Constitution that she is likely to come in under? Is not the slavery agitation still an open question in that Territory? Has the voting down of that Constitution put an end to all the trouble ? Is that more likely to settle it than eveiy one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery agitation? Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more foretell where the end of this slavery iigitation will be than we can see the end of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kan- sas bill was introduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end, we may say we are four years and a half nearer the end. So, too, we can say we are four years and a half nearer the end of the world ; and we can just as clearly see the end of the world as we can see the end of this agitation. The Kansas settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon the basis where our fathers placed it, no way but to keep it out of our new Territories — to restrict it forever to the old States where it now exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinc- tion. That is one way of putting an end to the slavery agitation. Tlie other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States — cease speaking of it as in any way a wrong — regard slavery as one of the common matters of property, and speak of negi'oes as we do of our horses and cattle. But while it drives on in its state of pro- gress as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I have ven- tured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery agitation imtil it takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years at least ; but that it will occur in the best way for both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt. But, my friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this point. Now, in regard to tliis matter about Trumbull and myself having made a bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854 — Judge Douglas brings forwaixl no evidence to sustain his charge, except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he told a cock-and-bull story of that 8ort, upon the same moral {jrinciples that Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the simple truth. I do not care greatly for the story, but this is the truth of it, and I have twice told Judge Douglas to his face, that from beginning to end there is not one word of truth in it. I have called upon him for the proof, and he does not at all meet me as Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just talking, 158 by producing the record. He didn't bi'ing the record, because there was no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready to indorse Trumbull's verac- ity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me, I would not be likely to indorse his vei-acity ; but I am ready to indorse his veracity because neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years that I have knoicn Lyman Trumbull, have I knoion him to fail of his word or tell a falsehood, large or small. It is for that reason that I indorse Lyman Trumbull. Mr. James Brown {^Douglas Post Master) — "What does Ford's history say about him?" Mr. Lincoln — Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My own recollection is, that Foi'd speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful terms in sev- eral portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal worse of Judge Douglas. I refer you, sir, to the history for examination. Judge Douglas complains, at considerable length, about a disposition on the part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to attend to that sugges- tion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly accused of dealing illiberally or unfairly with an advei'sary, either in court, or in a political canvass, or any where else. I would despise myself if I supposed myself ready to deal less liberally with an ad- versary than I was willing to be treated myself. Judge Douglas, in a general way, without putting it in a direct shape, revives the old charge against me in refer- ence to the Mexican war. He does not take the responsibility of putting it in a very definite form, but makes a general reference to it. That charge is more than ten years old. He complains of Trumbull and myself, because he says we bring charges against him one or two years old. He knows, too, that in regard to the Mexican war stoxy, the more respectable papers of his own party throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and acknowledge that it was a lie. Here Mr. Lincoln turned to the crowd on the platform, and selecthig Hon. Orlan- do B. Ficklin, led him forward and said : I do not mean to do any thing with Mr. Ficklin, except to present his face and tell you that he personally knows it to be a lie ! He was a member of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and he [Fickhn] knows that whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such indorsement, and voted against it ; but I never voted against the supplies for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise, for the benefit of the soldiers, I gave all the votes that Ficklin or Douglas did, and perhaps more. Mr. Fickhn — My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter. Mr. Lin- coln and myself are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas and myself. In reference to this Mexican war, my recollection is that when Ashmun's rcsclu- tion [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun of Massachusetts, in which he de- clared that the Mexican war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President — my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution. Mr. Lincoln — That is the truth. Now you all remember that was a resolu- tion censux'ing the President for the manner in which the war was begun. You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their country. I say that Ficklin knows it is false. When that charge was brought forward by the Chicago Times, the Springfield Register [Douglas organ] reminded the Times that the charge really applied to John Henry ; and I do know that John Henry is now viaJcing speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. If the Judge noM-- says that he offers this as a sort of a set-off to what I said to-day in reference to Ti-umbuU's charge, then I remind him that he made tliis charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He brought this forwai'd at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face ; and in the opening speech that Judge Douglas made, he attacked me in regard to a 159 matter ten years old. Isn't lie a pretty man to be whining about people making charges against him only Uoo yesxrs old ! The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon this charge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in my opening speech. Per- haps it didn't fix your attention. 1 said that when Judge Douglas was speaking at ' places where I spoke on the succeeding day, he used very harsh language about this charge. Two or three times afterward I said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's veracity and intelligence ; and my own opinion was, from what I knew of the char- acter of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his position, and prove whatever he had stated to be true. This I repeated two or three times ; and then I dropped it, without saying any thing more on the subject for weeks — perhaps a month. I passed it by without noticing it at all till I found at Jacksonville, Judge Douglas, in the plenitude of his power, is not willing to answer Trumbull and let me alone ; but he comes out there and uses this language : " He should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that Lincoln, having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln] responsible lor the slanders." What was Lincoln to do ? Did he not do right, when lie had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas here, to tell him he was ready for the re- sponsibility ? I ask a candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the assailant rather than I ? Here I meet him face to face and say I am ready to take the responsibility so far as it rests on me. Having done so, I ask the attention of this audience to the question whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge Douglas has at all suc- ceeded in ^-ebutting it ? You all heard me call upon him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery^ Does he say that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a forgery ? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported by himself is a forgery ? Or what is presented as a transcript from the Glohe, of the quotations from Bigler's speech, is a forgery ? Does he say the (quotations from his own speech are forgeries ? Does he say this transcript from Trumbull's speech is a forgery ? [ " He didn't deny one of them." ] 1 ivould then like to know how it comes about, that when each piece of a story is true, the whole story turns out fcdse ? I take it these people have some sense ; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is playing cuttle-fish, a small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself w^hen pursued except by throwing out a black fluid, which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Ain't the Judge playing the cuttle-fish ? Now I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge Doug- las's speech at Jacksonville ; and when you shall read his speech of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces of testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown to be such. JVo< one of them has lie Aoivn to he a forgery. Then I ask the original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is it possible that the xohole is a falsehood ? In regai-d to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision into the bill to prevent the Constitution being submitted to the people, what was his an- swer? He comes here and reads from the Congressional Globe to show that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill. Why, Trumbull has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull says he [Douglas] put it in, and it is no answer to the charge to say he afterward took it out. Both are perhaps true. It was in regard to that thing precisely that I told him he had dropped the cub. Ti'um- bull shows you that by his introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to that assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially say that Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case, does it answer Trumbull ? I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are here to-day, and you undertake to provt me a liar by showing that you were in Mattoon yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your head, and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole force of Douglas's argument. 160 Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that Judge )ouglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a Constitution to be lade to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge Douglas deny that fact ? )oes he deny that the provision which Trumbull reads was put in that bill? Then ^rumbull says he struck it out. Does he dare to deny that ? He does not, and I ave the right to re^jeat the question — ivhy Judge Douglas took it out? Bigler as said there was a combination of certain Senators, among whom he did not in- hide Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas bill should have clause in it not to have the Constitution formed under it submitted to a vote of the eople. He did not say that Douglas Avas among them, but we prove by another juire that about the same time Douglas comes into the Senate wt'th that pro- ision stricken out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working 1 concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and done witli mutual understanding after the conference ; and while we do not know that it waa bsolutely so, yet it looks so pi'obable that we have a right to call upon the man ■ho knows the true reason why it was done, to tell what the tnie reason was. V^hen he will not tell what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude of an ccused thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to account, [ifuses to tell where he got them. Not only is this the evidence, but when he Dmes in with the bill having the provision stricken out, he tells us in a speech, ot then, but since, that these alterations and modifications in the bill had been made / HIM, in considtatio7i with Ihombs, the originator of the hill. He tells us the ime to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in the bill in Com- littce that he did not vote for. I ask you to remember while certain amendments ere made which he disaj)proved of, but which a majority of the Committee voted 1, he has himself told us that in this particular the alterations and modifications 'ere made by him upon consultation with Toombs. We have his own word that lese alterations were made by him and not by the Committee. Now, I ask what ; the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about coming to the exact question ? What ; the reason he will not tell you any thing about how it was made, by ■whom it as made, or that he remembers it being made at all ? Why does he stand laying upon the meaning of words, and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? f he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have a right to inler that udge Douglas understood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering that bill irough, to make a Constitution, and have Kansas come into the Union with that !onstitution, without its being submitted to a vote of the people. If he will ex- lain his action on this question, by giving a better reason for the facts that happened, lan he has done, it will be satisfactory. But until he does that — until he gives a etter or more plausible reason than he has offered against the evidence in the case -/ suggest to him it will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, takes on ignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word in Trumbull's speech \at depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has only arrayed the evidence and )ld you what follows as a matter of reasoning. There is not a statement in the hole speech that depends on Trumbull's word. If you have ever studied geome- y, you remember that by a course of reasoning, Euclid proves that all the angles 1 a triangle are equal to two right angles. Euclid has shown you how to work it ut. Now, if you undertake to disprove that proposition, and to show that it is rroueous, would you prove it to be false by caUing Euclid a liar ? They tell me lat my time is out, and therefore I close. 161 Extract from Mr. Tnimbuirs Speech made at Alton, referred to by Mr. Lincoln in his opening at Charleston, I come now to another extract from a speech of Mr. Douglas, made at Beards- town, and reported in the Missouri Republican. This extract has reference to a statement made by me at Chicago, wherein I charged that an agreement had been entered into by the very persons now claiming credit for opposing a Constitution not submitted to the people, to have a Constitution formed and put in force without giving the people of Kansas an opportunity to pass upon it. Without meeting this charge, which 1 substantiated by a reference to the record, my colleague is reported to have said : " For when this charge was once made in a much milder form, in the Senate of the United States, I did brand it as a lie in the presence of Mr. Trumbull, and Mr. Trumbull sat and heard it thus branded, without daring to say it was true. I tell you he knew it to be false when he uttered it at Chicago ; and yet he says he is going to cram the He down his throat until he should cry enough. The miserable craven-hearted wretch ! he would rather have both ears cut off than to use that lan- guage in my presence, where I could call him to account. I see the object is to draw mc into a personal controversy, with the hope thereby of concealing from the public the enormity of the principles to which they are committed. I shall not allow much of my time in this canvass to be occupied by these personal assaults — I have none to make on Mr. Lincoln ; I have none to make on Mr. Trumbull ; I have none to make on any other political opponent. If I cannot stand on my own public record, on my own private and public character as history will record it, I will not attempt to rise by traducing the character of other men. I will not make a blackguard of myself by imitating the course they have pursued against me. I have no charges to make against them." This is a singular statement taken altogether. After indulging in language which would disgrace a loafer in the filthiest purlieus of a fish-market, he winds up by say- ing that he will not make a blackguai'd of himself, that he has no charges to make against me. So I suppose he considers, that to say of another that he knew a thing to be false when he uttered it, that he was a "miserable craven-hearted wretch," does not amount to a personal assault, and does not make a man a blackguard. A dis- criminating pubUc will judge of that for themselves ; but as he says he has " no charges to make on Mr. Trumbull," I suppose politeness requires I should believe hira. At the risk of again offending this mighty man of war, and losing something AtlOvc than my ears, I shall have the audacity to again read the record upon him and prove and pin upon him, so that he cannot escape it, the ti-uth of every word I ut- tered at Chicago. You, fellow-citizens, are the judges to detei*mine whether I do tliis. My colleague says he is willing to stand on his pubhc record. By that he shall be tried, and if he had been able to discriminate between the exposure of a pub- lic act by the record, and a personal attack upon the individual, he would have dis- covered that there was nothing personal in my Ciiicago remarks, unless the condem- nation of liimself by his own public record is personal, and then you must judge who is most to blame for the torture his public record inflicts upon him, he for mak- ing, or I for reading it after it was made. As an individual I care very little about Judge Douglas one way or the other. It is his public acts with M'hich I have to do, and if they condemn, disgrace and consign hira to oblivion, he has only himself, not me, to blame. Kow, the charge is that tliere was a plot entered into to have a Constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the people an opportunity to pass upon it, and»4hat Mr. Douglas was in the plot. This is as susceptible of proof by the rec- ord as is the fact that the State of Minnesota was admitted into the Union at the last session of Congress. On the 2oth of June, 1856, a bill was pending in the United States Senate to au- 162 thorize the people of Kansas to form a Constitution and come into the Unic/n. On that day Mr. Toombs ofFei'ed an amendment which he intended to propose to the bill which was ordered to be printed, and, with the original bill and other amendments, recommended to the Committee on Tex-ritories, of which Mr. Douglas was Chairman. This amendment of Mr. Toombs, printed by order of the Senate, and a copy of which I have here present, provided for the appointment of commissioners who were to take a census of Kansas, divide the Territory into election districts, and superin- tend the election of delegates to form a Constitution, and contains a clause in the 18th section which I will r«ad to you, requiring the Constitution which should be foi-med to be submitted to the people for adoption. It reads as follows : " That the following propositions be and the same are hereby oifered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or re- jection, which, if accepted by the Convention, and ratified by the people at the elec- tion for the adoption of the Constitution, shall be obligatory on the United States, and upon the said State of Kansas," etc It has been contended by some of the newspaper press, that this section did not require the Constitution which shoul.d be formed to be submitted to the people for approval, and that it was only the land propositions which were to be submitted. You will observe the language is that the propositions are to be " ratified by the peo- ple at the election for the adoption of the Constitution." Would it have been possi- ble to ratify the land propositions " at the election for the adoption of the Constitu- tion," unless such an election was to be held ? When one thing is required by a contract or law to be done, the doing of which is made dependent upon and cannot be performed without the doing of some other thing, is not that other thing just as much required by the contract or law as the first ? It matters not in what part of the act, nor in what phraseology the intention of the Legislature is expressed, so you can clearly ascertain what it is ; and whenever that intention is ascertained from an examination of the language used, such intention is part of and a requirement of the law. Can any candid, fair-minded man, read the section I have quoted, and say that the intention to have the Constitution which should be formed submitted to the people for tlieir adoption, is notcleai-ly expressed? In my judgment there can be no controversy among honest men upon a proposition so plain as this. Mr. Douglas has never pretended to deny, so far as I am aware, that the Toombs amendment, as originally introduced, did lequire a submission of the Constitution to the people. This amendment of Mr. Toombs was referred to the committee of which Mr. Douglas was Chairman, and reported back by him on the 30th of June, with the words, "And ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the Constitution" stricken out. I have liere a copy of the bill as report- ed buck by Mr. Douglas to substantiate the statement I make. Various other alter- ations were also made in the bill to which I shall presently have occasion to call at- tention. There was no other clause in the original Toombs bill requiring a submis- sion of the Constitution to the people than the one I have read, and there was no clause whatever, after that was struck out, in the bill, as reported back by Judgcj Douglas, requiring a submission. I will now introduce a witness whose testitnony cannot be impeached, he acknowledging himself to have been one of the conspirators and privy to the fact about which he testifies. Senator Bigler alluding to the Toombs bill, as it was called, and which, after sun- dry amendments, passed the Senate, and to the propriety of submitting the Constitu- tion which should be formed to a vote of the people, made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December 9th, 1857. I read from part 1, Congressional Glabe of last session, paragraph 21: " I was present when that subject was discussed by Senators, before the bill wa$ inti'oduced, and the question Avas raised and discussed whether the Constitutioff, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was held by the most intel- ligent on tlie subject, that in view of all the difTiculties surrounding that Territoiy, the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better that 163 there should be no such provision in the Toombs bill ; and it is my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that that Convention would make a Constitution and send it here without submitting it to the popular vote." In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 (Congressional Glohe, same vol., page 113), Senator Bigler said: " Nothing was farther from my mind than to allude to any social or confidential in- terview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollection was clear that I left the confer- ence under the impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to the Convention. This impression was the stronger, because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great aver- sion ; but with the hope of accomplishing great good, and as no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and concluded to sup- port the measure. I have a few items of testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and witli tlieir submission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the Senator from Ilhnois, on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows : " ' That the ibllowing propositions be, and the same are liereby offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when foi-med, for their free acceptance or re- jection ; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified by the people at the elec- tion for the adoption of the Constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States, and upon the said State of Kansas.' " The bill read in place by the Senator from Georgia, on the 2oth of June, and re- ferred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same section, word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the conference refen-ed to, but, sir, when the Senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate, with amend- ments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the thii-d section which in- dicated to the Convention tliat the Constitution should be approved by the people. The words ' and ratified by tlie people at the election for the adoption of the Consti- tution ' had been stricken out." I am not now seeking to prove that Douglas wa.s in the plot to force a Constitu- tion upon Kansas without allowing the people to vote directly upon it. I shall at- tend to that branch of the subject by and by. My object now is to prove the exist- ence of the plot, what the design was, and I ask if I have not already done so. Here are the facts : The introduction of a bill on the 7th of March, 185G, providing for the calling of a Convention in Kansas, to form a State Constitution, and providing that the Consti- tution should be submitted to the people for adoption ; an amendment to this bUl, proposed by Mr. Toombs, containing the same requirement ; a reference of these va- rious bills to the Committee on Territories ; a consultation of Senators to determine whether it was advisable to have the Constitution submitted for ratification ; the de- termination that it was not advisable ; and a report of the bill back to the Senate next morning, with the clause providing for the submission stricken out. Could evi- dence be more complete to establish the first part of the charge I have made of a plot having been entered into by somebody, to have a Constitution adopted without submitting it to the people ? Now, for the other part of the i-harge, that Judge Douglas was in this plot, whether knowingly or ignorantly, is not material to my purpose. The charge is that he was an instrument co-operating in the project to have a Constitution foimed and put into operation, without affording the people an opportunity to pass upon it. The first evi- dence to sustain the charge is the fact that he reported back the Toombs amendment with the clause providing for the submission stricken out. This, in connection Avith his speech in the Senate on the 9th of December, 1857 (Congressional Globe, part 1, page 14), wherein he stated: " That during the last Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill from the Cont 164 mittee on Territories, to authonze the people of Kansas to assemble and form a Con- stitution for themselves. Subsequently the Senater from Georgia (Mr. Toombs), brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate." This of itself ought to be sufficient to show that my colleage was an instrument in the plot to have a Constitution put in force without submitting it to the people, and to forever close his mouth from attempting to deny. No man can reconcile his acts and former declarations with his present denial, and the only charitable conclusion would be that he was being used by others without knowing it. Whether he is on- titled to the benefit of even this excuse, you must judge on a candid hearing of the facts I shall present. When the charge was first made in the United States Senate, by Mr. Bigler, that my colleague had voted for an Enabling Act which put a Govern- ment in operation without submitting the Constitution to the people, my colleague ( Congressional Globe, last session, part 1, page 24) stated : "I Avill ask the Senator to show me an intimation from any one member of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union from any quarter, that the Constitution was not to be submitted to the people. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on it ; and if they had made it we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in .the clause. That is a discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done which ought in flxirness to have been done." I knew at the time this statement was made, that I had urged the very objection to the Toombs bill two years before, that it did not provide for the submission of the Constitution. You will find my remarks, made on the 2d of July, 1856, in the ap- pendix to the Congressional Globe of that year, page 179, urging this very objection. Do you jvsk why I did not expose him at the time ? I will tell you — Mr. Douglas was then doing good service against the Lecompton iniquity. The Republicans were then engaged in a hand-to-hand fight with the National Democracy, to prevent the bringing of Kansas into the Union as a slave State against the wishes of its inhabi- tants, and of course I was unwilling to turn our guns from the common enemy to strike down an ally. Judge Douglas, however, on the same day, and in the same de- bate, probably recollecting, or being reminded of the fact, that I had objected to the Toombs bill when pending, that it did not provide for the submission of the Constitu- tion to the people, made another stjitement which is to be found in the same volume of the Congressional Globe, page 22, in which he says : " That the bill was silent on the subject is true, and my attention was called to that about the time it was passed ; and I took the fair construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the Constitution would be submitted to the people. Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that it was a new discovery, you will determine ; for if the public records do not convict and con- demn him, he may go uncondemned, so far as I am concerned. I make no use here of the testimony of Senator Bigler to show that Judge Douglas must have been privy to the consultation held at his house, when it was determined not to submit the Con- stitution to the people, because Judge Douglas denies it, and I wish to use his own nets and declarations, which are abundantly sufficient for my purpose. I come to a piece of testimony which disposes of all these various pretenses which liave been set up for striking out of the original Toombs proposition, the clause re- quiring a submission of the Constitution to the people, and shows that it was not done either by accident, by inadvertence, or because it was believed that the bill, being silent on the subject, the Constitution would necessarily be submitted to the people for approvah What will you think, after listening to the facts already presented, to show that there was a design with those who concocted the Toombs bill as amended, not to submit the Constitution to the people, if I now bring before you the amended bill as Judge Douglas reported it back, and show the clause of the original bill re- 165 quiring submission, was not only struck out, but that other clauses were inserted m the bill putting it absolutely out of the power of the Convention to submit the Con- stitution to the people for approval, had they desired to do so? If I can produce such evidence as that, will you not all agree that it clinches and establishes forever all I charged at Chicago, and more too ? I propose now to furnish that evidence. It will be remembered that Mr. Toombs's bill provided for holding an election for delegates to form a Constitution under the supervision of commissioners to be appointed by the President, and in the bill as re- ported back by Judge Douglas, these words, not to he found in the original hill, are inserted at the close of the 11th section, viz: "And until the complete execution of this act no other election shall be held in said Territory." This clause put it out of the power of the Convention to refer to the people for adoption ; it absolutely prohibited the holding of any other election than that for the election of delegates, till that act was completely executed, which would not have been until Kansas was admitted as a State, or at all events till her Constitution was fully prepared and ready for submission to Congress for admission Other amerjd- ments reported by Judge Douglas to the original Toombs bill, clearly show that the intention Avas to enable Kansas to become a State without any further action than simply a resolution of admission. The amendment reported by Mr. Douglas, that " until the next Congressional apportionment, the said State shall have one represen- tative," clearly shows this, no such provision being contained in the original Toombs bill. For what other earthly purpose could the clause to prevent any other election in Kansas, except that of delegates, till it was admitted as a State, have been inserted except to prevent a submission of the Constitution, when formed, to the people ? The Toombs bill did not pass in the exact shape in which Judge Douglas reported it. Several amendments were made to it in the Senate. I am now dealing with the action of Judge Douglas as connected with that bill, and speak of the bill as he re- commended it. The facts I have slated in regard to this matter appear upon the records, which I have here present to show to any man who wishes to look at them. They establish beyond the power of controversey, all the charges I have made, and show that Judge Douglas was made use of as an instrument by others, or else know- ingly was a party to the scheme to have a Government put in force over the people of Kansas, without giving them an op{X)rtunity to pass upon it. That others high in position in the so-called Democratic party were parties to such a scheme is confessed by Gov. Bigler ; and the only reason why the scheme was not carried, and Kansas long ago ibrced into the Union as a slave State, is the fact, that the Republicans were sutHciently strong in the House of Representatives to defeat the measure. Extract from Mr. Douglas's Speech made at Jacksonville, and referred to hy Mr. Lincoln in his opening at Charleston. I have been reminded by a friend behind me that there is another topic upon whicli there has been a desire expressed that I should speak. I am told that Mr. Lyman Trumbull, who has the good fortune to hold a seat in the United States Sen- ale, in violation of tiie bargain between him and Lincoln, was here tlie other day and occupied his time in making certain charges against me, involving, if they be true, moral turpitude. I am also informed that the charges he made here were sub- stantially the same as those made by him in the city of Cliicago, which were printed in the newspapers of that city. I now propose to answer those charges and to anni- hilate every pretext that an honest man has ever had for repeating them. In order that I may meet these charges fairly, I will read them, as made by IMr. Trumbull, in his Cliicago speech, in his own language. He says : "Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that there was a preconcerted 166 arrangement and plot entered into by the very men who now claim credit for oppos- ing a Constitution not submitted to the people, to have a Constitution formed and put in force without giving the people an opportunity to pass upon it. This, my friends, is a serious charge, but I charge it to-night, that the very men who traverse the country under banners, proclaiming popular sovereignty, by design, concocted a bill on purpose to force a Constitution upon that people." Again, speaking to some one in the crowd, he says : " And you want to satisfy yourself that he was in the plot to force a Constitution upon that people? I will satisfy you. I will cram the truth down any honest man's throat, until he cannot deny it, and to the man who does deny it, I will cram the lie down Iiis throat till he shall cry enough! It is preposterous — it is the most damnable effrontery that man ever put on to conceal a scheme to defraud and cheat the people out of their rights, and then claim credit for it." That is polite and decent language for a Senator of the United States. Remem- ber that that language was used without any provocation whatever from me. I had not alluded to him in any manner in any speech that I had made, hence without provocation. As soon as he sets his foot within the State, he makes the direct charge that I was a party to a plot to force a Constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, and knowing that it would be denied, he talks about cramming the lie down the throat of any man who shall deny it, until he cries enough. Why did he take it for granted that it would be denied, unless he knew it to be false ? Why did he deem it necessary to make a threat in advance that he would " cram the lie " down the throat of any man that should deny it ? I have no doubt that the entire Abolition party consider it very polite for Mr. Trumbull to go round uttering calumnies of that kind, bullying and talking of cramming lies down men's throats ; but if I deny any of liis hes by calling him a liar, they are shocked at the indecency of the language ; hence, to-day, instead of calling him a liar I intend to prove that he is one. I wish in the first place to refer to the evidence adduced by Trumbull, at Chicago, to sustain his charge. He there declared that Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, intro- duced a bill into Congress authorizing the people of Kansas to form a Constitution and come into the Union, that when introduced it contained a clause requiring the Constitution to be submitted to the people, and that I struck out the words of that clause. Suppose it were true that there was such a clause in the bill, and that I struck it out, is that proof of a plot to force a Constitution upon a people against their will ? Bear in mind, that from the days of George Washington to the Administration of Franklin Pierce, there had never been passed by Congress a bill requiring the submission of a Constitution to the people. If Trumbull's charge, that I struck out that clause, were true, it would only prove that I had reported the bill in the exact shape of every bill of like character that passed under Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, or any other President, to the time of the then present Administration. I ask you, would that be evidence of a design to force a Constitution on a people against their will ? If it were so, it would be evidence against Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Van Buren, and every other President. But upon examination, it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain a clause requiring the Constitution to be submitted. Hence no such clause was ever stricken out by me or any body else. It is true, however, that the Toombs bill and its au- thors all took it for granted that the Constitution would be submitted. There had never been, in the history of this Government, any attempt made to foi'ce a Consti- tution upon an unwilling people, and nobody dreamed that any such attempt would be made, or deemed it necessary to provide for such a contingency. If such a clause was necessary in Mr. Trumbull's opinion, why did he not offer an amendment to that effect .' 167 In order to give more pertinency to that question, I will read an extract from rrumbuU's speech in the Senate, on the Toombs bill, made on the 2d of July, 1856. He said : " We are asked to amend this bill, and make it perfect, and a liberal spirit seems to be manifested on the part of some Senators to have a fair bill. It is difficult, I admit, to frame a bill that will give satisfaction to all, but to approach it, or come near it, I think two things must be done." The first, then, he goes on to say, was the application of the Wilmot Proviso to the Territories, and the second the repeal of all the laws passed by the Territorial Leg- islature. He did not then say that it was necessary to put in a clause requiring the submission of the Constitution. Why, if he thought such a provision necessary, did he not introduce it ? He says in his speech that he was invited to offer amend- ments Why did he not do so ? He cannot pretend that he had no chance to do this, for he did offer some amendments, but none requiring submission. I now proceed to show that Mr. Trumbull knew at the time that the biU was silent as to the subject of submission, and also that he, and every body else, took it for gi-anted that the Constitution would be submitted. Now for the evidence. In his second speech he says: "The bill in many of its features meets my approbation." So he did not think it so very bad. Further on he says : " In regard to the measure introduced by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs], and recommended by the Committee, I regard it, in many respects, as a most excel- lent bill ; but we must look at it in the light of surrounding circumstances. In the condition of things now existing in the country, I do not consider it as a safe meas- ure, nor one which will give peace, and I will give my reasons. First, it affords no immediate relief. It provides for taking a census of the voters in tlie Territory, for an election in November, and the assembling of a Convention in December, to form, if it thinks proper, a Constitution for Kansas, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State. It is not until December that the Convention is to meet It would take some time to form a Constitution. / suppose that Constitution would have to be ratified by the people before it becomes valid." He there expressly declared that he supposed, under the bill, the Constitution would have to be submitted to the people before it became valid. He went on to say : " No provision is made in this bill for such a ratification. This is objectionable to my mind. I do not think the people should be bound by a Constitution, without passing upon it directly, themselves." Why did he not offer an amendment providing for such a submission, if he thought it necessary ? Notwithstanding the absence of such a clause, he took it for granted that the Constitution would have to be ratified by the people, under the bill. In another part of the same speech, he says: •' There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have discovered, about submitting the Constitution which is to be framed, to the people, for their sanction or rejection. Perhaps the Convention would have the right to submit it, if it should think proper; but it is certainly not compelled to do so, according to the provisions of the bill. If I't is to be submitted to the people, it will take time, and it will not be until some time next year that this new Constitution, affirmed and ratified by the people, would be submitted here to Congress for its acceptance, and what is to be the condition of that people in the meantime ?" You see that his argument then was that the Toombs bill would not get Kansas into the Union quick enough and was objectionable on that account. He had no fears about this submission, or why did he not introduce an amendment to meet the case ? A voice — " Why didn't you ? You were Chairman of the Committee." Mr. Douglas — I will answer that question for you. 168 In the first place, no such provision had ever before been put in any similar act passed by Congress. I did not suppose that there was an honest man who would pre- tend that the omission of such a clause furnished evidence of a conspiracy or attempt to impose on the people. It could not be expected that such of us as did not think that omission was evidence of such a scheme, would offer such an amendment ; but if Trumbull then believed what he now says, why did he not offer the amend- ment, and try to prevent it, when he was, as he says, invited to do so ? In this connection I will tell you what the main point of discussion was : There was a bill pending to admit Kansas whenever she should have a population of 93,420, that being the ratio required for a member of Congress. Under that bill Kansas could not liave become a State for some years, because she could not have had the requisite population. Mr. Toombs took it into his head to bring in a bill to admit Kansas then, with only twenty-five or thirty thousand people, and the question was whether we would allow Kansas to come in under this bill, or keep her out under mine until she had 93,420 people. The Committee considered that question, and overruled me by deciding in favor of the immediate admission of Kansas, and I reported accordingly. I hold in my hand a copy of the Report which I made at that time. I will read from it : " The point upon which your Committee have entertained the most serious and grave doubts in regai'd to the propriety of indorsing the proposition, relates to the fact that, in the absence of any census of the inhabitants, there is reason to appre- hend that the Territory does not contain sufficient population to entitle them to de- mand admission under the treaty with France, if we take the ratio of representation for a member of Congress as the rule." Thus you see that in the Avritten report accompanying the bill, I said that the great difficulty with the Committee was the question of population. In the same report I happened to refer to the question of submission. Now, listen to what I said about that : " In the opinion of your Committee, whenever a Constitution shall be formed in any Territoiy, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State, justice, the genius of our institutions, the whole theory of our republican system, imperatively demands that the voice of the people shall be fairly expressed, and their will em- bodied in that fundamental law without fraud or violence, or intimidation, or any other improper or unlawful influence, and subject to no other restrictions than those imposed by the Constitution of the United States." I read this from the Report I made at the time, on the Toombs bill. I will read yet another passage from the same Report ; after setting out the features of the Toombs bill, I contrast it with the proposition of Senator Seward, saying : " The revised proposition of the Senator from Georgia refers all matters in dis- pute to the decision of the present population, with guaranties of fairness and safe- guards against frauds and violence, to which no reasonable man can find just grounds of exception, while the Senator from New York, if his proposition is designed to recognize and impart vitality to the Topeka Constitution, proposes to disfranchise not only all the emigrants who have arrived in the Territory this year, but all the law- abiding men who refused to join in the act of open rebellion against the constituted authorities of the Territory last year by making the unauthorized and unlawful action of a poHtical party the fundamental law of the whole people." Then, again, I repeat that under that bill the question is to be referred to the pres- ent population to decide for or against coming into the Union under the Constitution they may adopt. Mr. Trumbull, when at Chicago, rested his charge upon the allegation that the clause requii'ing submission was originally in the bill, and was stricken out by me. When that falsehood was exposed by a publication of the record, he went to Alton and made another speech, repeating the charge and referring to other and different evidence to sustain it. He saw that he was caught in his first falsehood, so he changed the issue, and instead of resting upon the allegation of striking out, he made 1-69 ; "est ujjon the declaration that I had introduced a chiusc into the bill prohibiting lie people from voting upon the Constitution. I am told that he made the same harge here that he made at Alton, that I had actually introduced and incorporated ito the bill, a clause which prohibited the people from voting upon their Constitu- ion. I hold his Alton speech in my hand, and will read the amendment, which he, lieges that I offered. It is in these words : "And until the complete execution of this act no other election shall be held in rtid Territory." Trumbull says the object of that amendment was to prevent the Convention frore ubmitting the Constitution to a vote of the people. 1 will read what he said at Llton on that subject : " This clause put it out of the power of the Convention, had it been so disposed, 3 submit the Constitution to the people for adoption; for it absolutely prohibited the olding of any other election, than that for the election of delegates, till that act wjis orapletely executed, whicli would not have been till Kansas was admitted as a State, r, at all tivents, till her Constitution was fully prepared i\nd ready for submission to 'ongress for admission." Now, do you suppose that Mr. Trumbull supposed that that clause prohibited the invention from submitting the Constitution to the people, when, in his speech in the lenate, he declared that the Convention had a right to submit it ? In his Alton [)eech, as will be seen by tiie extract which I have read, he declared that the clause ut it out of the power of the Convention to submit the Constitution, and in his [)eech in the Senate he said : " Ther(i is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have discovered, about submitting le Constitution which is to be formed, to the people, for their sanction or rejection, 'erhaps the Convention could have the right to submit it, if it should think proper, ut it is certainly not compelled to do so according to the provisions of the bill." Thus you see that, in Congress, he declared the bill to be silent on the subject, and lew days since, at Alton, he made a speech, and said that there was a provision in le bill prohibiting submission. I have two answers to make to that. In the first place, the amendment which he uotes as depriving the people of an opportunity to vote upon the Constitution, was 'ricken out on my motion — absolutely stricken out and not voted on at all ! In the 3cond place, in lieu of it, a provision was voted in authorizing the Convention to rder an election whenever it pleased. I will read. After Trumbull had made his peeoli in the Senate, declaring that the Constitution would probably be submitted 3 the -people, although the bill was silent upon that subject, I made a few remarks, nd offered two amendments, which you may find in the Appendix to the Con ressional Globe, volume thirty-three, first session of the thirty-fourth Congress, age 795. I quote : " Mr. Douglas — I have an amendment to offer from the Committee on Territories. )n page 8, section 1 1 , strike out the words ' until the complete execution of this act other election shall be held in said Territory,' and insert the amendment which I old in my hand." The amendment was as follows : " That all persons who shall possess the other qualifications prescribed for voters nder this act, and who shall have been bona fide inhabitants of said Territory since ,s organization, and who shall have absented themselves therefrom in consequence f the disturbances therein, and who shall return before the first day of October ext, and become bona fide inhabitants of the Territory, with the intent of making ; their permanent home, and shall present satisfactory evidence of these facts to the Joard of Conunissioners, shall be entitled to vote at said election, and shall have hieir names placed on said corrected list of voters for that purpose." That amendment was adopted unanimously. After its adoption, the record shoM'S be following : 170 " Mr. Douglas — I have anothei" amendment to ofl'er from the Committee, to follow the amendment wliich has been adopted. The bill reads now, ' and until the com- plete execution of this act, no other election shall be held in said Territory.' It has been suggested that it sliould be modified in this way, 'and to avoid all conflict in the complete execution of this act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby postponed until such time as said Convention shall appoint,' so that they can appoint the day in the event that thei'e should be a failure to come into the Union." This amendment was also agreed to without dissent. Thus you see that the amendment quoted by Trumbull, at Alton, as evidence against me, instead of being put into the bill by me, was stricken out on my motion, and never became a part thereof at all. You also see that the substituted clause (ixpressly authorized the Convention to appoint such day of election as it should deem proper. Mr. Trumbull when he made that speech knew these facts. He forged his evi- dence fi-om beginning to end, and by falsifying the record he endeavors to bolster up his false charge. I ask you what you think of Trumbull thus going around the country, falsifying and garbling the public records. I ask you whether you will sustain a man who will descend to the infamy of such conduct. Mr. Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by TrurpbuU, but that Lincoln having indorsed the char- acter of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincohi] responsible for the slanders. FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, October 7, 1858. MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEF.CH. Ladies and Gentlemex : Four years ago I appeared before the people of Knox county for the purpose of defending my political action upon the Compromise mviasures of 1850 and the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Those of you be- fore me, who were present then, will remember that I vindicated myself for support- ing those two measures by the fact that they rested upon the great fundamental prin- ciple that the people of each State and each Ten-itory of this LTnion have the right, and ought to be permitted to exercise the right, of regulating their own domestic con- cerns in their own way, subject to no other limitation or restriction than that which the Constitution of the United States imposes upon them. I then called upon the people of Illinois to decide whetl^er that principle of self-government was right or wrong. If it was and is right, then the Compromise measures of 1850 were right, and, consequently, the Kansas and Nebraska bill, based upon the same principle, must necessarily have been right. The Kansas and Nebraska bill declared, in so many words, that it was the true intent and meaning of the act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly fres to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. For the last four years I have devoted all my energies, in private and public, to commend that principle to the Amej-ican people. Whatever else may be said in condemnation or support of my political course, I appri-hend 171 that no honest man will doubt the fidelity with which, under all circumstances, I have stood by it. During the last year a question arose in the Congress of the United States whether or not that principle would be violated by the admission of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution. In my opinion, the attempt to force Kansas in under that Constitution, was a gross violation of the principle enunciated in the Com- promise measures of 1850, and Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854, and therefore I led off in the fight against the Lecompton Constitution, and conducted it until the effort to carry that Constitution through Congress was abandoned. And I can appeal to all men, friends and foes. Democrats and Republicans, Northern men and South- ern men, that during the whole of that fight I carried the banner of Popular Sov- ereignty aloft, and never allowed it to trail in the dust, or lowered my flag until vic- tory perched upon our arms. When the Lecompton Constitution was defeated, the question arose in the minds of those who had advocated it what they should next resort to in order to carry out their views. They devised a measure known as the English bill, and granted a general amnesty and political pardon to all men who had fought against the Lecompton Constitution, provided they would support that bill. I for one did not choose to accept the pardon, or to avail myself of the amnesty granted on that condition. The fact that the supporters of Lecompton were willing to forgive all differences of opinion at that time in the event those who opposed it favored the English bill, was an admission they did not think that opposition to Lecompton im- paired a man's standing in the Democratic party. Now the question arises, what was that English bill which certain men are now attempting to make a test of politi- cal orthodoxy in this country. It provided, in substance, that the Lecompton Con- stitution should be sent back to the people of Kansas for their adoption or rejection, at an election which was held in August last, and in case they refused admission un- ier it, that Kansas should be kept out of the Union until she had 93,420 inhabitants. I was in favor of sending the Constitution back in order to enable the people to say whether or not it was their act and deed, and embodied their will ; but the other proposition, that if they refused to come into the Union under it, they should be kept )ut until they had double or treble the population they then had, I never would sanc- tion by my vote. The reason why 1 could not sanction it is to be found in the fact that by the English bill, if the people of Kansas had only agreed to become a slavehold- ing State under the Lecompton Constitution, they could have done so with 35,000 :)eople, but if they insisted on being a free Statf;, as they had a right to do, then ;Ley were to be punished bj'^ being kept out of the Union until they had nearly three ;imes that population. I then said in my place in the Senate, as 1 now say to you, ;hat whenever Kansas has population enough for a slave State she has population enough for a free State. I have never yet given a vote, and I never intend to record )ne, making an odious and unjust distinction between the different States of this Union. I hold it to be a fundamental principle in our republican form of govern- nent that all the States of this Union, old and new, free and slave, stand on an exact iquaff ty. Equality among the different States is a cardinal principle on which all Hir institutions rest. Wherever, therefore, you make a discrimination, saying to a ilavt State that it shall be admitted with 35,000 inhabitants, and to a free State that t shall not be admitted until it has 93,000 or 100,000 inhabitants, you are throwing he whole weight of the Federal Government into the scale in favor of one class of states against the other. Nor would I on the other hand any sooner sanction the loctrine that a free State could be admitted into the Union with 35,000 people, .vhile a slave State was kept out until it had 93,000. I have always declared in the Senate my willingness, and I am willing now to adopt the rule, that no Territory shall ever become a State, until it has the requisite population for a member of Con- fess, according to the then existing ratio. But while I have always been, and am low willing to adopt that general rule, I was not willing and would not consent to nake an exception of Kansas, as a punishment for her obstina/'y, in demanding the "ight to do as she pleased in the formation of her Constitution. It is proper that I 172 should remark here, that mv opposition to the Lecompton Constitution did not rest upon the peculiar position taken by Kansas on the subject of slavery. I held then, and hold now, that if the people of Kansas want a slave State, it is their right to make one and be received into the Union under it ; if, on the contrary, they want a free State, it is their right to have it, and no man should ever oppose their admission because they ask it under the one or the other. I hold to that great pi-inoiple of self-government which asserts the right of every people to decide for themselves the nature and character of the domestic institutions and fundamental law under which th'.'y are to live. 'rhe effort has been and is now being made in this State by certain postmasters and other Federal office-holders, to make a test of faith on the support of the English bill. These men are now making speeches all over the State against me and in favor of Lincoln, either directly or indirectly, because I would not sanction a dis- crimination between slave and free States by voting for the English bill. But while that bill is made a test in Illinois for the purpose of breaking up the Democratic or- ganization in this State, how is it in the other States? Go to Indiana, and there you find Enghsh liimself, the author of the English bill, who is a candidate for re-elec- tion to Congress, has been forced by public opinion to abandon his own darling project, and to give a promise that he will vote for tlie admission of Kansas at once, whenever she foi-ms a Constitution in pursuance of law, and ratifies it by a majority vote of her peo[)le. Not only is this the case with English himself, but I am in- fonned that every Democratic candidate for Congress in Indiana takes the same ground. Pass to Ohio, and there you find that Groesbeck, and Pendleton, and Cox, and all the other anti-Lecorapton men who stood shoulder to shoulder with me against the Lecompton Constitution, but voted for the English bill, now repudiate it and take the same ground that I do on that question. So it is with the Joneses and others of Pennsylvania, and so it is with every other Lecompton Democrat in the free States. They now abandon even the English bill, and come back to the true platform which I proclaimed at the time in the Senate, and upon which the Democ- racy of Illinois now stand. And yet, notwithstanding the fact, that every Lecomp- ton and anti-Lecompton Democrat in the free States has abandoned the English bill, you are told that it is to be made a test upon me, while the power and patronage of the Govei'nment are all exerted to elect men to Congress in the other States who occupy the same position with reference to it that I do. It seems that my political offense consists in the fiict that I first did not vote for the English bill, and thus pledge myself to keep Kansas out of the Union until she has a population of 93,420, and then return home, violate that pledge, repudiate the bill, and take the opposite ground. If I had done this, perhaps the Administi-ation would now be ad- vocating my re-election, as it is that of the others who have pursued this course. I did not choose to give that pledge, for the reason that I did not intend to cany out that principle. I never will consent, for the sake of conciliating the fi'owns of power, to pledge myself to do that which I do not intend to perform. I now submit the question to you as my constituency, whether I was not right, first, in resisting the adoption of the Lecompton Constitution ; and secondlj'^, in resisting the English bill. I repeat, that I opposed the Lecompton Constitution because it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will. I denied the right of any power on earth, under our system of Government, to force a Constitu- tion on an unwilling people. There was a time when some men could pretend to believe that the Lecompton Constitution embodied the will of the people of Kansas, but that time has passed. The question was referred to the people of Kansas under the English bill last August, and then, at a fair election, they rejected the Lecomp- ton Constitution by a vote of from eight to ten against it to one in its favor. Since it has been voted down by so overwhelming a majority, no man can pretend that it was the act and deed of that people. I submit the question to you whether or not, if it had not been for me, that Constitution would have been crammed down the throats of the people of Kansas against their consent While at least ninety -nine 173 out of eveiy hundred people hertj present, agree that I was right in defeating that project, yet my enemies use the fact that I did defeat it by doing right, to break me down and put another man in the United States in my place. The very men who acknowledge that I was right in defeating Lecompton, now form an alliance with Federal office-holders, professed Lecompton men, to defeat me, because I did right. My political opponent, Mr. Lincoln, has no hope on earth, and has never dreamed that he had a chance of success, were it not for the aid that he is receiving from Federal office-holders, who are usmg their influence and tlie patronage of the Government against me in revenge for my having defeated the Lecompton Constitution. What do you Republicans think of a political organization that will try to make an unholy and unnatural combination with its professed foes to beat a man merely because he has done right ? You know such is the fact with regard to your own party. You know that the ax of decapitation is suspended over every man in office in Illinois, and the terror of proscription is threatened every Democrat by the present Administra- tion, unless he supports the liepuldican ticket in preference to my Democratic asso- ciates and myself. I could find an instance in the postmaster of the city of Gales- burgh, and in every other postmaster in this vicinity, all of wliom have been stricken down simply because they discharged the duties of their offices honestly, and supported the regular Democratic ticket in this State in the right. The Republican party is avail- ing itself of every unworthy means in the present contest to carry the election, be- cause its leaders know that if they let this chance slip they will never have another, and their hopes of making this a Republican State will be blasted forever. Now, let me ask you whether the country has any interest in sustaining this or- ganization, known as the Republican party. That party is unlike all other political organizations m this country. All other parties have been national in their charac- ter — have avowed their principles alike in the slave and free States, in Kentucky as well as Illinois, in Louisiana as well as in Massachusetts. Such was the case with the old Whig party, and such was and is the case with the Democratic party. Whigs and Democrats could proclaim their principles boldly and fearlessly in the North and in the South, in the East and in the West, wherever the Constitution ruled and the American flag waved over American soil. But now you have a sectional organization, a party which appeals to the North- ern section of the Union against the Southern, a party which appeals to Northern passion, Northern pride, Northern ambition, and Northern prejudices, against Southern people, the Southern States, and Southern institutions. The leaders of that party hope that they will Ije able to unite the Northern States in one great sec- tional party, and inasmuch as the North is the strongest section, that they will thus be enabled to out vote, conquer, govern, and control the South. Hence you find that they now make speeches advocating principles and measures which cannot be defended in any slaveholding State of this Union. Is there a Republican residing in Galesburgh who can travel into Kentucky and carry his principles with him across the Ohio? What Republican from Massachusetts can visit the Old Dominion with- out leaving his principles behind him when he crosses Mason and Dixon's line ? Permit me to say to you in perfect good humor, but in all sincerity, that no politi- cal creed is sound which cannot be proclaimed fearlessly in every State of this Union where the Federal Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. Not only is this Republican party unable to proclaim its principles ahke in the North and in the South, in the free States and in the slave States, but it cannot even proclaim them in tlie same forms and give them the same strength and meaning in all parts of the same State. My friend Lincoln finds it extremely difficult to manage a debate in the center part of the State, wliere there is a mixture of men from the North and the South. In the extreme Northern part of Illinois he can proclaim as bold and radical Abolitionism as ever Giddings, Lovejoy, or Garrison enunciated, but when he gets down a little further South he claims that he is an old line Whig, a disciple of Henry Clay, and declares that he still adheres to the old line Whig creed, and has nothing whatever to do svith Auulitionism, or negro equality, or negro citi- 12 m zCHship. I once before hinted this of Mr. Lincoln in a pubhc speech, and at Charleston he defied me to show that there was any diiference between his speeches in the North and in the South, and that they were not in strict harmony. I will now call your attention to two of them, and you can then say whether you would be apt to believe that the same man ever uttered both. In a speech in reply to me at Chi- cago in July last, Mr. Lincoln, in speaking of the equality of the negro with thft white- man, used the following language: " I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which de- clares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop ? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man? If the Declaration is not tlie truth, let us get the statute book in which we find it and tear it out. Who is so bold :ts to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out." You find that Mr. Lincoln there proposed that if tie doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, declaring all men to be born equal, did not include the negro and put him on an equality with the white man, that we should take the statute book and tear it out. He there took the ground that the negro race is included in the Decla- ration of Independence as the equal of the white race, and that there could be no such thing as a distinction in the races, making one superior and the other inferior. I read now from the same speech : " My friends [he says], I have detained you about as long as I desire to do, and I have only to say let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, discarding our standai'd that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal." ["That's right," etc.] Yes, I have no doubt that you think it is right, but the Lincoln men down m Coles, Tazewell and Sangamon counties do not think it is right. In the conclusion of the same speech, talking to the Chicago Abolitionists, he said : " I leave you, hoping that the Uunp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." ["Good, good."] Well, you say good to that, and you are going to vote for Lincoln because he holds that doctrine. I will not blame you for supporting him on that ground, but I will show you in immediate contrast with that doctrine, what Mr. Lincoln said down in Egypt in order to get votes in that locality where they do not hold to such a doctrme. In a joint discussion between Mr. Lincoln and myself, at Charleston, I think, on the 18th of last month, Mr. Lincoln, referring to this subject, used the fol- lowing language : « I will say then, that I am not nor never have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ; that I am not nor never have been in favor of making voters of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry Avith white peo- ple. I will say in addition, that there is a physical diff'erence between the white and black races, which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and in- ferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man." [ " Good for Lincoln."] ^ Fellow-citizens, here you find men hurraing for Lincoln and saying that he did right, when in one part of the State he stood up for negro equality, and in an- other part for political effect, discarded the doctrine and declared that there al- ways must be a superior and inferior race. Abohtionists up north are expected and required to vote for Lincoln because he goes for the equality of the races, holdin<^ that by the Declaration of Independence the white man and the negro 175 were created equal, and endowed by the Divine law with that equality, and down south he tells the old Whigs, the Kentuckians, Virginians, and Tennesseeans, that there is a physical difference in the races, making one superior and the other in- ferior, and that he is in favor of maintaining the superiority of the white race over the negro. Now, how can you reconcile those two positions of Mr. Lincoln ? He is to be voted for in the south as a pro-slaveiy man, and he is to be voted for in the north as an Abolitionist. Up here he thinks it is all nonsense to talk about a differ- ence between the races, and says that we must " discard all quibbling about this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in am inferior position." Down south he makes this " quibble " about this race and that race ?nd the other race being inferior as the creed of his party, and declares that the negr : can never be elevated to the position of the white man. You find that his politi- cal meetings are called by different names in different counties in the State. Here they are called Republican meetings, but in old Tazewell, Avhere Lincoln made a speech last Tuesday, he did not address a Republican meeting, but '• a grand rally of the Lincoln men." There are very few Republicans there, because Tazewell county is filled with old Virginians and Kentuckians, all of whom are Whigs or Democrats, and if Mr. Lincoln had called an Abolition or RepubHcan meeting there, he would not get many votes. Go down into Kgypt and you find that he and his party are operat- ing under an alias there, which his friend Trumbull has given them, in order that they may cheat the people. When I was down in Monroe county a few weeks ago addressing the people, I saw handbills posted announcing that Mr. Trumbull was go- ing to speak in behalf of Lincoln, and what do you think the name of his party was there ? Why the " Free Democracy." Mr. Trumbull and Mr. Jehu Baker were announced to address the Free Democracy of Monroe county, and the bill was signed " Many Free Democrats." The reason that Lincoln and his party adopted the name of " Free Democracy " down there was because Monroe county has al- ways been an old-fashioned Democratic county, and hence it was necessary to make the people believe that they were Democrats, sympathized with them, and were fight- ing for Lincoln as Democrats. Come up to Springfield, where Lincoln now lives and always has lived, and you find that the Convention of his party which assembled to nominate candidates for Legislature, Avho are expected to vote lor him if elected, dare not adopt the name of Republican, but assembled under the title of " all op- posed to the Democracy." Thus you find that Mr. Lincoln's creed cannot travel through even one half of the counties of this State, but that it changes its hues and becomes lighter and lighter, as it travels from the extreme north, until it is near- ly white, when it reaches the extreme south end of the State. I ask you, my friends, why cannot Republicans avow their principles alike every where ? I would despise myself if I thought that I was procuring your votes by concealing my opinions, and by avowing one set of principles in one part of the State, and a different set in another part. If I do not truly and honorably represent your feelings and prin- ciples, then I ought not to be your Senator ; and I Avill never conceal my opinions, or modify or change them a hair's breadth in order to get votes. I tell you that this Chicago doctrine of Lincoln's — declaring that the negro and the white man ai-e made equal by the Declaration of Independence and by Divine Providence — is a mon- strous heresy. The signers of the Declaration of Independence never dreamed of the negro when they were writing that document. They referred to white men, to men of European birth and European descent, when they declared the equality of all men. I see a gentleman there in the crowd shaking his head. Let me remind him that when Thomas Jefferson wrote that document, he was the owner, and so continued until his death, of a large number of slaves. Did he intend to say in that Declaration, that his negro slaves, which he held and treated as property, were created his equals by Divine law, and that he was violating the law of God every day of his life by holding them as slaves ? It must be borne in mind that when that Declaration was put forth, every one of the thirteen Colonies were slave- holding Colonies, and every man who signed that instrument represented a slave 1T6 holding constituency. Recollect, also, that no one of them emaneipated his slaves, much less put them on an equality with himself, after he signed the Declaration. On the contrary, they all continued to hold their negroes as slaves during the revolution- ary war. Now, do you believe — are you willing to have it said — that every man who signed the Declaration of Independence declared the negro his equal, and then was hypocrite enough to continue to hold him as a slave, in violation of what he be- lieved to be the Divine law ? And yet when you say that the Declaration of Inde- pendence includes the negro, you charge the signers of it with hypocrisy. I say to you, frankly, tliat in my opinion, this Government was made by our fathers on the white basis. It was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and was intended to be administered by white men in all time to come. But while I hold that under our Constitution and political system the ne- gro is not a citizen, cannot be a citizen, and ouglit not to be a citizen, it does not fol- low by any means that he should be a slave. On the contrary it does follow that the negro, as an inferior race, ought to possess every right, every privilege, every immu- nity which he can safely exercise consistent with the safety of tlie society in which he lives. Plumanity requires, and Christianity commands, that you shall extend to every inferior being, and every dependent being, all the privileges, immunities and advantages which can be granted to them consistent with the safety of society. If you ask me the nature and extent of these privileges, I answer that that is a ques- tion which the people of each State must decide for themselves. Illinois lias decided that question for herself. We have said that in this State the negro shall not be a slave, nor shall he be a citizen. Kentucky holds a different doctrine. New York holds one diiFerent from either, and Maine one different from all. Virginia, in her policy on this question, differs in many respects from the others, and so on, until there is hardly two States whose policy is exactly alike in regard to the relation of the white man and the negro. Nor can you reconcile them and make them alike. Each State must do as it pleases. Illinois had as much right to adopt the policy wlxich we have on that subject as Kentucky had to adopt a different policy. The great principle of this Government is, that each State has the right to do as it pleases on all these questions, and no other State, or power on earth has the right to interfere with us, or complain of us mei-ely because our syf'tem differs from theirs. In the Compromise Measures of 1850, Mr. Clay declared that this great principle ought to exist in the Territories as well as in the States, and I reasserted his doctrine in the Kansas and Nebraska bill in 1854. But Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to understand, and those who are determined to vote for him, no matter whether he is a pro-slavery man in the south and a negro equality advocate in the north, cannot be made to understand how it is that in a Territory the people can do as they please on the slavery question under the Dred Scott decision. Let us see whether I cannot explahi it to the satisfaction of all impartial men. Chief Justice Taney has said in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, that a negro slave being property, stands on an equal footing with other prop- erty, and that the owner may carry them into United States territory the same as he does other property. Suppose any two of you, neighbors, should conclude to go to Kansas, one carrying ^100,000 worth of negro slaves and the other $100,000 wortli of mixed merchandise, including quantities of liquors. You both agree that under that decision you may carry your property to Kansas, but when you get it there, the merchant who is possessed of the liquors is met by the Maine liquor law, which prohibits the sale or use of his property, and tlie owner of the slaves is met by equally unfriendly legislation, which makes his property worthless after he gets it there. What is the right to carry your property into tlie Territory worth to either, when unfriendly legislation in the Territory renders it worthless after you get it there ? The slaveholder when he gets his slaves there finds that there is no local law to protect him in holding them, no slave code, no police regulation maintaining and supporting liim in his right, and he discovers at once that the absence of such friendly legislation excludes his property from the 177 Territoiy, just as irresistibly as if there was a positive Constitutional prohibition excluding it. Thus you find it is with any kind of property in a Territory, it depends for its protection on the local and municipal law. If the people of a Terri- tory want slavery, they make friendly legislation to introduce it, but if they do not want it, they withhold all protection from it, and then it cannot exist there. Such was the view taken on the subject by different Southern men when the Nebraska bill passed. See the speech of Mr. Orr, of South Carolina, the present Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, made at that time, and there you will find this whole doctrine argued out at fiill length. Read the speeches of other Southern Congressmen, Senators and Representatives, made in 1854, and you will find that they took the same view of the subject as Mr. Orr — that slavery could never be forced on a people who did not Avant it. I hold that in this country there is no power on the face of the globe that can fbi-ce any institution on an unwilling people. The great fundamental principle of our Government is that the people of each State and each Territory shall be left perfectly free to decide for themselves what shall be the nature and character of their institutions. When this Government was made, it was ba^ed on that principle. At the time of its formation there were twelve slave- holding States and one free State in this Union. Suppose this doctrine of Mr. Lin- coln and the Republicans, of uniformity of laws of all the States on the subject of slavery, had prevailed ; sujipose Mr. Lincoln himself had been a member of the Convention Avhich framed the Constitution, and that he had risen in that august body, and addressing the fatlier of his country, had said as he did at Spring- field : "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dis- solved — I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It Avill become all one thmg or all the other." AVhat do you tiiink would have been the result? Suppose lie had made that Con- vention believe that doctrine and they had acted upon it, what do you think would have been the result ? Do you believe that the one free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus abolish slavery? On the contrary, would not the twelve slaveholding States have outvoted the one free State, and under his doctrinti have fastened slavery by an irrevocable Constitutional provision upon every inch of the American Republic? Thus you see that the doctrine he now advocates, if proclaimed at the beginning of the Government, would have established slavery every where throughout the American continent, and are you willing, now that we have the majority section, to exercise a power which we never would have submit- ted to when we were in the minority ? If the Southern States had attempted to con- trol our institutions, and make the States all slave when they had the power, I ask would you have submitted to it? If you would not, are you willing now, that we have become the strongest under that great principle of self-government that allows each State to do as it pleases, to attempt to control the Southei-n institutions? Then, my friends, I say to you that there is but one path of peace in this Republic, and that is to administer this Government as our fathers made it, divided into free and slave States, allowing each State to decide for itself whether it wants slaveiy or not. If Illinois will settle the slavery question for herself", and mind her own business and let her neighbors alone, we will be at peace with Kentucky, and every other Southern State. If every other State in the Union will do the same there will he peace between the North and the South, and in the whole Union. 178 MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY. My Fellow-citizens : A very large portion of the speech which Judge Doug- las has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in print. I do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all. If I had not been interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I was able to make to a very lai-ge portion of it, had already been more than once made and published. There has been an opportunity afforded to the public to see our respective views upon the topics discussed in a lai'ge portion of the speech which he has just delivered. I make these remarks for the purpose of excusing myself for not passing over the entire ground that the Judge has traversed. I however desire to take up some of the points that he has attended to, and ask your attention to them, and I shall follow him backwards upon some notes which I have taken, reversing the order by beginning where he con- cluded. The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and insisted that negroes are not included in that Declaration ; and that it is a slander upon the framers of that instrument, to suppose that negroes were meant therein ; and he asks you : Is it possible to believe that Mr. Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have supposed himself applying the language of that instrument to the negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery ? "Would he not at once have freed them? I only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech (and that, too, very briefly, for I shall not detain myselfj or you, upon that point for any great length of time), that I believe the entire records of the world, from the date of the Declaration of Independence up to within three years ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single man, that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence ; I think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any member of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present policy of the Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that affirmation. And I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience, that while Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking upon this very subject, he used the strong lan- guage that " he trembled for his country when he remembered that God was just ;" and I will offer the highest premium in my power to Judge Douglas if he will show that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson. The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's comments upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call our public meetings as Republi- can meetings ; and he instances Tazewell county as one of the jilaces where the friends of Lincoln have called a public meeting and have not dared to name it a Republican meeting. He instances Monroe county as another where Judge Trum- bull and Jehu Baker addressed the persons whom the Judge assumes to be the friends of Lincoln, calling them tho "Free Democracy." I have the honor to inform Judge Douglas that he spoke in that very county of Tazewell last Saturday, and I was there on Tuesday last, and when he spoke there he spoke under a call not venturing to use the word "Democrat." [Turning to Judge Douglas.] What think you of this? So again, there is another thing to which I would ask the Judge's attention upon this subject. In the contest of 1856 his party delighted to call themselves together as the "National Democracy," but now, if there should be a notice put up any where for a meeting of the "National Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not come. They would not suppose themselves invited. They would understand that it was a call for those hateful postmasters whom he talks about. Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine, which Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in very great contrast to 179 each other. Those speeches have been before the public for a considerable time, and if they have any inconsistency in them, if there is any conflict in them, the pub- lic have been able to detect it. When the Judge says, in speaking on this subject, that I make speeches of one sort for the people of the northen end of the State, and of a different sort for the southern people, he assumes that I do not understand that my speeches will be put in print and read north and south. I knew all the while that the speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at Jonesboro and the one at Charleston, would all be put in print and all the reading and intelligent men in the community would see them and know all about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will have it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality between the white and black races, which justifies us in making them slaves, we must, then, insist that there is a degree of equality that requires us to make them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken a broad distinction in regard to that matter ; and that is all there is in these different speeches which he arx-ays here, and the entire reading of either of the speeches will show that that dis- tinction was made. Perhaps by taking two parts of the same speech, he could have got up as much of a conflict as the one he has found. I have all the while main- tained, that in so far as it should be insisted that there was an equality between the white and black races that should produce a perfect social and pohtical equality, it was an impossibility. This you have seen in my printed speeclies, and with it I have said, that in their right to " life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our equals. And these declarations I have constantly made in reference to the abstract moral question, to contemplate iuid consider when we are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed with the actual presence of the evil — slaver}\ I have never manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence of slavery amongst us where it does ah'eady ex- ist ; but I have insisted that, in legislating for new countries, where it does not exist, there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract right ! With reference to tliose new countries, those maxims as to the right of a people to " life, hberty and the pursuit of happiness," were the just rules to be constantly referred to. There is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested to misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an intelligent and reading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge whether I advance improper or unsound views, or whether I advance hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different por- tions of tlie country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free from all error in the opin- ions I advance. The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction between his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national party — ours a sectional one. He does this in asking the question whether this country has any interest in the main- tenance of the Republican party ? He assumes that our party is altogether sectional — that the party to wliich he adheres is national ; and the argument is, that no party can be a i-ightf'ul party — can be based upon rightful principles — unless it can an- nounce its principles every where. I presume that Judge Douglas could not go into Russia and announce the doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not denounce tlif doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies m Russia ; and it may be true of this country, that in some places we may not be able to proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of Demociacy, because there is a section so du-ectly opposed to it that they will not tolerate us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of a doctrine, that in some places people won't let you proclaim it ? Is that the way to test the truth of any doctrine ? Why, I understood that at one time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a certain favorite doctrine of his. I commend to his consideration tlie question, whether he takes that as a test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. 180 There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little while on this occasion. What has always been the evidence brought forward to prove that the Republican party is a sectional party ? Tlie main one was that in the Southern por- tion of the Union the people did not let the Republicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That has been the main evidence brought forward — that they had no supporters, or substantially none, in the slave States. The South have not taken hold of our principles as we announce thera; nor does .Tudge Douglas now grapple with those principles. We have a Republican State Platform, laid down in Spring- field in June last, stating our position all the way through the questions before the country. We are now far advanced in this canvass. .Judge Douglas and I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have now for the fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I have not found cither Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of the Republican platform or laying his finger upon any- thing in it that is wrong. I ask you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away from the platform of principles to the fact that he can find people somewhere who will not allow us to announce those principles. If he had great confidence that our principles were wrong, he would take hold of them and demonstrate them to be wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he has of their being wrong is in the 'act that there are people who won't allow us to preach them. I ask again is that the way to test the soundness of a doctrine ? I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality he is himself fast becoming sectional. I ask his attention to the fact that his speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio river as they have fonnerly gone there. I ask his attention to the fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all the Democrats of the free States are agi'eeing with him, while he omits to tell us that the Democrats of any slave State agree with him. If he has not thought of this, I commend to his consideration the evidence in his own declaration, on this day, of his becoming sec- tional too. I see it rapidly approaching. Whatever may be the result of this ephe- meral contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day rapidly approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has been thrusting down the tliroats of Re- publicans for yeai's past, will be crowded down his own throat. Now in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his speech) about the Compromise of 1850, containing the principle of the Nebra^ika bill, althougii I have often presented my views upon that subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you please, detain you a little with them. I have always maintained, so far as I was able, that there Avas nothing of the principle of the Nebraska bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all — nothing whatever. Wliere can you find the prin- ciple of the Nebraska bill in that Compromise ? If any Avhere, in tlie two pieces of the Compromise organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utali. It was ex- pressly provided in these two acts, that, when they came to be admitted into the Union, they should be admitted with or witliout slavery, as they should choose, by their own Constitutions. Nothing was said in either of those acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery during the territorial existence of those Territories, while Henry Clay constantly made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control that question during the territorial existence, and that these old INIexican laws excluded slavery. How can that be used as a principle for declaring that during the territorial existence as well as at the time of framing the Constitution, the people, if you please, might have slaves if they wanted them ? I am not discussing the question whether it is right or wrong ; but how are the New Mexican and Utah laws patterns for the Ne- braska bill ? I maintain that the organization of Uta.h and New Mexico did not establish a general principle at all. It had no feature of establishing a general prin- ciple. The acts to which I have referred were a part of a general system of Com- promises. They did not lay down what was proposed as a regular policy for the Territories ; only an agreement in this particular case to do in that way, because other things were done that were to be a compensation for it. They were allowed 181 to come in in that shape, because in another way it Avas paid for — considering that as a part of that system of measures called the Compromise of 1850, which finally included half a dozen acts. It included the admission of California as a free State, which was kept out of the Union for half a year because it had formed a free Constitution. It included the settlement of the boundary of Texas, which had been undefined before, which was in itself a slavery question ; for, if you pushed the line farther west, you made Texas larger, and made more slave Territory ; while, if you drew the line to- ward the east, you narrowed the boundary and diminished the domain of slavery, and by so much increased free Territory. It included the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. It included the passage of a new Fugitive Slave law. AE these things were put together, and though passed in separate acts, Avere never- theless in legislation (as the speeches at the time will shoAv), made to depend upoi: each other. Each got votes, Avith the understanding that the other measures Avere to pass, and by this system of Compromise, in that series of measures, those tAvo bills — the New Mexico and Utah bills — Avei-e passed ; and I say for that reason they could not be taken as models, framed upon their oAvn intrinsic principle, for all fix ture Territories. And I have the evidence of this in the fact that Judge Douglas, a year afterAvard, or more than a year afterAvard, perhaps, Avhen he first introduced bills for the purpose of framing ncAv Territories, did not attempt to fblloAv these bills of NcAV Mexico and Utah ; and even Avhen he introduced this Nebraska bill, I think you Avill discover that he did not exactly folloAv them. But I do not Avish to dwell at gi'eat length upon this branch of the discussion. My OAvn opinion is, that a thorough investigation will shoAv most plainly that the New Mexico and Utah bills Avere part of a system of Compromise, and not designed as patterns for future territorial legis- lation ; and that this Nebraska bill did not folloAv them as a pattern at all. The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any odious distinc- tions between free and slave States. I am altogether unaAvare that the Republicans are in favor of making any odious distinctions between the free and slave States. But there still is a difference, I think, between Judge Douglas and the RepubHcans in this. I suppose that the real difference between Judge Douglas and his friends, and the Republicans on the contrary, is, that the Judge is not in fiivor of making any difference betAveen slaA'ery and liberty — that he is in fa\'or of eradicating, of pressing out of vicAv, the questions of preference in this country for free or slave institutions ; and consequently CA^ery sentiment he utters discards the idea that there is any Avrong in slavery. Every thing that emanates from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy, carefully excludes the thought that there is any thing Avrong in slavery. All their arguments, if you Avill consider them, Avill be seen to exclude the thought that there is any thing Avhatever Avrong in slavery. If you Avill take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him — as his declaration that he " don't care Avhether slavery is voted up or doAvn " — you will see at once that tbis is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is Avrong. If you do admit that it is wrong. Judge Douglas cannot logically say he don't care Avhether a Avrong is voted up or voted doAvn. Judge Douglas declares that if any community Avant sla- very they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no Avrong in slavery ; but if you admit that there is a Avrong in it, he cannot logi- callj say that any body has a right to do Avrong. He insists that, upon the score of equality, the owners of slaA-es and OAvners of property — of horses and every other sort of property — should be alike and hold them alike in a ncAv Temtory. That is perfectly logical, if the tAvo species of property are alike and are equally founded in right. But if you admit that one of them is wrong, you cannot institute any equali- ty betAveen right and Avrong. And from this difference of sentiment — the belief on the part of one that the institution is Avrong, and a policy ?pringing from that belief which looks to the arrest of the enlargement of that Avrong ; and this other senti- ment, that it is no Avrong, and a policy sprung from that sentiment which Avill toler- ate no idea of preventing that Avrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end of it through all the existence of things, — ai-ises the real difference be- 182 tween Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand, and the RepubUcans on the other. Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contem- plate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual ex- istence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the Constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it ; but, never- theless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hope- fully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end. Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, if not the seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or combination between the Na- tional Democrats and Republicans. What evidence Judge Douglas has upon this subject I know not, inasmuch as he never favors us with any. I have said upon a former occasion, and I do not choose to suppress it now, that I have no objection to the division in the Judge's party. He got it up himself. It was all his and their work. He had, I think, a great deal more to do with the steps that led to the Le- compton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had ; though at last, when they reached it, they quarreled over it, and their friends divided upon it. I am very free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have no objection to the division ; but 1 defy the Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way promoted that division, unless he insists on being a witness himself in merely saying so. I can give all fair friends of Judge Douglas here to understand exactly the view that RepubUcans take in regard to that division. Don't you remember how two years ago the opponents of the Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore ? I guess you do. Any Demo- crat who remembers that division, will remember also that he Avas at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to see all there is between the Na- tional Democrats and the Republicans. What we now think of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fremont and Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. But, if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there is an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republican and the National Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving him as an entirely competent witness upon that subject. 1 want to call to the Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first one of these debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order to fix extreme Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which he declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in October, 1854, at Springfield, lUinois, and he declared I had taken part in that Convention. It turned out that although a few men calling themselves an anti-Nebraska State Con- vention had sat at Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So apparent had it become that the resolutions which he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by a State Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days afterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L. Harris, member of Congress in that District, and he promised in that speech that when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter. Since then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made the investigation ; but a month has passed since he has been there, and so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of liis investigation. I have waited as I think sufficient time for the report of that investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A fraud — an absolute forgery was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced to the three — Lanphier, Hai-ris and Douglas. AVhether it can be narrowed in any way so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's report would probably show. It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were published in the IlUnois State Register on the 16th of October, 1854, as being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention, which had sat in that same month of October, at Spring- field. But it is also true that the publication in the Register was a forgery then, and the question is still behind, which of the three, if not all of them, committed that 183 forgery ? The idea that it was done by mistake, is absurd. The article in the Il- linois State Register contains part of the real proceedings of that Springfield Conven- tion, showing that the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him, and purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the Convention, and fraudu- lently substituted the others. Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of the Register, so that there seems to be but little I'oom for his escape. But then it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the other two. The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to Congress, and that object was known to be exceedingly dear to •Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and Douglas were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, and although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register, subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon that Convention. The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put it to new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband was brought home with his body full of eels, said when she was asked, "What was to be done with him?" " Take the eels out and set 1dm again ; " so Harris and Douglas have shown a disposition to take the eels out of that stale fraud by which they gained Harris's election, and set the fraud again more than once. On the 9th of July, 1856, Douglas attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the Senate of the United States, as will appear from the appendix of the Congressional Globe of that date. On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton in the House of Rejn-esentatives, as will appear by the same documents — the appendix to the Con- gressional Globe of that date. On the 21st of August last, all three — Lanphier, Douglas and Harris — reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. It has been clung to and played out again and again as an exceedmgly high trump by this blessed trio. And now that it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud, we find that Judge Douglas manifests no surprise at it at all. He makes no complaint of Lanphier, who must have known it to be a fraud from the beginning. He, Lanphier and Harris, are just a-s cozy now, and just as active in the concoction of new schemes as they were be- fore the general discovery of this fraud. Now all this is very natural if they are all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any one of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honor among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself, and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it dif- ficult to make a satisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the three are agreed that each is " a most honorable man." Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports against me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which we know to be utterly untrue, without for a moment s-eeming to think that this one unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate, will be the least drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He asks a re-election to the lower House of Congress without seeming to remember at all iliat he is involved in this dishonorable fraud! The Illinois State Register, edited by Lanphier, then, as now, the central organ of both Hari-is and Douglas, continues to din the public ear with this assertion without seeming to suspect that these assertions arc at all lacking in title to belief. After all, the question still recurs upon us, how did that fraud originally get into the State Register ? Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of that paper. Lan- phier knows. LAnphier cannot be ignorant of how and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he be induced to tell, or if he has told, can Judge Douglas be in- duced to tell how it originally was concocted ? It may be true that Lanphier insists that the two men for whose benefit it was originally devised, shall at least bear their share of it ! How that is, I do not know, and while it remains unexplained, I hope to be pardoned if I insist that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making charge* against Trumbull and myself is not quite sufficient evidence to establish theni ! 184 While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I answered certiiin interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded to me, and there in turn pro- pounded some to him, which he in a sort of way answered. The third one of these interrogatories I have with me and wish now to make some comments upon it. It was in these words : " If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that the States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adhering to and following such decision, as a rule of political action ? " To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense of the word. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. He sneered at me for propound- ing (he interrogatory. I had not propounded it Avithout some reflection, and I wish now to address to this audience some remarks upon it. In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe it is, of the Constitution of the United States, we find the following language : " This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the su- preme law of the land ; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence which I Avill now read : " Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution." 1 repeat it, " The right of 'property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution ! " What is it to be " affirmed " in the Consti- tution ? Made firm in the Constitution — so made that it cannot be sej^arated from the Constitution without breaking the Constitution — durable as the Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now, remembering the provision of the Constitution which I have read, afiirming that that instrument is the supreme law of the land ; that the Judges of every State shall be bound by it, any law or Constitution of any State to the contrary notwithstanding ; that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be separated from it without breaking it ; durable as the instrument ; part of the instrument ; — what follows as a short and even syllogistic argument from it ? I think it follows, and I submit to the considera- tion of men capable of arguing, whether as I state it, in syllogistic form, the argument has any fault in it? Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Con- stitution of the United States. Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy the riglit of property in a slave. I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming the truth of the premises, the conclusion, so far as I have capacity at all to understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault in it as I think, but the fault is not in the rea- soning; but the falsehood in fact is a fault of the premises. I believe that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advo- cates of that decision may search in vain for the place in the Constitution where the rif^ht of a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed. I say, therefore, that I think one of the premises is not true in fact. But it is true with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced it. They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying it, the conclusion follows that the Constitution of the United States being the supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere with it. It being affirmed in the decision that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or constitution can destroy that right. I then say to Judge Douglas and to all others, that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer to show that those 185 wlio have said that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirm- ed in the Constitution, are not prepared to show that no constitution or law can destroy that right. I say I believe it will take a far better argument than a mere sneer to show to the minds of intelligent men that whoever has so said, is not pre- pai'ed, whenever public sentiment is so far advanced as to justify it, to say the other. This is but an opinion, and the opinion of one very humble man; but it is my opinion that the Dred Scott decision, as it is, never would have been madt in its present form if the party that made it had not been sustained pi'eviously by the elections. My own opinion is, that the new Dred Scott decision, deciding against the right of the people of the States to exclude slavery, will never be made, if thai party is not sustained by the elections. I believe, further, that it is just as sure to be made as to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained. I have said, upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course of argument that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge not his motives in this), is pre- paring the public mind for that new Dred Scott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the reasons for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. I have turned his attention to the fact that General Jackson diifered with him in regard to the political obligation of a Supreme Court decision. I have asked his attention to the fact that Jetferson differed with him in regard to the political obliga- tion of a Supreme Court decision. Jefferson said, that "Judges are as honest as other men, and not more so." And he said, substantially, that "whenever a free people should give up in absolute submission to any department of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their liberties were gone." I have asked his attention to the fact that the Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, dis- regards a time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the power of Con- gress to establish a National Bank. I have asked his attention to the fact that he himself was one of the most active instruments at one time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the State of lUinois, because it had made a decision distasteful to him — a struggle ending in the remarkable circumstance of his sitting down as one of the new Judges who were to overslaugh that decision — getting his title of Judge in that very way. So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from .Judge Douglas upon these subjects. Not one can I get from him, except that he swells himself up and says, "All of us who stand by the decision of the Supreme Court are the friends of tlie Constitution ; all you fellows that dare question it in any way, are the enemies of the Constitution." Now, in this very devoted adherence to this decision, in ojv position to all the great political leaders whom he has recognized as leaders — in opposition to his former self and history, there is something very marked. And the manner in which he adheres to it — not as being right upon the merits, as he c(mceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory upon every one simply because of the source from whence it comes — as that which no man c-au gainsay, whatever it may be — this is another marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it in this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not invesligate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong. So ho takes the next one without inquiring whether it is right or wrong. He teaches men this dcctrinc, and in so doing prepares the public mind to take the next decision when it comes, without any inquiry. In this I think I argue fairly (without questioning motives at all), that Judge Douglas is most ingeniously and powei-fully preparing the public nund to take that decision when it comes; and not only so, but he is doing it in various other ways. In these general maxims about liberty — in his assertions that he " don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down ;" that " whoever wants slavery has a right to have it ;" that " upon principles of equality it should be allow- ed to go every where;" that "there is no inconsistency between free and slave insti- tutions." In this he is also preparing (whether purposely or not) the way for making the institution of slavery national! I repeat again, for I wish no misunderstand- 186 ng, that I do not charge that he means it so; but I call upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best instrument you could, and then set it to work in the most ingenious way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, operating in the free States, where there is now an abhorrence of the institution of slavery, could you find an instrument so capable of doing it as Judge Douglas ? or one employed in so apt a way to do it? I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, when he was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, that it had a tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, said that "those Avho would repress all ten- dencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation must do more than put down the benev- olent efforts of the Colonization Society — they must go back to the era of our liberty and independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous i-eturn — they must blot out the moral lights around us — they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love of liberty!" And I do think — I repeat, though I said it on a Ibrmer occasion — that Judge Douglas, and whoever like him teaches that the negro has no share, humble though it may be, in the Declara- tion of Independence, is going back to the era of our liberty and independence, and, so far as in him lies, muzzling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return ; that he is blowing out the moral lights around us, when he contends that whoever wants slaves has a right to hold them ; that he is penetrating, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty, when he is in every possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual and national. There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I shall not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may not take me clear through it. Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at Freeport, there was one in about this language: "Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the United States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?" I answered as I thought, in this way, that I am not generally opposed to the acqui- sition of additional territory, and that I would support a proposition for the acquisi- tion of additional territory, according as my supporting it was or Avas not calculated to aggravate this slavery question amongst us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another interrogatory, which Avas correlative to that: "Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory in disregard of how it may affect us upon the slavery question?" Judge Douglas answered, that is, in his own way he answered it. I believe that, although he took a good many words to answer it, it was a little more fully answered than any other. The substance of his answer was, that this country would continue to expand — that it would need additional territory — that it Avas as absurd to suppose that Ave could continue upon our present tei'ritory, enlarging in population as Ave are, as it Avould be to hoop a boy tAvelve years of age, and expect him to grow to man's size Avithout bui'sting the hoops. I believe it was something like that. Conse- quently he was in favor of the acquisition of further territory, as fast as Ave might need it, in disregard of hoAv it might affect the slavery question. I do not say this as giving his exact language, but he said so substantially, and he Avould leave the question of slavery Avhere the territory Avas acquired, to be settled by the people of the acquired territory. [" That's the doctrine."] May be it is ; let us consider that for a while. This will probably, in the run of things, become one of the concrete manifestations of this slavery question. If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question succeeds and gets fairly settled doAvn, until all opposition is crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the adjoining islands will follow, each one of Avhich promises additional slave fields. And this question is to be left to the people of those coun- tries for settlement. When we shall get Mexico, I don't knoAV Avhether the Judge will be in faA'or of the Mexican people that Ave get with it setth'ng that question for themselves and all others ; because we know the Judge has a great horror for mon- 187 o-i-els, and I understust Mr Lin- coln's insinuations of my complicity in that forgery, if it was a for-^ery. Does Mr Lincoln wish to push these things to the point of personal difficultit^s here? . I com- menced this contest by treating him courteously and kindly; I always spoke of him m words of respect, and in return he has sought, and is now seeking, to divert public attention from the enormity of his revolutionary principles by impeaching men's sin- cerity and integrity, and mviting personal quarrels. 13 190 I desired to conduct this contest with him like a gentleman, but I spurn the insin- uation of complicity and fraud made upon the simple circumstance of an editor ot a newsDaner havin- made a mistake as to the place where a thmg was done, but not as to^the thin, tsel : These resolutions were the platform of this Repubhcan party of M L ncoln's of that year. They were adopted in a majority of the Repubhca^ counties in the State; and when I asked him at Ottawa whether they formed the iTrm upon which he stood, he did not answer, and I cc>uld not get an answer out of Ixim He then thought, as I thought, that those resolutions wore adopted at the Springfield Convention, but excused himself by saying that he was not there when They nere adopted, but had gone to Tazewell court in order to avoid being present at the Conventlx^n. He saw them pubhshed as having been adopted at Spnnngfie d and so did I, and he knew that if there was a mistake in regard to them, that I had noUiiill under heaven to do with it. Besides, you tind that in all these northern counties where the Repubhcan candidates are running pledged to lum, that the Con- tentions which nominated them adopted that identical plattorm One cardinal point hithat platform which he shrinks from is this-that there shall be no more slave States admitted into the Union, even if the people want them Lovejoy stands pled-ed against the admission of any more slave States. [-'Right, so do we. ] So do ;ou, you say. Farnsworth stands pledged against the admission of any more skve States. Washburne stands pledged the same way. The candidate lor the Le'tlatu e who is running on Lincohi's ticket in Henderson and Warren, stands committed by his vote in the Legislature to the same thing, and I am ";^o;™^.d b" do not know of the fact, that your candidate here is also so pledged [ .Huiia foi him good."] Now, you Republicans all hurra for him, and for the doctrine of "no rn^re slave States," and yet Lincoln tells you that his conscience will not permi him Tsan til that doctrine. And complains because the resolutions I read at Ottawa male him, as a member of the party, responsible for sanctionmg the doctrine of no ^re sla^e States. You are one way, you confess, and he is or pretends to be the other and yet you are both governed hj principle in supporting one another. 11 it be ;;e, as I X.L shown it i^, that the whole Repubhcan party -^ - northern par of the State stands committed to the doctrine of no more s ave States, ad that this same doctrine is repudiated by the Republicans m the other part of the State, I wTder whether Mr! Lincoln Ind his party do not present the case which he cited 7r^m the Scriptures, of a house divided against itself winch cannot stand! I desire t^know what are Mr. Lincoln's principles and the principles of his party I hold Indhr party with which I am identified hold, that the i^ople of each State, old and n w, hav^ the right to decide the slavery question for themselves, and when I used the remark that I did not care whether slavery was voted up or down, I u.ed it m SeconTiectionthatlwasfor allowing Kansas to do just as she pleased on the slavery auestion. I said that I did not care whether they voted slavery up or down, because ?hevhad the right to do as they pleased on the question, and therefore my action wo^ld not be controlled by any such consideration. Why cannot Abraham Lincohi Td the party with which he acts, speak out their principles so tha they may be u Irstood V Why do they claim to be one thing in one part of the State and another "n the oTher part? Whenever I allude to the Abohtion doctrines, which he considers a sl^ider to'be charged with being in favor of, you all indorse them, and hurra for them, not knowing that your candidate is ashamed to acknowledge them. Thave a few words to say upon the Dred Scott decision, which has troubled the brain of Mr. Lincoln so much. He insists that that decision would carry slavery mto the fn^ States, notwithstanding that the decision says directly the opposite ; and goes into a long argument to make you believe that I am in favor of, and would sanct on T docSe that would allow slaves to be brought here and held as slaves contrary to our -Constitution and laws. Mr. Lincoln knew better when he asserted thi ; he Ww that one newspaper, and so far as is within my knowledge but one, ever assert- ed that Lrne, and tha I was the first man in either House of Congress that read Ifiticle iL d bate, and denounced it on the floor of the Senate as revolutionary 191 When the Washington Union, on the 17th of last November, published an article to that eifect, I branded it at once, and denounced it, and hence the Union has been pursuing me ever since. Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, replied to me, and said that there was not a man in any of the slave States south of the Potomac river that held any such doctrine. Mr. Lincoln knows that there is not a member of the Supreme Court who holds that doctrine ; he knows that every one of them, as shown by tiieir opin- ions, holds the reverse. Why this attempt, then, to bring the Supreme Court into disrepute among the people .'' It looks as if there was an etlfbrt being made to destroy public confidence in the highest judicial tribunal on earth. Suppose he suc- ceeds in destroying public confidence in the court, so that the people will not respect its decisions, but will feel at liberty to disregard them, and resist the laws of the land, what will he have gained ? He will have changed the Government from one of laws into that of a mob, in which the strong arm of violence will be substituted for the decisions of the courts of justice. He complains because I did not go into an argu- ment reviewing Chief Justice Taney's opinion, and the other opinions of the different judges, to determine whether their reasoning is right or wrong on the questions of law. What use would that be ? He wants to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to this meeting to determine whether the questions of law were decided prop- erly. He is going to appeal from the Supreme Court of the United States to every town meeting in the hope that he can excite a prejudice against that court, and on the wave of that prejudice ride into the Senate of the United States, when he could not get there on his own principles, or his own merits. Suppose he should succeed in getting into the Senate of the United States, what then will he have to do with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case ? Can he reverse that decision when he gets there ? Can he act upon it ? Has the Senate any right to reverse it or revise it? He will not pretend that it has. Then why drag the matter into this contest, unless for the purpose of making a false issue, by which he can dii'ect public attention from the real issue. He has cited General Jackson in justification of the war he is making on the decision of the court. Mr. Lincoln misunderstands the history of the country, if he believes there is any parallel in the two cases. It is true that the Supreme Court once decided that if a Bank of the United States was a necessary fiscal agent of the Government, it was Constitutional, and if not, that it was unconstitutional, and also, that whether or not it was necessary for that purpose, was a political question for Congress and not a judicial one for the courts to determine. Hence the court would not determine the bank unconstitutional. Jackson i-espected the decision, obeyed the law, executed it and carried it into effect during its existence ; but after the charter of the bank expired and a proposition was made to create a new bank. General Jackson said, ," it is unnecessary and improper, and, therefore, I am against it on (/onstitutional grounds as well jos those of expediency." Is Congress bound to pass every act that is Constitutional? Why, there are a thousand things that are Consti- tutional, but yet are inexpedient and unnecessary, and you surely would not vote for them merely because you had the right to ? And because General Jackson would not do a thing which he had a right to do, but did not deem expedient or proper, Mr. Lincoln is going to justify himself in doing that which he has no right to do, I ask him, whether he is not bound to respect and obey the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as me? The Constitution has created that court to decide all Consti- tutional questions in the last resort, and when such decisions have been made, they become the law of the land, and you, and he, and myself, and every other good citi- zen are bound by them. Yet, he argues that I am bound by their decisions and he is not. He says that their decisions are binding on Democrats, but not on Republi- cans. Are not Republicans bound by the laws of the land as well as Democrats? And when the court has fixed the construction of the Constitution on the validity of a given law, is not their decision binding upon Republicans as well as upon Demo- crats ? Is it possible that you Republicans have the right to raise your mobs and oppose the laws of the land and the constituted authorities, and yet hold us Demo- 192 crats bound to obey them ? My time is within half a minute of expiring, and all I have to say is, that I stand by the laws of the land. I stand by the Constitution aa our fathers made it, by the laws as they are enacted, and by the decisions of the court upon all points within their jurisdiction as they are pronounced by the highest tribunal on earth ; and any man who resists these must resort to mob law and vio- lence to overturn the government of laws. SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY, October 13, 1858. MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : I have had no immediate conference with Judge Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will be most agreeable to us. In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Ilhnois, Avhich have since been consolidated into the Republican party, assembled together in a State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted at that time, what, in pohtical language, is called a platform. In June of the same year, the elements of the Republican party in the nation assembled together in a National Convention at Philadelphia. They ado])tcd what is called the National Platform. In June, 1858 — the present year — the Republicans of Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again their platfoi'm, as I suppose, not differing in any essential particu- lar from cither of the former ones, but perhaps adding something in relation to the new developments of political progress in the country. The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the United States Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this canvass, I stood generally upon these plat- forms. We are now met together on the loth of October of the same year, only four months from the adoption of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this canvass, from the beginning until to-day, any one of our adversaries has taken hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon any thing that he calls wrong in them. In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator Douglas and my- self. Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these platforms, or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to hold me responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the meeting of either one of these Conventions of which I have spoken. And as a ground for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he as- sumed that they had been passed at a State Convention of the Republican party, and that I took part in that Convention. It was discovered afterward that this was erroneous, that the resolutions which he endeavored to hold me responsible for, had not been passed by any State Convention any where — had not been passed at Springfield, where he supposed they had, or assumed that they had, and that they had been passed in no Convention in which I had talien part. The Judge, never- theless, was not wilHng to give up the point that he was endeavoring to make upon me, and he therefore thought to still hold me to the point that he was endeavoring to make, by showing that the resolutions that he read, had been passed at a local Con- 193 vention in the northern part of tlie State, although it was not a local Convention that embraced my residence at all, nor one that reached, as I suppose, nearer than one lumdred and fifty or two hundred miles of where I was when it met, nor one in which I took any part at all. He also introduced other resolutions, passed at other meecings, and by combining the whole, although tliey were all antecedent to the two Slate Conventions, and the one National Convention I have mentioned, still he insisted and now insists, as I understand, that 1 am in some way responsible for them. At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I Avas in no way right- fully held I'esponsible for the proceedings of this local meeting or Convention in wliich I had taken no part, and in which I was in no way embraced ; but I insisted to him that if he thought I was responsible for eveiy man or every set of men every where, who happen to be my friends, the rule ought to work both ways, and he ought to be re- sponsible for the acts and resolutions of all men or sets of men who were or are now his supporters and friends, and gave him a pretty long string of resolutions, passed by men who are now his friends, and announcing doctrines for which he does not de- sire to be held responsible. This still does not satisfy Judge Douglas. He still adheres to his proposition, that I am responsible for what some of my friends in diSerent parts of the State have done ; but that he is not responsible for w^hat his have done. At least, so I understand him. But in addition to that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, last week, undertakes to establish that I am guilty of a species of double-dealing with the public — that I make speeches of a certain sort in the north, among the Abolitionists, which I would not make in the south, and that I make speeches of a certain sort in the south which I would not make in the north. I apprehend, in the course I have marked out for myself, that I shall not have to dwell at very great length upon this subject. As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had an opportu- nity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something in answer to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech of mine, delivered at Chicago, and then to contrast with it, he brought forward an extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted that I was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that his conclusion followed that I was playing a double part, and speaking in one region one way, and in another region another way. I have not time rtow to dwell on this as long as I would like, and wish only now to requote that portion of my speech at Charleston, which the Judge quoted, and then make some comments upon it. This he quotes from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I believe correctly : " I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qual- fying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ; and I will say in ad- dition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." This, I believe, is the entire quotation from the Charleston speech, as Judge Douglas made it. His comments are as follows : " Yes, here you find men who hurra for Lincoln, and say he is right when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that he discards tlie doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and inferior race ; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared equal, and endowed by divine law with equality. And down south with the old line Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians, and the Tennessee- ans, he tells vou that there. is a physical difference between the races, making the 194 one superior, the other inferior, and he is in favor of maintaining the superiority yf the white race over the negro." Those ai-e the Judge's comments. Now I wish to show you, that a month, or, only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech at Charleston, which tlie Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say substantially the same thing. It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa — and I will say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was in, after awhile — but at our first meeting, at Ottawa, I read an extract from an old speech of mine, made nearly four years ago, not merely to show my sentiments, but to show that my sentiments were long entertained and openly expi'essed ; in which extract I expressly declared that my own feelings would not admit a social and political equality between the white and black races, and that even if my own feelings would admit of it, I still knew that the public sentiment of the country would not, and that such a thing was an utler impossibility, or substan- tially that. That extract from my old speech, the reporters, by some sort of acci- dent, passed over, and it was not reported. I lay no blame upon any body. I sup- pose they thought that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting wliile I was reading it, but afterward went away without getting it from me. At the end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at Ottawa, I made the comments which were reported at that time, and which I will now read, and ask you to notice how very neai'ly they are the same as Judge Douglas says were delivered by me, down in Egypt. After reading I added these words : " Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to tlie institution of slavery or the black race, and this is the whole of it; anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut hor.se. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the insti- tution in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that thex*e must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I be- long having the superior position. I have never said any thing to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence — the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much enti- tled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments ; but in the right to eat the bread without the leave of any body else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." I have chiefiy introduced this for the purpose of meeting the Judge's charge that the quotation lie took from my Charlesto)i speech was Avhat I would say down south among the Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc., but would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of the Abolition element. I now make this com- ment : That sjjeech from which I have now read the quotation, and which is there given correctly, perhaps too much so for good taste, was made away up north in the Abolition District of this State par excellence — in the Lovejoy District — in the per- sonal presence of Lovejoy, for he was on the stand with us when I made it. It had been made and put in print in that region onl}'^ thi-ee days less than a month before the speech made at Charleston, the like of which Judge Douglas thinks I would not make where there was any Abolition element, I only refer to this matter to say that I am altogether unconscious of having attempted any double-dealing any where — that upon one occasion I may say one thing and leave other things unsaid, and vice versa ; but that I have said any thing on one occasion that is inconsistent with what 195 I have said elsewhere, I deny — at least I deny it so far as the intention is concerned. I find that I have devoted to this topic a larger portion of mj time than I had in- tended. I wished to show, but I will pass it upon this occasion, that in the senti- ment I have occasionally advanced upon the Declaration of Independence, I am en- tirely borne out by the sentiments advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I have the book here to show it from ; but because I have ah-eady occupied more time than I intended to do on that topic, I pass over it. At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, pushed to its legit- imate consequences, slavery would be established in all the States as well as in tlie Territories. I did this because, upon a former occasion, I had asked .Judge Douglas whether, if the Supreme Court should make a decision declaring that the States had not the power to exclude slavery from their limits, he would adopt and follow that de- cision as a rule of political action ; and because he had not directly answered that question, but had merely contented himself Avith sneering at it, I again introduced it, and tried to show that the conclusion that I stated followed inevitably and logically from the proposition already decided by the court. Judge Douglas had the privilege of replying to me at Galesburgh, and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether he would or would not sustain such a decision if made. I give him this third chance to say yes or no. He is not obliged to do either — probably he will not do either — but I give him the third chance. I tried to show then that this result — this conclu- sion inevitably followed from the point already decided by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thought of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his remarks upon this subject, uses the language which I will now read. Speaking of me the Judge says: " He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry slavery into the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself says the contrary." And he adds : " Mr, Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that holds that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their o[)inious held the reverse." I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying that I have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge Douglas to lay his finger upon the place in the entire opinions of the court where any one of them " says the contrary." It is very hard to affirm a negative with entire confidence. I say, however, that I have examined that decision with a good deal of care, as a lawyer examines a decision, and so far as I have been able to do so, the court has no when; in its opinions said tluit the States have the power to exclude slavery, nor have they used other language substantially that. I also say, so far as I can find, not one of the concurring Judges has said that the States can exclude slavery, nor said any thing that was substantially that. The nearest appi'oach that any one of them has made to it, so far as I can find, was by Judge Nelson, and the approach he made to it was exactly, in substance, the Nebraska Bill — that the States had the exclusive power over the question of sla- very, so far as they are not limited by the Constitution of the United States. I asked the question therefore, if the non-concui-ring Judges, McLean or Curtis, had asked to get an expi-ess declaration that the States could absolutely exclude slavery from their limits, what reason have we to believe that it would not have been \ oted down by the majority of the Judges, just as Chase's amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it was offered to the Nebraska Bill. Also at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at Ottawa, and commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as presented, not genuine. Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to be somewhat exasperated. He said he woul.l never have believed that Abraham Lincoln, as he kindly called me, would have attempted such a thing as I liad attempted upon that occasion ; and among other expressions which he used toward me, was that I dared to say forgery — that I had dared to say forgery [turning to Judge Douglas]. Yes, Judge, I did dare to say forgery. But in this political canvass, the Judge ought to remember that I was not the first who dared to say forger)% At Jacksonville Judge Douglas made a speech in answer to something 196 said bj Judge Trumbij]], and at the close of what he said upon that subject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged his evidence. He said, too. that he should not con- cern himself with Trumbull any more, but thereafter he should hold Lincohi responsible for the slanders upon him. When I met him at Charleston after that, although I think that I should not have noticed the subject if he had not said he would hold me responsible for it, I spread out before him the statements of the evidence that Judo-e Trumbull had used, and I asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger up- on one piece of all that evidence that he would say was a forgery ! When I went through with each and every piece, Judge Douglas did not dare then to say that any piece of It was a forgery. So it seehis that there are some things that Judge Doug- las dares to do, and some that he dares not to do. A voice — " It's the same thing with you." Mr. Lincoln— Yes, sir, it's the same thing with me. I do dare to say forf^ery when its true, and don't dare to say forgery when it's false. Now. I will say here to this audience and to Judge Douglas, I have not dared to say he committed a for^rery, and I never shall until I know it ; but I did dare to say— just to suggest to the Judge —that a forgery had been committed, which by his own showing had been traced to him and two of his friends. I dared to suggest to him that he had expressly prom- ised in one of his public speeches to investigate that matter, and I dared to suggest to him that there was an implied promise that when he investigated it he would make known the result. I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could not expect to be quite clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the time that promise was made he had been with those friends, and had not kept his promise in regard to the investiga- tion and the report upon it. 'I am not a very daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much scared about it yet. When the Judge says he would'nt have believed of Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that, he reminds me of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the purpose to treat me courteously ; that touched me somewhat. It sets me to thinking. I was aware, when it was first agreed that Judge Douglas and I were to have these seven joint discussions, that they were the successive acts of a drama— perhaps I should say, to be enacted not merely in the face of audiences Hke this, but in the face of the nation, and to some extent, by my relation to him, and not from any thing in myself, in the face of the world; and I am anxious that they should be conducted with di<^nity and m the good temper which would be befitting the vast audience before which it was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and made his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some sort of a reply to it. His second speech was made at Bloomington, in which he commented upon my speech at Chicago, and said that I had used language ingeniously contrived to conceal my mtentions, or words to that eflTect. Now, I understand that this is an imputation up- on my veracity and my candor. I do not know what the Judge understood by it ; but in our first discussion at Ottawa, he led off by charging a bargain, somewhat cor- rupt in Its character, upon Trumbull and myself— that we had entered into a bar'^ain one of the terms of which was that Trumbull w^as to al)olitionize the old Democratic party, and I (Lincoln) was to abolitionize the old Whig party— I pretending to be as good an old line Whig as ever. Judge Douglas may not understand that he im- plicated my truthfulness and my honor, when he said I ,vas doing one thing and pre- tending another ; and I misunderstood him if he thought he was treating me in a di"'- nified way, as a man of honor and truth, :is he now claims he was disposed to treat me. Even after that tune, at Galesburgh, when he brings forward an extract from a speech made at Chicago, and an extract from a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I was trying to play a double part— that I was trying to cheat the public, and get votes upon one set of principles at one place and upon another set of principles at another place— I do not understand but what he impeaches my honor, my veraci- ty and my candor, and because he does this, I do not understand that I am bou'^d, if I see a truthful ground for it, to keep my hands off of him. As soon as I l.arned that Judge Douglas was disposed to treat me in this way, I signified m od;^ (.f my 197 speeches tliat I should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble resources I might have — to adopt a new course with him. I was not entirely sure that I should be able to hold my own with him, but I at least had the purpose made to do as well as I could upon him ; and now I say that I will not be the first to cry "hold." I think it originated with the Judge, and Avhen he quits, I probably will. But I shall not ask any favors at all. He asks me, or he asks the audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of personal difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make a mis- take, in one of his early speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though perhaps he did when he called me an " intelligent " man. It really hurts me very much to suppose that I have wronged any body on earth. I again tell him, no ! I very much prefer, when this canvass shall be over, however it may result, that we at least part without any bitter recollections of personal difficulties. The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was pushing this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the responsibility for the enormity of my principles. I say to the Judge and this audience now, that I will again state our principles as well as I hastily can in all their enormity, and if the Judge hereaft'-ir chooses to confine himself to a war upon these principles, he will probably not find me departing from the same course. We liave in this nation this element of domestic slavery. It is a matter of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. It is the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it is a dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in regard to it. That controversy necessarily springs from difference of opinion, and if we can learn exactly — can reduce to the lowest elements — what that difference of opin- ion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for discussing the different systems of policy that we would propose in regard to that disturbing element. I suggest tliat the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest terms, is no other than the difi'erence between the men who think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican party think it wrong — we think it is a moral, a social and a political wrong. We think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as witli any other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of time there may he some promise of an end to it. We have a due i-egai'd to the actual presence of it amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the Constitutional obligations thrown about it. I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our Constitutional obligations, we have no right at all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and wc profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to do it. We go .further than that; we don't propose to disturb it where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us. We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the District of Columbia. Still we do not propose to do that, unless it should be in terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely soon to agiee to — the tern>s of making the emancipation gradual and compensating the unwilliug owners. Where we suppose we have the Constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about it. We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. We don't suppose that in doing this we violate any thing due to the actual presence of the institution, or any thing due to the Constitutional guaranties thrown around it. We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I ought perhaps t» address you a few words. We do not propose that when Dred Scott has been de- cided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will decide him to be free. We do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property thus settled but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule, whicli shall be bind 198 iiig on the voter to vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members of Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually concur with the principles of that decision. We do not propose to be bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays the foundation not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil into the States themselves. We propose so resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established upon this subject. I will add this, that if there be any mun who does not believe that slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in any one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us. While, on the other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is impatient over the necessity spi-inging from its ac- tual presence, and is impatient of the Constitutional guaranties thrown ai-ound it, and would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, stiuiding with us. He will find his place somewhere else ; for we have a due regard, so far as we are capable of understanding them, for all these things. This, gentlemen, as Avell as I can give it, is a plain statement of our principles in all their enormity. I will say now that there is a sentiment in the countiy contrary to me — a sen- timent which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore it goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a wrong. That policy is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is the Democratic sentiment. If there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this vast audience that this is really the central idea of the Democrat- ic party, in relation to tliis subject, I ask him to bear with me while I state a few things tending, as I think, to prove that proposition. In the first plaee, the leading man — I think I may do my friend Judge Douglas the honor of calling him such — advocating the 2)resent Democratic policy, never himself says it is wrong. He has the high distinction, so far as I know, of never having said slavery is either right or wrong. Almost every body else says one or the other, but the Judge never does. If there be a man in the Democratic party who thinks it is wrong, and yet clings to that party, I suggest to him in the first place that his leader don't talk as he does, for he never says that it is Avrong. In the second place, I suggest to him that if he will examine the policy proposed to be carried forward, he will find that he carefully excludes the idea that there is any thing wrong in it. If you will examine the arguments that are made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea that there is any thing wrong in slavery. Perhaps that Demo- crat who says he is as much opposed to slavery as I am, will tell me that 1 am wrong about this. I wish him to examine his own course in regard to this mat- ter a moment, and then see if his opinion will not be changed a little. You say it is wrong ; but don't you constantly object to any body else saying so ? Do you not constantly argue that this is not the right place to oppose it ? You say it must not be opposed in the free States, because slavery is not here ; it must not be op- posed in the slave States, because it is there ; it must not be opposed in politics, be- cause that will make a fuss ; it must not be opposed in the pulpit, because it is not religion. Then where is the place to oppose it ? There is no suitable place to op pose it. There is no plan in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent, which you say yourself is coining. Frank Blair and Gratz Brown tried to get up a system of gradual emancipation in Missouri, had an election in Au- gust and got beat, and you, Mr. Democrat, threw up your hat, and hallooed " hur- ra for Democracy." So I say again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he " don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see any thing wrong in it ; but he can- not say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution ; but if you admit 199 that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that any body has a right to do tvTong. When he says that slave property and horse and hog property are, alike, to be allowed to go into the Territories, upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if there is no difference between them as property; but if the one is property, held right- fully, and the other is wrong, then there is no equality between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in any way you can, in all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that policy itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is any thing Avrong in slavery. Let us understand this. I am not, just here> trying to prove that we are right and they are wrong. I have been stating where we and they stand, and trying to show what is the real difference between us ; ani I now say that whenever we can get the question distinctly stated — can get all these nicn who believe that slavery is in some of these respects wrong, to stand and act with us in treating it as a wrong — then, and not till then, I think we will in some way come to an end of this slavery agitation. MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. Ladies and Gentlemen : Permit me to say that unless silence is observed it will be impossible for me to be heard by this immense crowd, and my friends can confer no higher favor upon me than by omitting all expressions of ajjplause or approbation, I desire to be heard rather than to be applauded. I wish to ad- dress myself to your reason, your judgment, your sense of justice, and not to your passions. I regret that Mr. Lincoln should have deemed it proper for him to again in- dulge in gross personalities and base insinuations in regard to the Springfield reso- lutions. It has imposed upon me the necessity of using some portion of my time for the purpose of calling your attention to the facts of the case, and it will then be for you to say what you think of a man who can predicate such a charge upon the circumstances as he has in this. I had seen the platform adopted by a Re- publican Congressional Convention held in Aurora, the Second Congressional Dis- trict, in September, 1854, published as purporting to be the platform of the Re- publican party. That platform declared that the Republican party was pledged never to admit another slave State into the Union, and also that it pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, not only all that Ave then had, but all that we should thereafter acquire, and to repeal unconditionally the Fugitive Slave law, abolish slarery in the District of Columbia, and prohibit the slave-trade between the different States. These and other articles against sla- very were contained in this platform, and unanimously adopted by the Republican Congressional Convention in that District. I had also seen that the Republican Congressional Conventions at Rockford, in the First District, and at Bloomington, in the Third, had adopted the same platform that year, nearly word for word, and had declared it to be the platform of the Republican party. I had noticed that Major Tliomas L. Harris, a member of Congress from the Springfield District, had referred to that platform in a speech in Congress as having been adopted by the first Republican State Convention which assembled in Illinois. When I had occasion to use the fact in this canvass, I wrote to Major Harris to know on what day that Convention was held, and to ask him to send me its proceedings. He being sick, Charles H. Lanphier answered my letter by sending me the published proceed- ings of the Convention held at Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854, as they ap- peared in the report of the State Register. I read those resolutions from that newspaper the same as any of you would refer back and quote any fact from the files of a newspaper which had published it. Mr. Lincoln pretends that after I had so quoted those resolutions he discovered that they had never been adopted at Springfield. He does not deny their adoption by the Republican party at Aurora, 200 at Bloomington, and at Rockford, and by nearly all the Republican County Conven- tions in Northern Illinois where his party is in a majority, but merely because they were not adopted on the " spot " on which I said they were, he chooses to quibble about the place rather than meet and discuss the merits of the resolutions themselves. I stated when I quoted them that I did so from the State Register. I gave my au- thority. Lincoln believed at the time, as he has since admitted, that they had beei. adopted at Springfield, as published. Does he believe now, that I did not tell the truth when I quoted those resolutions ? He knows, in his heai't, that I quoted them in good faith, believing, at the time, that they had been adopted at Springfield. I would consider myself an infamous wretch, if, under such circumstances, I could charge any man with being a party to a trick or a fraud. And I will tell him, too, that it will not do to charge a forgery on Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. Harris. No man on earth, who knows them, and knows Lincoln, would take his oath against their word. There are not two men in the State of Illinois who have higher charac- ters for truth, tor integrity, for moral character, and for elevation of tone, as gentle- men, than Mr. Lanphier and Mr. Harris. Any man who attempts to make such charges as Mr. Lmcoln has indulged in against them, only proclaims liimself a slan- derer. I will now show you that I stated with entire fairness, as soon as it was made known to me, that theie was a mistake about the spot where the resolutions had been adopted, although their truthfulness, as a declaration of the principles of the Repub- lican party, had not and could not be questioned. I did not wait for Lincoln to point out the mistake ; but the moment I discovered it, I made a speech, and pubhshed it to the world, correcting the error. I corrected it myself, as a gentleman, and an honest man, and as I always feel proud to do when I have made a mistake. I wish Mr. Lincoln could show that he has acted with equal fairness, and truthfulness, when I have convinced him that he has been mistaken. I will give you an illustration to show you how he acts in a similar case : In a speech at Sprmgfield, he charged Chief Justice Taney, and his associates. President Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself, with having entered into a conspiracy at the time the Nebraska bill was in- troduced, by which the Dred Scott decision was to be made by the Supreme Court, in order to carry slavery every where under the Constitution. I called his attention to the fact, that at the time alluded to, to wit : the introduction of the Nebraska bill, it was not possible that such a conspiracy could have been entered into, for the rea- son that the Dred Scott case had never been taken before the Supreme Court, and was not taken before it for a year after ; and I asked him to take back that charge. Did he do it ? I showed him that it was impossible that the charge could be true ; I proved it by the record, and I then called upon him to retract his false charge. What was his answer ? Instead of coming out like an honest man and doing so, he reiterated the charge, and said that if the case had not gone up to the Supreme Court from the courts of Missouri at the time he charged that the Judges of tlie Su- preme Court entered into the conspii'acy, yet, that there was an understanding with the Democratic owners of Dred Scott that they would take it up. I have since asked him who the Democratic owners of Dred Scott were, but he could not tell, and why ? Because there were no such Democratic owners in existence. Dred Scott at the time was owned by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress, of Springfield, Massachusetts, in right of his wife. He was owned by one of Lin- coln's friends, and not by Democrats at all ; his case was conducted in court by Abo- lition lawyers, so that both the prosecution and the defense were in the hands of the Abolition political friends of Mr. Lincoln. Notwithstanding I thus proved by the record that his charge against the Supreme Court was false, instead of taking it back, he resorted to another false charge to sustain the infamy of it. He also charged President Buchanan with having been a party to the conspiracy. I directed his at- tention to the fact that the charge could not possibly be true, for the reason that at tlie time specified, Mr. Buchanan was not in America, but was three thousand miles off, representing the United States at the Court of St. James, and had been there 201 for a year previous, and did not return until three years afterward. Yet, I never cx>uld get Mr. Lincoln to take back his false charge, although I have calif d upon hiin over and over again. He refuses to do it, and either remains silent, or resorts to other tricks to try and pahn his slander off on the country. Therein you will find tlie difference between Mr. Lincoln and myself. When I make a mistake, as an honest man, I correct it without being asked to do so, but when he makes a false cliarge he sticks to it, and never corrects it. One Avord more in regard to tliese reso- lutions : I quoted them at Ottawa merely to ask Mr. Lincoln whether he stood on that platform. Tliat was the purpose lor which 1 quoted them. I did not think that 1 had a right to put idle questions to him, and 1 first laid a foundation for my questions by showing that the principles which I wished him either to affirm or deny had been adopted by some portion of his friends, at least as their creed. Hence I read the resolutions, and put the questions to him, and he then refused to answer them. Subsequently, one week afterward, he did answer a part of them, but the others he has not ansAvered up to this day. Now, let me call your attention for a moment to the answers which Mr. Lincoln made at Freeport to the questions which I propounded him at Ottawa, based upon the platform adopted by a majority of the Abolition counties of the State, which now as then supported him. In answer to my question whether he indorsed the Black Republican principle of " no more slave States," he answered that he was not pledged against the admission of any more slave States, but that he would be very sorry if he should ever be placed in a position where he would have to vote on the question ; that he would rejoice to know that no more slave States would be admitted into the Union; "but," he added, "if slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a cleai- field when they come to adopt the Constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave Constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union." The point I wish him to answer is this : Suppose Congress should not prohibit slavery in the Territory, and it applied for admission with a Constitution recognizing slavery, then how would he vote? His answer at Freeport does not apply to any tenitory in America. I ask you [turn- ing to Lincoln], will you vote to admit Kansas into the L^nion, with just such a Con- stitution as her people want, with slavery or without, as they shall determine ? He will not answer. I have put that question to him time and time again, and have not been able to get an answer out of him. I ask you again, Lincoln, will you vote to admit New Mexico when she has the requisite population with such a Constitution as her people adopt, either recognizing slavery or not, as they shall determine? He will not answer. I put the same question to him in reference to Oregon and the new States to be carved out of Texas, in pursuance of the contract between Texas and the United States, and he will not answer. He will not answer these questions in reference to any territory now in existence ; but says, that if Congress should pro- hibit slavery in a Territory, and when its people asked for admission as a State, they should adopt slavery as one of their institutions, that he supposes he would have to let it come in. I submit to you whether that answer of his to my question does not justify me in saying that he has a fertile genius in devising language to conceal his thoughts. I ask you whether there is an intelligent man in America who does not believe, that that answer was made for the purpose of concealing what he intended to do. He washed to make the old line Whigs believe that he would stand by the Compromise measures of 1850, which declared that the States might come into the Union with slavery, or without, as they pleased, while Lovejoy and his Abolition allies up North, explained to the Abolitionists, that in taking this ground he preached good Abolition doctrine, because his proviso would not apply to any territory ia America, and therefore there was no chance of his being governed by it. It would have been quite easy for him to have said, that he would let tlie people of a State do just as they pleased, if he desiied to convey such an idea. Why did he not do it? He 202 would not answer my question directly, because up north, the Abolition creed de- clares that there shall be no more slave States, while down south, in Adams county, in Coles, and in Sangamon, he and his friends are afraid to advance that doctrine. Therefore, he gives an evasive and equivocal answer, to be construed one way in the south and another way in the north, which, when analyzed, it is apparent is not an answer at all with reference to any territory now in existence. Mr. Lincoln complains that, in my speech the other day at Galesburgh, I read an extract from a speech delivered by him at Chicago, and then another from his sptech at Chai-leston, and compared them, thus showing the people that he had one set of principles in one part of the State and another in the other part. And how does he answer that charge? Why, he quotes from his Charleston speech as I quoted from it, and then quotes another extract from a speech which he made at another place, which he says is the same as the extract li-om his speech at Charles- ton ; but he does not quote the extract from his Chicago speech, upon which I con- victed him of double-dealing. I quoted from his Chicago speech to prove that he held one set of principles up north among the Abolitionists, and from his Charleston speech to prove that he held another set down at Charleston and in southern Illinois. In his answer to this charge, he ignores entirely- his Chicago speech, and merely argues that he said the same thing which he said at Charleston at another place. If he did, it follows that he has twice, instead of once, held one creed in one part of the State and a different creed in another part. Up at Chicago, in the opening of the campaign, he reviewed my reception speech, and undertook to answer my argument attacking his favorite doctrine of negro equality. I had shown that it was a falsifi- cation of the Declaration of Independence to pretend that that instrument applied to and included negroes in the clause declaring that all men were created equal. What was Lincoln's reply? I will read from his Chicago speech and the one which he did not quote, and dare not quote, in this part of the State. He said : " I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which de- clares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop ? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man ? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get this statute book in which we find it and tear it out." There you find that Mr. Lincoln told the Abolitionists of Chicago that if the Dec- laration of Independence did not declare that the negro was created by the Almighty the equal of the white man, that you ought to take that instrument and tear out the clause which says that all men were created equal. But let me call your attention to another part of the same speech. You know that in his Charleston sj^eech, an extract from which he has read, he declared that the negro belongs to an inferior race; is physically inferior to the white man, and should always be kept in an infe- rior position. I will now read to you what he said at Chicago on that point. In concliiding his speech at that place, he remarked : •' My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desire to do, and I have only to say let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man — this race and that race, and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal." Thus you see, that when addressing the Chicago AboUtionists he declared that all distinctions of race must be discarded and blotted out, because the negro stood on an equal footing with the white man ; that if one man said the Declaration of Independ- ence did not mean a negro when it declared all men created equal, that another man would say that it did not mean another man ; and hence we ought to discard all dif- ference between the negro race and all other faces, and declare them all created equal. Did old Giddings, when he came down among you four years ago, preach more radical Abolitionism than this ? Did Lovejoy, or Lloyd Garrison, or Wendell Phillips, or Fred Douglass, ever take higher Abolition grounds than that? Lincoln 203 told you that I had charged him with getting up these personal attacks to (.■onceal the enormity of his principles, and then commenced talking about something else, omittino- to quote this part of his Chicago speech which contained the enormity of his principles to which I alluded. He knew that I alluded to his negro-equality doctrines when I spoke of the enormity of his principles, yet he did not find it con- venient to answet- on that point. Having shown you what he said in his Chicago speech in reference to negroes being created equal to w^hite men, and about discarding all distinctions between the two races, I will again read to you what he said at Cbirleston : "I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races ; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the the free negroes, or jurors, or quahfying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man." A voice — ^" That's the doctrine." Mr, Douglas — Yes, sir, that is good doctrine, but Mr. Lincoln is afraid to advo- cate it in the latitude of Chicago, where he hopes to get his votes. It is good doctrine in the anti-Abolition counties for him, and his Chicago speech is good doctrine in the Abolition counties. I assert, on the authority of these two speeches of Mr. Lincoln, that he holds one set of principlf^ ; in the Abolition counties, and a different and con- tradictory set in the other counties. I do not question that he said at Ottawa what he quoted, but that only convicts him further, by proving that he has twice contra- dicted himself instead of once. Let me ask him why he cannot avow his principles the same in the North as in the South — the same in every county, if he has a con- viction that they are just? But I forgot — he would not be a Republican, if his principles would apply alike to every part of the country. The party to which he belongs is bounded and limited by geographical lines. With their principles they cannot even cross the Mississippi river on your ferry-boats. They cannot cross over the Ohio into Kentucky. Lincoln himself cannot visit the land of his fathers, the scenes of his childhood, the graves of his ancestors, and carry his Abolition prin- ciples, as he declared them at Chicago, with him. This Republican organization appeals to the North against the South ; it appeals to northern passion, northern prejudice, and northern ambition, against southern people, southern States, and southern institutions, and its only hope of success is by that appeal. Mr. Lincoln goes on to justify himself in making a war upon slavery, upon the ground that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown did not succeed in their warfare upon the institutions in Missouri. Frank Blair was elected to Congress in 1856, from the State of Missouri, as a Buchanan Democrat, and he turned Freemonter after the people elected him, thus belonging to one party before his election, and another after- ward. Wliat right then had he to expect, after having thus cheated his constituency, that they would support him at another election ? Mr. Lincoln thinks that it is his duty to preach a crusade in the free States against slavery, because it is a crime, as he believes, and ought to be extinguished ; and because the people of the slave States will never abolish it. How is he going to abolish it ? Down in the southern part of the State he takes the ground openly that he will not interfere with slavery where it exists, and says that he is not now and never was in favor of interfering with slavery where it exists in the States. Well, if he is not in favor of that, how does he expect to bring slavery in a course of ultimate extinction ? How can he extinguish it in Kentucky, in Virginia, in all the slave States by his policy, if he will not pursue a policy which will interfere with it in the States where it exists ? 204 In his speech at Springfield before the Abolition or Republican Convention, he declared his hostility to any more slave States in this language : "Under the operation of that policy the agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. *A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the oppo- nents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it. and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction ; or, its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States — old as well as new, north as well as south." Mr. Lincoln there told his Abolition friends that this Government could not endure permanently, divided into free and slave States as our fathers made it, and that it must become all free or all slave, otherwise, that the Government could not exist. How then does Lincoln propose to save the Union, unless by compelling all the States to become free, so that the house shall not be divided against itself? He intends making them all free ; he will preserve the Union in that way, and yet, he is not going to interfere with slavex'y any where it now exists. How is he going to bring it about? Why, he will agitate, he will induce the North to agitate until the South shall be Avorried out, and forced to abolish slavery. Let us examine the policy by which that is to be done. He first tells you that he would prohibit slavery every where in the Territories. He would thus confine slavery within its present limits. When he thus gets it confined, and suiTounded, so that it cannot spread, the natural laws of increase will go on until the negroes will be so jjlcnty that they cannot live on the soil. He will hem them in until starvation seizes them, and by starving them to death, he will put slavery in the course of ultimate extinction. If he is not going to interfere with slavery in the States, but intends to interfere and prohibit it in the Territories, and thus smother slavery out, it naturally follows, tliat he can extinguish it only by extinguishing the negro race, for his policy would drive them to starvation. This is the humane and Christian remedy that he proposes for the great crime of slavery. He tells you that I will not argue the question whether slavery is right or wrong. I tell you why I will not do it. I hold that under the Constitution of the United States, each State of this Union has a right to do as it pleases on the subject of slavei-y. In Illinois we have exercised that sovereign right by prohibiting slavery within our own limits. I approve of that line of policy. We have performed our wliole duty in Illinois. We have gone as far as we have a right to go under the Constitution of our common country. It is none of our business whether slavery exists in Missoui-i or not. Missouri is a sovereign State of this Union, and has the same right to decide the slavery question for herself that Illinois has to decide it for herself. Hence I do not choose to occupy the time allotted to me in discussing a question that we have no right to act upon. I thought that you desired to hear us upon those questions coming within our Constitutional power or action. Lincoln will not discuss these. Wh.it one question has he discussed that comes within the power or calls for the action or interference of an United States Senator ? He is going to discuss the rightfulness of slavery when Congress caimot act upon it either way He wishes to discuss the merits of the Di-ed Scott decision when, under the Consti- tution, a Senator has no right to interfere with the decision of judicial tribunals. He wants your exclusive attention to two questions that he has no power to act upon ; to two questions that he could not vote upon if he was in Congress, to two questions that arc not practical, in order to conceal your attention from other ques tions which he might be required to vote upon should he ever become a member ol Congress. He tells you that he does not hke the Dred Scott decision. Suppose he does not, how is he going to help himself? He says that he will reverse it. How will he reverse it ? I know of but one mode of reversing judicial decisions, and 205 that is by appealing from the infeiior to tlie superior court. But I have never yet Jeai-ned how or where an appeal could be taken from tlie Supreme Court of the United States! The Dred Scott decision was pronounced bytlie liighest tribunal ou earth. From that decision there is no apjK'al this side of ileaven. Yet, Mr. Lin- coln says he is going to reverse that decision. By what tribunal will he reverse it? Will he appeal to a mob? Does he intend to appeal to violence, to Lynch law? Will he stir up strife and rebellion in the land and overthrow the court by violence? He does not deign to tell you how he will reverse the Dred Scott decision, but keeps appealing each day from the Supreme Court of the United States to political meetings in the country. He wants mo. to argue with you the merits of each point of that decision before this political meeting. I say to you, with all due respect, that I choose to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court as they are pronounced. It is not for me to inquire after a decision is madtr whether 1 like it in all the points or not. When I used to pi-actice law v.ith Lincoln, I never knew him to be beat in a case that he did not get mad at the judge and talk about appealing; and when I got beat I generally tliought the court was wrong, but I never dreamed of going out of the court-house and making a stump speech to the people against the judge, merel}'- because I had found out that I did not know the law as well as he did. If the decision did not suit me, I appealed until I got to the Supreme Court, and then if that court, the highest tribunal in the world, decided against me, I was satisfied, because it is the duty of every law-abiding man to obey the constitutions, tlie laws, and the constituted authorities. He who attempts to stir up odium and rebellion in the country against the constituted authorities, is stimulating the passions of men to report to violence and to mobs instead of to the law. Hence, I tell you that I take the decisions of the Supreme Court as the law of the land, and I intend to obey them as such. But Mr. Lincoln says that I will not answer his question as to what I would do in the event of the court making so ridiculous a decision as he imagines they v*ould by deciding that the free State of Illinois could not prohibit slavery within her own limits. I told him at Freeport why I would not answer such a question. I told him that there was not a man possessing any brains in America, lawyer or not, who ever dreamed that such a thing could be done. I told him then, as I do now, that by all the principles set forth in the Di'ed Scott decision, it is impossible. I told him then, as I do now, that it is an insult to men's understanding, and a gross calumny on the court, to presume in advance that it was going to degrade itself so low as to make a decision known to be in direct violation of the Constitution. A voice — " The same thing was said about the Dred Scott decision before it passed." Mr. Douglas — Perhaps you think that the court did the same tiling in reference to the Dred Scott decision : I have heard a man talk that way before. The princi- ples contained in the Dred Scott decision had been affirmed previously in various other decisions. What court or judge ever held that a negro was a citizen? The State courts had decided that question over and over again, and the Dred Scott decision on that point only affirmed v.hat every court in the land knew to be the law. But, I will not be drawn off into an argimient upon the merits of the Dred Scott decision. It is enough for me to know that the Constitution of the United States crea- ted the Supreme Court for the purpose of deciding all disputed questions touching the true construction of that instrument, and when such decisions are pronounced, they are the law of the land, binding on every good citizen. Mr. Lincoln has a very convenient mode of arguing upon the subject. He holds that because he is a Republican that he is not bound by the decisions of the court, but that I being a Democrat am so bound. It may be that Republicans do not hold themselves bound by the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country as expounded by the courts ; it may be an article in the Republican creed that men who do not like a decision, have a right to rebel against it; but when Mr. Lincoln preaches that doc- trine, I think he will fiud some honest Republican — some law-abiding man in that 14 206 party — who will repudiate such a monstrous doctrine. The decision in the Dred Scott case is binding on every American citizen alike ; and yet Mr. Lincoln argues that the Republicans are not bound by it, because they are opposed to it, whilst Democrats are bound by it, because we will not resist it. A Democrat cannot resist the constituted authorities of this country. A Democrat is a law-abiding man, a Democrat stands by the Constitution and the laws, and relies upon liberty as pro- tected by law, and not upon mob or political violence. I have never yet been able to make Mr. Lincoln understand, or can I make any man who is determined to support him, right or wrong, understand how it is that under the Dred Scott decision the people of a Ten-itory, as well as a State, can have slavery or not, just as they please. I believe that I can explain that proposition to all Constitution-loving, law-abiding men in a way that they cannot fail to understand it. Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, said that slaves being property, the owner of them has a right to take them into a Territory the same as lie would any other property ; in other words, that slave property, so iar as the right to enter a Territory is concerned, stiuids on the same footing with other property. Suppose we grant that proposition. Then any man has a right to go to Kansas and take his property with him, but when he gets there he must rely upon the local law to protect his property, whatever it may be. In oi-der to illustrate this, imagine that three of you conclude to go to Kansas. One takes $10,000 worth of slaves, another $10,000 worth of liquors, and the third $10,000 worth of dry goods. When the man who owns the dry goods arrives out there and commences selling them, he finds that he is stopped and prohibited from selling until he gets a license, which will destroy all the profits he can make on his goods to pay for. When the man with the liquors gets there and tries to sell he finds a Maine liquor law in force which prevents him. Now, of what use is his right to go there with his property unless he is protected in the enjoyment of that right after he gets there ? The man who goes there with his slaves finds that there is no law to protect him when he arrives there. He has no remedy if his slaves run away to another country : there is no slave code or police x-egulations, and the absence of them excludes his slaves from the Territory just as effectually and as positively as a Constitutional prohibition could. Such was the understanding when the Kansas and Nebraska bill w^as pending in Congress. Read the speech of Speaker Orr, of South Carolina, in the House of Representatives, in 1856, on the Kansas question, and you will find that he takes the gix)und that while the owner of a slave has a right to go into a Territory, and carry his slaves with him, that he cannot hold them one day or hour unless there is a slave code to protect him. He tells you that slavery would not exist a day in South Cai'- olina, or any other State, unless there was a friendly people and friendly legislation. Read the speeches of that giant in intellect, Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, and you will find them to the same effect. Read the speeches of Sam Smith, of Tennes- see, and of all Southern men, and you will find that they all understood this doctrine then as we understand it now. Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to understand it, how- ever. Down at Jonesboro, he went on to argue that if it be the law that a man has a i-ight to take his slaves into territory of the United States under the Constitution, that then a member of Congress was perjured if he did not vote for a slave code. I ask him whether the decision of the Supreme Court is not binding upon him as well as on me ? If so, and he holds that he would be perjured if he did not vote for a slave code under it, I ask him whether, if elected to Congress, he will so vote ? I have a right to his answer, and I w^ill tell you why. He put that question to me down in Egypt, and did it with an air of triumph. This was about the form of it: " In the event of a slaveholding citizen of one of the Territories should need and demand a slave code to protect his slaves, will you vote for it?" I answered him that a fun- damental article in the Democratic creed, as put forth in the Nebraska bill and the Cincinnati platform, was non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, and hence, that I would not vote in Congress tor any code of laws, either 207 for or against slavery in any Temtory. I wUl leave the people perfectly free to de- cide that question for themselves. Mr. Lincoln and the Washington Union both think this a monstrous bad doctrine. Neither Mr. Lincoln nor the Washington Union like my Freeport speech on that sub^ ject. The Union, in a late number, has been reading me out of the Democratic party because I hold that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, have the right to have slavery or not, as they please. It has devoted three and a half col- umns to prove certain propositions, one of which I will read. It says : " We propose to show that Judge Douglas's action in 1850 and 1854 was taken with especial reference to the announcement of doctrine and programme which was made at Freeport. The declaration at Freeport was, that ' in his opinion the people can, by lawiul means, exclude slavery from a Territory before it comes in as a State;' and he declared that his competitor had ' heard liim argue the Nebraska bill on that prin- ciple all over Ilhnois in 1854, 1855 and 1856, and" had no excuse to pretend to have any doubt upon that subject.' " The AYashington Union there charges me with the monstrous crime of now pro- claiming on the stump, the same doctrine that I carried out in 1850, by supporting Clay's Compromise measures. The Union also charges that I am now proclaimintr the same doctrine that I did in 1854 in support of the Kansas and Nebraska bilL It 13 shocked that I should now stand where I stootl in 1850, when I was supported by Clay, Webster, Cass, and the great men of that day, and where I stood in 1854, and in 1S5G, when Mr. Buchanan was elected President. It goes on to prove and succeeds in proving, from my speeches in Congi-ess on Clay's Compromise measures, that I held the same doctrines at that time that I do now, and then proves that by the Kansas and Nebraska bill I advanced the same doctrine that I now advance. It remarks : ''So much for the course taken by Judge Douglas on the Compromises of 1850. The record shows, beyond the possibility of cavil or dispute, that he expressly inten- ded in those bills to give the Territorial Legislatures power to exclude slavery. How stands his record in the memorable session of 1854, with reference to the Kansas- Nebraska bill itself? We shall not overhaul the votes that were given on that notable measure. Our space will not afford it. We have his own w-ords, however, delivered in his speech closing the great debate on that bill on the night of March 3, 1854, to show that he meant to do in 1854 precisely what he had 7neant to do m 1858. The Kansas-Nebraska bill being upon its passage, he said : " It then quotes my remarks upon the passage of the bill as follows : ^ " The principle which we propose to cany into effect by this bill is this : That Congress shall neither legislate slavery into any Territory or State nor out of the same ; but the people shall be left free to regulate their domestic concerns in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. In order to carry this principle into practical operation, it becomes necessary to remove whatever le"-al ob- stacles might be found in the way of its free exercise. It is only for the purpose of carrying out this great fundamental principle of self-government that the bill renders the eighth section of the Missouri act inoperative and void. " Now, let me ask, will those Senators who have arraigned me, or anv one of them have the assurance to rise in his place and declare that this great jirinciple was never thought of or advocated as applicable to territorial bills, in 1850; that, from that ses- sion until the present, nobody ever thought of incorporating this principle in ail new territorial organizations, etc., etc. I will begin with the Compromises of 1850. Any Senator who will take the trouble to examine our journals will tind that on the 25th of March of that year I reported from the Committee on Territories two bills, inclu- ding the following measures : the a<:hnission of California, a territorial government for Utah, a territorial government for New Mexico, and the adjustment of the Texas boundary. These bills proposed to leave the people of Utah and New Mexico free to decide the slavery question for themselves, in the precise language of the Nebraska bill now under discussion. A few weeks afterward the committee of thirteen took 208 those bills and put a wafer between them and reported them back to the Senate a3 one bill, with some slight amendments. One of these amendments was, that the Terri- torial Legislatures should not legislate upon the subject of African slavery. I objected to this provision, upon the ground that it subverted the great principle of self-gov- ernment, upon which the bill had been originally framed by the Territorial Committee. On the first trial the Senate refused to strike it out, but subsequently did so, upon full debate, in order to establish that principle as the rule of action in territorial organi- zations." The Union comments thus upon my speech on that occesion. "Thus it is seen that, in framing the Nebraska- Kansas bill, Judge Donglas framed it in the terms and upon the model of those of Utah and New Mexico, and that in the debate he took pains expressly to revive the recollection of the voting which had taken place upon amendments affecting the powers of the Territorial Legislatures over the subject of slavery in the bills of 1850, in order to give the same meaning, force, and eifect to the Nebraska- Kansas bill on this subject as had been given to those of Utah and New Mexico." The Union proves the following propositions : First, that I sustained Clay's Com- promise measures on the ground that they established tlie principle of self-govern- ment in the Territories. Secondly, that I brought in the Kansas and Nebraska bill founded upon the same principles as Clay's Compromise measures of ] 850 ; and thirdly, that my Freeport speecli is in exact accordance with those principles. And what do you think is the imputation that the Union casts upon me for all this ? It says that my Freeport speech is not Democratic, and that I was not a Democrat in 1854 or in 1850! Now is not that funny? Think that tlie author of the Kansa** and Nebraska bill was not a Democrat when he introduced it. The Union says I was not a sound Democrat in 1850, nor in 1854, nor in 185G, nor am I in 1858, be- cause I have always taken and now occupy the ground that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist in a Territory. I wish to cite for the benefit of the Washington Union and the followers of that sheet, one authority on that point, and I hope the authority will be deemed satisfactory to that class of politicians. I Avill read from Ml". Buchanan's letter accepting the nomination of the Democratic Convention, for the Presidency. You know that Mr. Buchanan, after he was nominated, declared to the Keystone Club, in a public speech, that he was no longer James Buchanan, but the embodiment of the Democratic platform. In his letter to the committee which informed him of his nomination accepting it, he defined the meaning of the Kansas and Nebraska bill and the Cincinnati platform in these words : " The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived as it has been from the orignal and pure fountain of legitimate ^^olitical power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as fi-ee government itself, and in accordance with them has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." Thus you see that James Buchanan accepted the nomination at Cincinnati, on the conditions that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, should be left to de- cide for themselves whether slavery should or should not exist within their limits. I sustained James Buchanan for the Presidency on that platform as adopted at Cin- cinnati, and expounded by himself. He was elected President on that platform, and now we are told by the Washington Union that no man is a true Democrat who stands on the platform on which Mr. Buchanan was nominated, and which he has explained and expounded himself. We ai"e told that a man is not a Democrat who stands by Clay, Webster, and Cass, and the Compromise measures of 1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854. Whether a man be a Democrat or not on that platform, I intend to stand there as long as I have life. I intend to cling firmly to that great principle which declares that the right of each State and each Territory to settle the question of slavery, and every other domestic question, for themselves. I hold that 209 if they want a slave State, they have a right under the Constitution of the United States to make it so, and if they want a free State, it is their right to have it. But the Union, in advocating the claims of Lincoln over me to the Senate, lays down two unpardonable heresies Avhich it says I advocate. The first, is the right of the people of a Territory, the same as a State, to decide for themselves the question whether slavery shall exist within their limits, in the language of Mr. Buchanan ; and the second is, that a Constitution shall be submitted to the people of a Territory for its adoption or rejection before their admission as a State under it. It so happens that Mr. Buchanan is pledged to both these heresies, for supporting which the Wash- ington Union has read me out of the Democratic church. In his annual message he said he trusted that the example of the Minnesota case would be followed in all future cases, requiring a submission of the C-onstitution ; and in his letter of accept- ance, he said that the people of a Territory, tlie same as a State, had the light to decide for themselves whether slavery should exist within their limits. Thus you find that this little corrupt gang who control the Union, and wish to elect Lincoln in preference to me — because, as they say, of these two heresies which I support — de- nounce President Buchanan when they denounce me, if he stands now by the principles upon Avhich he was elected. Will they pretend that he does not now stand by the principles on which he was elected ? Do they hold that he has abandoned the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Cincinnati platform, and his own letter accepting his nom- ination, all of which declare the right of the people of a Territory, the same as a State, to decide the slavery question for themselves ? I will not believe that he has betrayed or intends to betray the platform which elected him ; but if he does, I will not follow him. I will stand by that great principle, no matter who may desert it. I intend to stand by it for the purpose of preserving peace between the North and the South, the free and the slave States. If each State will only agree to mind its own business, and let its neighbors alone, there will be peace forever between us. We in Illinois tried slavery wiien a Territory, and found it was not good for us in this climate, and with our surroundings, and hence we abolished it. We then adopted a free State Constitution, as we had a right to do. In this State we have declared that a negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he shall not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that policy. Missouri has just as good a right to adopt the other policy. I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter ibr themselves. I hold that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves ; that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to God and their posteritj-, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits. I assert that they had as much right under the Constitution to adopt the system of policy which they have as we had to adopt ours. So it is with ev(;ry other State in this Union. Let each State stand firmly by that great Constitutional right, let each State mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, and there will be no trouble on this question. If we will stand by that principle, then Mr. Lincoln will find that this Repubhc can exist forever divided into fi-ee and slave States, as our fathers made it and the people of em'h State have decided. Stand by that great principle, and we c:m go on as we have done, increasing in wealth, in population, in power, and in all the elements of gi'eatness, until we shall be the admiration and and terror of the world. We can go on and enlarge as our popula- tion increase, require more room, until we make this continent one ocean-bound republic. Under that principle the Unitetl States can perform that great missiA, that destiny, which Providence has mai'ked out for us. Under that principle we can receive with entire safety that stream of intelligence which is constantly flowing from the Old World to the New, filling up our prairies, clearing our wildernesses and building cities, towns, railroads and other internal improvements, and thus make this the asylum of the oppressed of the whole earth. AVe have this great mission toper- form, and it can only be performed by adhering faithfully to that principle of self- 210 government on which our institution.^ were all established. I repeat that the princi« pie is the right of each State, each Territory, to decide this slavery question for itself, to have slavery or not, as it chooses, and it does not become Mr. Lincoln, or any- body else, to tell the people of Kentucky that they have no consciences^ that they are living in a state of iniquity, and that they are cherishing an institution to their bosoms in violation of the law of God. Better for him to adopt the doctrine of "judge not lest ye shall be judged." Let him perform his own duty at home, and he will have a better fate in the future. I think there are objects of charity enough in the free States to excite the sympathies and open the pockets of all the benevo- lence we have amongst us, without going abroad in search of negroes, of whose con- dition we know nothing. "We have enough objects of chai'ity at home, and it is our duty to take care of our own poor, and our own suffering, before we go abroad to in- termeddle Avith other people's business. My friends, I am told that my time is within two minutes of expiring. I have omitted many topics that I would liked to have discussed before you at length. There were many points touched by Mr. Lincoln that I have not been able to take up for the want of time. I have hurried over each subject that I have discussed as rapidly as possible, so as to omit but few, but one hour and a half is not time suffi- cient for a man to discuss at length one half of the great questions which are now dividing the public mind. In conclusion, I desire to return to you my grateful acknowledgments for the kind- ness and the courtesy with which you have listened to me. It is something remark- able that in an audience as vast as this, composed of men of opposite politics and views, with their passions highly excited, there should be so much courtesy, kind- ness and respect exhibited not only toward one another, but toward the speakers, and I feel that it is due to you that I should thus express my gratitude for the kmdnesa with which you have treated me. MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. My Friends : Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion that he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said in an hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in half an hour all that he said in an houi and a half. I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of policy in regard to the institution of slavery cojitemplates that it shall last forevei-. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. Judge Douglas asks you, " Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made liforeverV In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that : when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition m the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction ; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it? It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of slavery, that it shall bfl placed upon the basis that our fathers placed it upon. Mr. Brooks, of South 211 Carolina, once said, and truly said, that when this Government was established, no one expected the institution of slavery to last until this day ; and that the men who formed this Government were wiser and better than the men of these days ; but the men of these days had experience which the fathers had not, and that ex- perience had taught them the invention of the cotton-gin, and this had made the perpetuation of the institution of slavery a necessity in this country. Judge Doug- las could not let it stand upon the basis which our fathers placed it, but removed it, and put it upon the cotton-gin basis. It is a question, therefore, for him and his friends to answer — why they could not let it remain where the fathers of the Gov- ernment originally placed it. I hope nobody has understood me as trying to sustain the doctrine that we have a right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or any of the slave States, about the institution of slavery — thus giving the Judge an opportunity to make himself elo- quent and valiant against us in fighting for their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech, that I had neither the incHnation to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery or any other existing institution. Then what be- comes of all his eloquence in behalf of the rights of States, which are assailed by no living man ? But 1 have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge has informed me, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is laboring for my election to the United States Senate. This is news to me — not very ungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. W. H. CarHn, who was on the stand] — I hope that Carlin will be elected to the State Senate and will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] Carlin don't fall in, I perceive, and I suppose he will not do much for me, but I am glad of all the support I can get any where, if 1 can get it without practicing any deception to obtain it. In respect to this large portion of Judge Douglas's speech, in which he tries to show that in the controversy between himself and the Adminis- tration party, he is in the right, I do not feel myself at all competent or inclined to answer him. I say to him, " Give it to them — give it to them just all you can " — and, on the other hand, I say to Carlin, and Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in Hancock, " Give it to Douglas — just pour it into him." Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to say a word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a decision is made, holding that the people of the States cannot exclude slavery, he will support it or not. He ob- stinately refuses to say what he will do in that case. The Judges of the Supreme Court as obstinately refused to say what they would do on this subject. Before this I reminded him that at Galesburgh he said the Judges had expressly declared the contrary, and you remember that in my opening speech I told him I had the book containing that decision here, and I would thank him to lay his finger on the place where any such thing was said. He has occupied his hour and a half, and he has not ventured to try to sustain his assertion. He never will. But he is desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse the Dred Scott decision. Judge Douglas oui2;ht to know how. Did not he and his politcal friends find a way to reverse the decision of that same court in favor the Constitutionality of the National Bank ? Didn't they find a way to do it so effectually that they have i-e\ersed it as com- pleleh' as any decision ever was reversed, so far as its practical operation is concerned? And let me ask you, didn't Judge Dougias find a way to reverse the decision of our Supreme Coui't, when it decided that Carlin's father — old Governor Carlin — had not the Constitutional power to remove a Secretary of State ? Did ho not appeal to the " mobs," as he calls tliem ? Did he not make speeclies in the lobby to phow how villainous that decision was, and how it ought to be overthrown ? Did be not succeed, too, in getting an act passed by the Legislature to have it overthrown ? And didn't he himself sit down on that bencii as one of the five added judges, who were to overslaugh the four old ones — getting his name of "Judge" in that way and uo other? If there is a villainy in using disrespect or making opposition to Supreme 212 Court decisional, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration. I know of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know so well about liovj much villainy it takes to opppose a decision of the Supreme Court as our honorable friend, Stephen A. Douglas. Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are bound by the Dred Scott decision, wliile the Republicans are not. In the sense in which he argues, I never said it ; but I will tell you what I have said and what I do not hes- itate to repeat to-day. I have said that, as tlie Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and that the extension of slavery is affirmed in the National Constitution, fJiey are bound to support it as such ; and I will tell you here that General Jackson once said each man was bound to support the Constitution '■ as he understood it." Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott de- cision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas believes that decision to be correct, I will remake that argu- ment if I have time to do so. Let me talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in the face. We will say you are a member of the Territorial Legislature, and like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to take and hold slaves there is a Constitutional right. The first thing you do, is to swear you loill support the Constitution and all rights guarantied therein ; that you will, whenever your neiglibor needs your legishition to support his Constitutional right*:, not withhold that legislation. If you withhold tliat necessary legislation for the support of the Constitution and Constitutional riglits, do you not connnit per- jury? I ask every sensible man, if that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so, say what you please. Now, that is precisely what Judge Douglas says, that this is a Constitutional right. Does the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in legislating may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly laws, nullify that Constitutional right'} Does he mean to say that? Does he mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in law, that what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? Does he mean that? Tiie trutli about tiie mat- ter is this : Judge Douglas has sung pagans to his " Popular Sovereignty " doctrine until his Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter Sover- eignty out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery about Squatter Sover- eignty. He has at last invented this sort of do-not}iing Sooerciynty — that the people may exclude slavery by a sort of " Sovereignty " that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not got down as thin as the homceopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death ? But at last, when it is brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even that thin decoction of it left. It is a presun)p- tion impossible in the domain of thought. It is precisely no other than the putting of that most unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same space at the same time. The Dred Scott decision covers the whole ground, and while it occupies it, there is no room even for the shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground. Judge Douglas, in reply to what'I have said about having upon a previous occa- sion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an extract from, at Ciiarleston, says it only shows that I practiced the deception twice. Now, my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to swallow that? Judge Douglas had said I had made a speech at Charleston that I would not make up north, and I turned around and an- swered him by showing I had made that same speech up north — had made it at Ot- tawa^ — made it in his hearing — made it in the Abolition District — in Lovejoy's Dis- trict — in the personal presence of Lovejoy himself^ — in the same atmosphere exactly in which I had made my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much. Now, in relation to my not having said any thing about the quotation from the Chi- cago speech : He thinks that is a terrible subject for me to handle. Why, gentle- men, I can show you that the substance of the Chicago speech I delivered two years 213 ago in " Egypt," as he calls it. It was down at Springfield. That speech is here in this book, and I could turn to it and read it to you but tor the lack ot time. I have not now the time to read it. [" Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I am obliged to use discretion in disposing most advantageously of my brief time. The Judge has taken great exception to my adopting the heretical statement in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal," and he has a great deal to say about negro equality. I want to say that in sometimes alluding to the Declaration of In- dependence, I have only uttered the sentiments that Heniy Clay used to hold. Al- low me to occupy your time a moment with what he said. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indiana, and in a way that I suppose was very insulting, to liber- ate his slaves, and he made a written reply to that application, and one portion of it is in these words: " What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana, to liberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky ? It is a general declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American colonies, that ' men are created equaU Now, as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declara- tion, and it is desirable in the original construction of society, and in organized socie- ties, to keep it in view as a great fundamental principle." Wlien I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in new countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we should keep that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I want a negro wife. He never can be brought to under- stand that there is any middle ground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth year, and have never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, and I think I can live fifty centuries, for that matter, without having had one for either. I main- tain that you may take Judge Douglas's quotations from my Chicago speech, and from ray Charleston speech, and the Galesburgh speech, — in his speech of to-day, and compare them over, and I am willing to trust them with you upon his proposi- tion that they show rascality or double-dealing. I deny that they do. The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he is disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath would not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. Harris. Well, that is alto- gether a matter of opinion. It is certainly not for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these gentlemen, but I will tell Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I " dared" to say they proved a forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh that the publi- cation of these resolutions in the Illinois State Register could not have been the re- sult of accident, as the proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable evidence of bein"' done by a man who knew it was a forgery ; that it was a publication partly taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and partly from the proceedings of a Convention at another place ; which showed that he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part of Ihe resolutions, he threw out another part and substituted false and fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also that his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time and now is, must have known how it was done. Now whether he did it or got some friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he certainly knew all about it. I pointed out to .Judo-e Douglas that in his Freeport speech he had promised to investigate that mattei. Does he now say he did not make that promise ? I have a right to ask why he did not keep it ? I call upon him to tell here to-day why he did not keep that promise ? That fraud has been traced up so that it hes between him, Harris and Lanphier There is little room for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge good ser- vice, and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. He desires Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his newspaper. He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility, and when this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where the guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate it, and implied that he would tell us the result of his investigation, I demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, if he did not ; and if he did, why he wont tell the result. I call upon him for that. 214 This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against Norton on the floor of Con- gress. I tell Judge Douglas the public records of the country show that he himself attempted it upon Trumbull a month before Harris tried them on Norton — that Har- ris had the opportunity of learning it from him, rather than he from Harris. I now ask his attention to that part of the record on the case. My friends, I am not dis- posed to detain you longer in regard to that matter. I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another matter I wish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered there was a mistake in that case, he came forward magnanimously, without my calling his attention to it, and explained it. I will tell you how he became so magnanimous. When the newspapers of our side had discovered and published it, and put it beyond his power to deny it, then he came forward and made a virtue of necessity by acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the point there was in those resolutions, although never passed at Springfield, is retained by their being passed at other localities. Is that true ? He said I had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech — that I was in the Convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutions touch me at all ? It strikes me there is some ditference between holding a man responsible for an act which he has not done, and holding him responsible for an act that he has done. You will judge whether there is any difference in the " spots." And he has taken credit for great magnan- imity in coming forward and acknowledging what is proved on him beyond even the capacity of Judge Douglas to deny, and he has more capacity in that way than any other living man. Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a conspii'a- cy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he made. May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is proven false on me as that was proven false on him. I will add a little more than that. I will withdraw it whenever a reasona- ble man shall be brought to believe that the charge is not true. I have asked Judge Douglas's attention to certain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a con- spiracy to nationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue be- cause Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott case had not then got into the Supreme Court ; and he says that I say the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say that. I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never uttered it. [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated affirmatively at Mr. Lincoln.] I don't cai'e if your hireling does say I did, I tell you myself that I never said the ^^ Democratic" owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were Democrats or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers or Border Ruffians. I have said that there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a made up case, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that that evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the case tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that decision ; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his by that decision. But my time is out and I can say no more. 215 THE LAST JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON, October 15, ]858. SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : It is now nearly four months since the canvass be- tween Mr. Lincohi and myself commenced. On the 16th of June the Republican Convention assembled at Springfield and nominated Mr. Lincoln as their candidate for the United States Senate, and he, on that occasion, delivered a speech in which he laid down wliat he understood to be the Republican creed and the platform on which he proposed to stand during the contest. The principal points in that speech of Mr. Lincoln's were : First, that this Government could not endure permanently divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it; that they must all become free or all become slave ; all become one thing or all become the other, otherwise this Union could not continue to exist. I give you his opinions almost in the identical language he used. His second proposition was a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States because of the Dred Scott decision ; urging as an especial reason for his opposition to that decision that it deprived the negroes of the rights and benefits of that clause in the Constitution of the United States which guaranties to the citi- zens of each State all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens of the several States. On the 10th of July I returned home, and delivered a speech to the people of Chicago, in which I announced it to be my purpose to appeal to the people of Illinois to sustain the course I had pursued in Congress. In that speech I joined issue with Mr. Lincoln on the points which he had presented. Thus there was an issue clear and distinct made up between us on these two propositions laid down in the speech of Mr. Lincoln at Springfield, and controverted by me in my reply to him at Cliicago. On the next day, the 11th of July, Mr. Lincoln replied to me at Chicago, explaining at some length, and reaffirming the positions which he had taken in his Springfield speech. In that Chicago speech he even went further than he had be- fore, and uttered sentiments in regard to the negro being on an equality with the white man. He adopted in support of this position the argument which Lovejoy and Codding, and other Abolition lecturei-s had made familiar in the northern and central portions of the State, to wit : that the Declaration of Independence having declared all men free and equal, by Divine law, also that negro equality was an inalienable right, of which they could not be deprived. He insisted, in that speech, that the Declaration of Independence included the negro in the clause, asserting that all men were created equal, and went so far as to say that if one man was allowed to take the position, that it did not include the negro, others might take the position that it did not include other men. He said that all these distinctions between this man and that man, this race and the other race, must be discarded, and we must all stand by the Declaration of Independence, declaring that all men were created equal. The issue thug being made up between Mr. Lincoln and myself on three points, we went before the people of the State. During the following seven weeks, between the Cliicago speeches and our first meeting at Ottawa, he and I addressed large as- semblages of the people in many of the central counties. In my speeches I con- fined myself closely to those tln-ee positions which he had taken, controverting his proposition that this Union could not exist as our fathers made it, divided into free and slave States, controverting his proposition of a crusade against the Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott decision, and controverting his proposition that the Declaration of Independi'nce included and meant the negroes as well as the white men, when it declared all men to be created equal. I supposed at that time that 216 these propositions constituted a distinct issue between us, and that the opposite posi- tions we had taken upon them we woukl be wiUing to be held to in every part of the State, I never intended to waver one hair's breadth from that issue either in the north or the south, or wherever I should address the people of Illinois. I hold that when the time arrives that I cannot proclaim my political creed in the same terms not only in the northern but the southern part of Illinois, not only in the Northern but the Southern States, and wherever the American flag waves over American soil, that then there must be something wrong in that creed. So long as we live under a common Constitution, so long as we live in a oonfedei'acy of sover- eign and equal States, joined together as one lor certain purposes, that any political creed is radically wrong which cannot be proclaimed in every State, and every section of that Union, alike. I took up Mr. Lincoln's three propositions in ray several speeches, analyzed them, and pointed out what I believed to be the radical errors contained in them. First, in regax'd to his doctrine that this Government was in vio- lation of the law of God, which says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, I repudiated it as a slander upon the immortal framers of our Constitution. I then said, I have often repeated, and now again assert, that in my opinion our Government can endure forever, divided into free and slave States as our fathers made it, — each State having the right to prohibit, abolish or sustain slavery, just as it pleases. This Government was made upon the great basis of the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State to regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself, and that right was conferred with the understanding and expectation that inasmuch as each local- ity had separate interests, each locality must have different and distinct local and do- mestic institutions, corresponding to its wants and interests. Our fathers knew when they made the Govei'nment, that the laws an! the philosophy or the statesmanship based on the assumption that we are to quit talking about it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being agitated by it? Yet this is the policy here in the north that Douglas is advocating — that we are to care nothing about it ! I ask you if it is not a false philosophy ? Is it not a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of oaring nothing about the very thing that every body docs care the most about ? — a thing whicii all experience has shown we care a very great deal about? The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the exclusive right which the States have to decide the whole thing for themselves. I agree wdth him very readily that the different States have tliat riglit. He is but fighting a man of straw when he assumes that I am contending against the right of the States to do as they please about it. Our controversy with him is in regai'd to the new Territories. We agree that when the States come in as States they have the right and the power to do as they please. We have no power as citizens of the free States or in our fedL-ral capacity as members of the Federal Union through the General Government, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We profess constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the power of the Government to disturb it ; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from the assumption that we are war- ring upon tlie rights of the States. What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free from it Avhile in the Territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes that we have no interest in them — that we ha^e no right whatever to interfere. I think we have some interest. I think that as white men we have. Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may so express myself? Do we not feel an in- terest in getting to that outlet with such institutions as we would like to have prevail there ? If you go to the Territory opposed to slavery and another man comes upon the same ground with his slave, upon the assumption that the things are equal, it turns out that lie has the equal right all his way and you have no part of it your way. If he goes in and makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence a slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have it a free State were on equal ground. Let me suggest it iu a different way. How many Democrats are "there about here [''A thousand "J 282 who have left slave States and come into the free State of Illinois to get lid of the institution of slavery? [Another voice — "A thousand and one."] I reckon there are a thousand and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are now advocating had prevailed when thiti country was in a Territorial condition, where would you have gone to get rid of it ? AVhere would you have found your free State or Territory to go to ? And when hereafter, for any cause, the people in this place shall desire to find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will they find the place to go to? Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home — may find some spot where they can better their condition — where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people every where, the world over — in which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life. I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what I under- etand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the free and the slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the con- troversy. There is no foundation in truth for the charge that I maintain either of these propositions. The real issue in this controversy — the one pressing upon every mind — is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions — all their arguments circle — from which all their propositions radiate. They look upon it as being a moral, social and political wrong ; and while they contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. Yet having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more danger. They insist that it should as far as may be, be treated as a wrong, and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. They also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at sometime, as being wrong. These are the views they entertain in regard to it as I understand them ; and all their sen- timents — all their ai'guments and propositions are brought within this range. I have said and I repeat it here, that if there be a man amongst ns who does not think that the institution of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he is misplaced and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly with us. On this subject of ti'cating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let me say a word. Has any thing ever threatened the existence of this Union save and except this ver}^ institution of slavery ? What is it that we hold most dear amongst us ? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threatened our liberty and prosper- ity save and except this institution of slavery ? If this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery — by spreading it out and making it bigger ? . You may have a wen or cancer upon your person and not bo able to cut it out lest you bleed to death ; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft 233 it and spi'ead it over your w]iole body. That is no proper way of treating what you regard a wrong. You see this peacel'ul way of dealing with it as a wrong — restrict- ing the spread of it, and not allowing it to go into new countries where it has not already existed. That is the peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us the example. On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it as not being <^•rong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range positively asserts that it is right. That class will include all who positively assert that it is right, and all who like Judge Douglas treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either right or wrong. These two classes of men fall within the general class of those who do not look upon it as a wrong. And if there be among you any body who supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself "as much opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you con- sider as a wrong, do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you say it is wrong, but your leader never does, and you quarrel loith any body who says it is ivrong. Although you pretend to say so yourself you can lind no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You must not say any thing about it in the free States, because it is not here. You must not say any thing about it in the slave States, because it is there. You must not say any thing about it in the pulpit, because that is religion and has nothing to do witla it. Y'ou must not say any thing about it in politics, because that will disturb the security of ''hny place.'' There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. But finally you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the slave States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the slavery question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor of it. You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself You all know that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook to introduce that system in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as they could for the system of grad- ual emancipation which you pretend you would be glad to see succeed. Now I will bring you to the test. After a hard fight they were beaten, and when the news came over here you threw up your hats and hurraed for Democracy. More than that, take all the argument made in favor of the system you have projiosed, and it care- fully excludes the idea that there is any thing wrong in the institution of slavery. Tlie arguments to sustain that policy carefully excluded it. Even here to-day you heard Judge Douglas quarrel with me because I uttered a wish that it might some- time come to an end. Although Henry Clay could say he wished every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors, I am denounced by those pretend- ing to respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish that it might sometime, in some peace- ful way, come to an end. The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he "don't care whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories. I do not care myself in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual senti- ments on the subject, or only of the national policy he desires to have established. It is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say that who does not see any thing wrong in slavery, but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it ; because no man can logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He may say he don't care whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing. Ho contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them. So they have if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality, slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no dif- ffjrence between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, his argu- ment is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the other rigiit, 234 there is no use to institute a corapai-ison between right and wrong. You may turn over every thing in the Democratic pohcy from beginning to end, whether in tRe sliape it takes on the statute book, in tlie shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments — it eveiy whei'c cai'efully excludes the idea that there is any tiling wrong in it. That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Dougliis and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to lace from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is tiie common right of humanity and the other tlie divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I was glad to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here to Judge Douglas — that he looks to no end of the institution of slavery. That will help the people to see where the struggle really is. It will here- after place with us all men who really do wish the wrong may have an end. And whenever we can get rid of the fog wliich obscures the real question — when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to avow a policy looking to its perpetuation — we can get out from among that class of men and bring them to the side of those who treat it as a wrong. Then there will soon be an end of it, and that end will be its "ultimate extinction." Whenever the issue can be distinctly made, and all extrane- ous matter thrown out so that men can faii-ly see the real difference between the parties, this controversy will soon be settled, and it will be done peaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. It will be placed again where the wisest and best men of the world placed it. Brooks of South Carolina once declaimed that when this Constitution was framed, its framers did not look to the institution existing until this day. When he said tliis, I think he stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history of the times. But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men of these days ; yet the men of these days had experience which they had not, and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this country that slavery should be perpetual. I now say that, willingly or unwillingly, purposely or without purpose. Judge Douglas has been the most prominent insti'ument in changing the position of the institution of slavery which the fathers of the Government expected to come to an end ei'e this — and putting it upon Brooks's cotton-gin basis — placing it H'here he openly confesses he has no desire there shall ever be an end of it. I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying something about this ai'gument Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains the Dred Scott decision, that the people of the Territories can still somehow exclude slavery. The first thing I ask attention to is the fact that Judge Douglas constantly said, before the decision, that whether they could or not, was a question for the Supreme Court. But after the court has made the decision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme Court, but for the people. And how is it he tells us they can exclude it ? He says ii needs "police regulations," and that admits of " unfriendly legislation." Although it is a right established by the Constitution of the United States to take a slave into a Territoiy of the United States and hold him as property, yet unless the Territo- rial Legislature will give friendly legislation, and, more especially, if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition as a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real Constitutional obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to swear that he will support the Constitution of the United States. His neigh- bor by his side in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial legislation to enable . 235 him to enjoy that Constitutional riglit. Can he withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Consti- tution of the United States which he has sworn to support ? Can he withhold it without viohiting his oath ? And more especially, can he pass unfriendly legislation to violate his oath ? Why, this is a monstrous sort of talk about the Constitution of the United States! There has never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable man on earth. I do not believe it is a Constitutional right to liold slaves in a Territory of the United States. I believe the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is furious against those who go ibr reversing a decision. But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself stands. I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe '.hat the people of the South- ern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law — that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to them witliout Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a "barren right" wliich needs legislation before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it is guarantied. And as tiie right is Constitutional I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it — -and that not that we like the institution of slavery. AVe profess to have no taste for running and catching niggers — at least I profess no taste for that job at all. "Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law ? Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guaranties that right, can be supported without it. And if I believed that the right to hold a slave in a Teri-itory was equally fixed in the Constitution with the right to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to give it the leg- islation necessary to suj)port it. I say that no man can deny his obligation to give the necessary legislation to support slavery in a Territory, who believes it is a Con- stitutional right to have it there. No man can, who docs not give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a Fugitive Slave law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition argument ever made. 1 say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a Constitutional right with tlie right of a slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in spite of that Constitutional right, slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder to X'eclaim his fugitive. I do not know l)o\v such an argument may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy any body to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of difference between the Constitutional right to reciaini a fugitive, and the Constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Terri- tory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct. I defy any man to make an argu- ment that will justify unfi'iendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold liis slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, breadth and thickness, furni'h an argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all. MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. Mr. Lincoln has concluded his remarks by saying that there is not such an Abolition- ist as I am in all America. If he could make the Abolitionists of Illinois believe that, he would not have much show for the Senate. Let him make the Abolitionists be- lieve the truth of that statement and his political back is broken. 236 t His first criticism upon me is the expression of his hope tliat tho war of the Ad- ministration will be prosecuted against me and the Democratic party of this State with vigor. He wants that war prosecuted with vigor ; I have no doubt of it. His hopes of success, and the hopes of his party depend solely upon it. They have no chance of destroying the Democracy of this State except by the aid of federal pat- ronage. He has all the federal office-holders hero as his allies, running separate tick- ets against the Democracy to divide the party, although the loaders all intend to vote directly the Abolition ticket, and only leave tlie greenhorns to vote this separate ticket who refuse to go into the Abolition camp. There is something really refresh- ing in the thought that Mr. Lincoln is in fixvor of prosecuting one war vigorously. It is the first war I ever knew him to be in favor of prosecuting. It is °the first war that I ever knew him to believe to be just or Constitutional. When the Mex- ican war was being waged, and the American army was surrounded by the enemy in Mexico, he thought that war was unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust. He thought it was not commenced on the right s2)ot. When I made an incidental allusion of that kind in the joint discussion over at Charleston some weeks ago, Lincoln, in replying, said that I, Douglas, had charged liim witli voting against supplies for the Mexican war, and then he reared up, full length, and swore that he never voted against the supplies — that it was a slander — and caught hold of Ficklin, who sat on the stand, and said, " Here, Ficklin, tell the people that it is a lie." Well, Ficklin, who had served in Congress with him, stood up and told them all that he recollected about it. It was that when George Ash- mun, of Massachusetts, brought forward a resolution declaring the war unconstitu- tiona,!, unnecessary, and unjust, that Lincoln had voted for it. "Yes," said Lincoln, "I did." Thus he confessed that he vote^l that the war was wrong, that our country was in the wrong, and consequently that the Mexicans were in the right ; but charged that I had slandered him by saying that he voted against the supplies. I never charged him witli voting against the supplies in my life, because I knew that he was not in Congress when they were voted. The war was commenced on the 13th day of May, 1846, and on that day we appropriated in Congress ten millions of dollars and fifty thousand men to prosecute it. During the same session we voted more men and more money, and at the next session we voted more men and more money, so that by the time Mr. Lincoln entered Congress we had enough men and enough money to carry on the war, and liad no occasion to vote for any more. When he got into the House, being opposed to the war, and not ])eing able to stop the supplies, because they had all gone tbrward, all he could do was to follow the lead of Coj-win, and prove that the war was not begun on the right spot, and that it was unconstitu- tional, unnecessary, and wrong. Remember, too, that this he did after the war had l)een begun. It is one thing to be opposed to the declaration of a war, another and very ditlereut thing to take sides witli the enemy against your own country after the war has been commenced. Our army was in Mexico at the time, many battles had been fought; our citizens, wlio were defending the honor of their countij's flag, were sur- rounded by the daggers, the guns and the poison of the enemy. Then it was that Ccrwin made his speech in which he declared that the American soldiers ought to be welcomed by the Mexicans with bloody hands and hospitable graves ; then it was that Ashmun and Lincoln voted in the House of Representatives that the war was unconstitutional and unjust ; and Ashraun's resolution, Corwin's speech, and Lincoln's vote, were sent to Mexico and read at the head of the Mexican army, to prove to them that there was a Mexican party in the Congress of the United States who were doing all in their power to aid them. That a man who takes sides with the common enemy against his own country in time of war should rejoice in a war being made on me now, is very natural. And in my opinion, no other kind of a man would re- joice in it. Mr. Lincoln has told you a great deal to-day about his being an old line Clay Whig. Bear in mind that there are a great many old Clay Wliigs down in tiiis region. It is more agreeable, therefore, for him to talk about tiieold Clay Wliig 237 party than it is for him to talk Abolitionism. We did not hear much about the old Clay Whig party up in the Abohtion districts. How much of an old line Henry Clay Whig was he? Have you read General Singleton's speech at Jacksonville ? You know that Gen. Singleton wa^, for twenty-five years, the con- fidential friend of Henry Clay in Illinois, and he testified that in 1847, when the Con- stitutional Convention of this State was in session, the Whig members were invited to a AVhig caucus at the house of Mr. Lincoln's brother-in-law, where ]\ir. Lincoln proposed to throw Henry Clay overboard and take up Gen. Taylor in his place, giving, as his reason, that if the Whigs did not take up Gen. Taylor the Democrats would. Singleton testifies that Lincoln, in that speech, urged, as another reason for throwing Henry Clay overboard, that the Whigs had fought long enough for prin- ciple and ought to begin to fight for success. Singleton also testifies that Lincoln's speech did have the effect of cutting Clay's throat, and that he (Singleton) and others withdrew from the caucus in indignation. He further states that when they got to Philadelphia to attend the National Convention of the Whig party, that Lincoln was there, the bitter and deadly enemy of Clay, and that he tried to keep him (Singleton) out of the Convention bex^ause he insisted on voting for Clay, and Lincoln Avas de- termined to have Taylor. Singleton says that Lincoln rejoiced with very great joy when he found the mangled remains of the murdered Wliig statesman lying cold before him. Now, Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is an old line Clay Whig! Gen. Singleton testifies to the facts I have narrated, in a public speech which has been printed and circulated broadcast over the State for weeks, yet not a lisp have we heard from Mr. Lincoln on the subject, except that he is an old Clay Whig. What pai-t of Henry Clay's poHcy did Lincoln ever advocate ? He was in Con- gress in 1848-9, when the Wilmot proviso warfare disturbed the peace and harmony of the country, until it shook the foundation of the Republic from its center to its circumference. It was that agitation that brought Clay forth from his retirement at Ashland again to occupy his seat in the Senate of the United States, to see if he could not, by his great wisdom and experience, and the renown of his name, do something to restore peace and quiet to a disturbed country. Who got up that sectional strife that Clay had to be called upon to quell? I have heard Lincoln boast that he voted forty-two times for the Wilmot proviso, and that he would have voted as many times more if he could. Lincoln is the man, in connection with Seward, Chase, Giddings, and other Abolitionists, who got up that strife that I helped Clay to put down. Henry Clay came back to the Senate in 1849, and saw that he must do something to restore peace to the country. The Union Whigs and the Union Dem- ocrats welcomed him the moment he arrived, as the man for the occasion. We believed that he, of all men on earth, had been preserved by Divine Providence to "-uide us out of our difficulties, and we Democrats rallied under Clay then, as you Whi^-s in nullification time rallied under the banner of old Jackson, forgetting party when the country was in danger, in order that we might have a country first, and parties after- ward. And this reminds me that IMr. Lincoln told you that the slavery question was the only thing that ever disturbed the peace and harmony of the Union. Did not nulli- fication once raise its head and disturb the peace of this Union in 1832? Was that tlie slavery question, Mr. Lincoln? Did not disunion raise its monster head durin"- the last war with Great Britain ? Was tliat the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln ? The peace of this country has been disturbed three times, once during the war with Great Britain, once on the tariff question, and once on the slavery question. His argument therefore, that slavery is the only question that has ever created dissension in the Union falls to the ground. It is true that agitators are enabled now to use this slavery question for the purpose of sectional strife. He admits that in regard to all things else, the principle that I advocate, making each State and Territory free to de- cide for itself, ought to prevail. He instances the cranberiy laws, and the oyster laws, and he might have gone through the whole list with the same effect. I say that all these laws are local and domestic, and that local and domestic concerns should 16 238 be left to each State and each Temtory to manage for itself. If agitators would ac- ^ quiescc in that principle, there never would be any danger to the peace and liarmony of the Union. Mr. Lincoln tries to avoid the main issue by attacking the truth of my proposition, that our fathers made this Government divided into free and slave States, recogniz- ino- the ric-ht of each to decide all its local questions for itself. Did they not thus make it' " It is true that they did not establish slavery in any of the States, or abol- ish it in any of them ; but finding thirteen States, twelve of which were slave and one free they a<^reed to form a government uniting them together, as they stood di- vided into free and slave States, and to guaranty forever to each State the right to do as it pleased on the slavery question. Having tlius made the government, and conferrecf this right upon each State forever, I assert that this Government can exrst as they made it, divided into free and slave States, if any one State chooses to retain slavery He says that he looks forward to a time when slavery sliaU be abolished every where. I look forward to a time when each State shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not ray business, but its own ; ii it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business— not mine. I care more tor the great principle of self-government, the right of the people to rule, than I do tor ah the negroes in Christendom. I would not endanger the perpetuity of this Lnion, 1 would ""not blot out the great inalienable rights of the white men for all the negroes that ever existed. Hence, I say, let us maintain this Government on the principles that our fathers made it, recognizing the right of each State to keep slavery as long as its people determine, or to abolish it when they please. l>ut Mr. Lincoln says Ihat when our fathers made this Government they did not look forward to the state of thin^rs now existing, and therefore he tliinks the doctrine was wrong ; and he quotes Brooks, of South Carolina, to prove that our flxthers then thought that prob- ably slavery would be abolished by each State acting for itself before this time. Suppose they did; suppose they did not foresee what has occurred,— does that change the principles of our Government'? They did not probably foresee the telegraph that trans- mits intelli<^ence by h'-htning, nor did they foresee the railroads that now form tiic bonds of union between the different States, or the thousand mechanical inventions that have elevated mankind. But do these things change the principles of the Gov- ernment ? Our fathers, I say, made this Government on the principle of the right of each State to do as it pleases in its own domestic affairs, subject to the Constitu- tion,' and allowed the people of each to apply to every new change of circum- stances such remedy as they may sec fit to improve their condition. This right they have for all time to come. ,, . • . • . r- -,, Mr Lincoln went on to tell you that he does not at all desire to interfere with «;lavery in the States where it exists, nor does his party. I expected him to say that down here. Let me ask him then how he expects to put slavery m the course of ultimate extinction every where, if he does not intend to interiere with it in the States where it exists? He says that he will prohibit it in all Territories, and the infer- encp is, then, that unless they make free States out of them he will keep them out ot^the Union ; for, mark you, he did not say whether or not he would vote to admit Kan- sas with slavery or not, as her people might apply (he forgot that as usual, etc.) ; he did not say whether or not he was in favor of bringing the rerntones now in ex- istence into the Union on the principle of Clay's Compromise measures on the s avery question. I told you that he would not. His idea is that he will prohibit slavery in all the Territories and thus force them all to become free States, surrounding the slave States with a cordon of free States and hemming them in, keeping tlie slaves confined to their present limits whilst they go on multiplying until the sod on which thev live will no longer feed them, and he will thus be able to put slaver}' in a course of ultimate extinction by starvation. He will extinguish slavery m the Southern States as the French general exterminated the Algennes when he smoked them out. He is going to extinguish slavery by surrounding the slave States, hem- mmcr in the slavas and starving them out of existence, as you smoke a fox out of las 239 hole. He intends to do that in the nanKj of liumanity and Christianity, in order tliat Ave may get rid of the terrible crime and sin entailed upon our fathers of holding slaves. Mr. Lincoln makes out that line of policy, and appeals to the moral sense ot justice and to the Christian feeling of the community to sustain him. He says that any man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the position of the king who claimed to govern by Divine right. Let us examine for a moment and see what principle It was that overthrew the Divine right of George the Third to govern us. Did not these colonies rebel because the British parliament had no right to pass laws con- cerning our property and domestic and private institutions without our consent ? We demanded that the British Government should not pass such laws unless they gave us representation in the body passing them.— and this the British government insisting on domg, — we went to war, on the pi-inciple that the Home Government should not control and govern distant colonies without giving them a representation. Now, Mr. Lmcoln proposes to govern the Territories Avithout giving them a representation, and calls on Congress to pass laws controlling their property and domestic concerns with- out their consent and against their will. Tims, he asserts for his party the identical prmciple asserted by George III. and the Tories of the Revolution. I ask you to look into these things, and then tell me whether the Democracy or the Abolitionists are right. I hold that the people of a Territory, like those of a State (I use the language of Mr. Buchanan in his letter of acceptance), have the I'lght to decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. The point upon which Chief Justice Taney expresses his opinion is simply this, that slaves being property, stand on an equal footing with other property, and con- sequently that the owner has the same right to carry that property into a Territory that he has any other, subject to the same conditions. Suppose that one of your merchants was to take fifty or one hundred thousand dollars' worth of liquors to Kan- sas. He has a right to go there under that decision, but when he gets there he finds the Maine liquor law in force, and what can he do with liis property after he gets it there ? He cannot sell it, he cannot use it, it is subject to the local law, and that law is against him, and the best thing he can do Avith it is to bring it back into jMissouri or Illinois and sell it. If you take negroes to Kansas, as Col. Jeff. Davis said in his Bangor speech, from which I have quoted to-day, you must take them there subject to the local law. If the people want the institution of slavery they will protect and encourage it; but if they do not want it they will withhold that protection, and the absence of locaj legislation protecting slavery excludes it as completely as a positive prohibition. You skveholders of Missouri might as well understand what you know practically, that you cannot carry slavery where the people do not want it. All you have a right to ask is that the people shall do a« they please ; if they want slavery let them have it ; if they do not want it, allow them to refuse to encourage it. My friends, if, as I have said before, Ave will only live up to this great fundamental principle, there Avill be peace between the North and the South. Mr. Lincoln admits that under the Constitution on all domestic questions, except slavery, Ave ought not to interfere Avith the people of each State. What right have Ave to interlere with slavery any more than Ave have to interfere with any other question ? He says that this slavery question is noAv the bone of contention. Why ? Simply because agita- tors have combined in all the free States to make war upon it. Suppose the agitators in the States should combine in one-half of the Union to make Avar upon the rail- road system of the other half ? They Avould thus be driven to the same sectional strife. Suppose one section makes Avar upon any other peculiar institution of the opposite section, and the same strife is produced. The only remedy and safety is that Ave shall stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, obey the laAvs as they are passed, Avhile they stand the proper tost and sustain the decisions of the Supreme Court and the constituted authorities. 240 SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, At Columbus, Ohio, September, 1859. Felloav-citizens of the State of Ohio: I cannot fail to remember that I aj.'pear lor the first time before an audience in this now great State — an audience that is ac(;ustomed to hear such speakers as Corwin, and Chase, and Wade, and many other renowned men ; and, remembering this, I feel that it will be well for you, as for mc, that you should not raise your expectations to that standard to which you would have been justified in raising them had one of these distinguished men ap- peared before you. You would perhaps be only preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, as a consequence of your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, therefore, that you will commence with very moderate expectations ; and per- haps, if you will give me your attention, I shall be able to interest you to a moderate de- gi-ee. Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been somewhat embarrassed for a topic by way of inti'oduction to my speech ; but I have been relieved from that embarrassment by an introduction which the Ohio Statesman newspaper gave me this morning. In this paper I have read an article, in which, among other state- ments, I find the following : " In debating with Senator Douglas dui-ing the memorable contest of last fall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro suffrage, and attempted to defend that vile concep- tion against the Little Giant." I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the purpose of making three comments upon it. Tlie first I have akeady announced — it furnishes me an in- troductory topic ; the second is to show that the gentleman is mistaken ; thirdly, to give him an opportunity to cori-ect it. In the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. I have found that it is not entirely safe, when one is misrepresented under his very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontradicted. I therefore propose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is a misrepresentation, but to show conclusively that it is so ; and you will bear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that very " memora- ble" debate with Judge Douglas last year, to which this newspaper refers. In the first pitched battle which Senator Douglas and myself had, at the town of Ottawa, I used the language which I will now read. Having been previously reading an ex- tract, I continued as follows : " Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the o'ack race. This is the whole of it, and any thing that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic ar- I'angement of Avords, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forbid their ever living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said any thing to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there ia no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural i-ights enumer- 241 ated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas, he is not my equal in many respects — certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or mtellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of any body else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and tha equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man." Upon a subsequent occasion, when the reason for making a statement like this re- curred, I said : " While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not or ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or intermarry with the white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference be- tween the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and in- ferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of liaving the superior position assigned to t)ie white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position, the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman or child, who was in favor of producing perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distin- guished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be satisfied of its correctness — and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend, Col. Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes, if there was no law to keep them from it ; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of the State, Avhich forbids the marrying of white people with ne- groes." There, my friends, you have briefly what I have, upon former occasions, said upon the subject to which this newspaper, to the extent of its ability, has drawn the public attention. In it you not only perceive, as a probability, that in that contest I did not at any time say I was in favor of negro suffrage ; bnt the absolute proof that twice — once substantially and once expressly — I declared against it. Having shown you this, there remains but a word of comment upon that newspaper article. It is this : that I presume the editor of that paper h an honest and truth-loving man, and that he will be greatly obliged to me for furnishing him thus early an opportunity to correct the misrepresentation he has made, before it has run so long that malicious people can call him a liar. The Giant himself has been here recently. I have seen a brief report of his speech. If it were otherwise unpleasant to me to introduce the subject of the negro as a topic for discussion, I might be somewhat relieved by the fact that he dealt ex- clusively in that subject while he was here. I shall, therefoi-e, without much hesita- tion or diffidence, enter upon this subject. The American people, on the first day of January, 1854, found the African slave- trade prohibited by a law of Congress. In a majority of the States of tliis Union, 242 they found African slavery, or any other sort of slavery, prohibited by State Consti tutions. They also found a law existing, supposed to be valid, by which slavery was excluded from almost all the territory the United States then owned. This was the condition of the country, with reference to the institution of slavery, on the first of Janu- ary, 1864. A few days after that, a bill was introduced into Congress, which ran through its regular course in the two bi-anches of the National Legislature, and finally passed into a law in the month of May, by which the act of Congress prohibiting slavery from going into the Territories of the United States was repealed. In connection with the law itself, and, in fact, in the terms of the law, the then existing prohibitioi^ was not only repealed, but there was a declaration of a purpose on the part of Con- gress never thereafter to exercise any power that they might have, real or supposed, to ;«rohibit the extension or spread of slavery. This was a very great change ; for the law thus repealed was of more than thirty years' standing. Following rapidly upon the heels of this action of Congress, a decision of the Supreme Court is made, by which it is declaimed that Congress, if it desires to prohibit the spread of slavery into the Territories, has no Constitutional power to do so. Not only so, but that de- cision lays down principles, which, if pushed to their logical conclusion — I say pushed to their logical conclusion — would decide that the Constitutions of free States, for- bidding slavery, are themselves unconstitutional. Mark me, I do not say the Judge said this, and let no man say I affirm the Judge used these words ; but I only say it is my opinion that what they did say, if pressed to its logical conclusion, will inevita- bly result thus. Looking at these things, the Republican party, as I understand its principles and policy, believe that there is great danger of the institution of shivery being spread out and extended, until it is ultimately made alike lawful in all the States of this Union ; so believing, to prevent that incidental and ultimate consummation, is the original and chief purpose of the Republican organization. I say "chief purpose" of the Republican organization ; for it is certainly true that if the National House shall fall into the hands of the Republicans, they will have to attend to all the other matters of National House-keeping, as well as this. The chief and real purpose of the Republican party is eminently conservative. It proj)Oses nothing save and ex- cept to restore this Government to its original tone in regard to this clement of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change in reference to it, than that wliich the original framers of the Government themselves expected and looked for- ward to. The chief danger to this purpose of the Republican party is not just now the re- vival of the African slave-trade, or the passage of a Congressional slave code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott decision, making slavery lawful in all the States. These are not pressing us just now. They are not quite ready yet. The authors of these measures know that Ave are too strong for them ; but they will Ije upon us in due time, and we will be grappling with them hand to hand, if they are not now headed off. They are not now the chief danger to the purpose of tlie Republicap organization ; but the most imminent danger that now threatens that purpose is thai insidious Douglas Popular Sovereignty. This is the miner and sapper. AVhile it does not propose to revive the African slave-trade, nor to pass a slave code, nor to make a second Dred Scott decision, it is preparing us for the onslaught and charge of these ultimate enemies when they shall be ready to come on and the word of com- mand for them to advance shall be given. I say this Douglas Popular Sovereignty — for there is a broad distinction, as I now understand it, between that article and » genuine Popular Sovereignty. I believe there is a genuine popular sovereignty. I think a definition of genuine popular sovereignty, in the abstract, would be about this : That each man shall do pre- cisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively concern him. Applied to Government, this principle would be, that a General Government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all the local Governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them. 243 I understancl that this Government of the United States, under which we live, ig bused upon this principle ; and I am misunderstood if it is supposed that I have any vmr to make upon that piinciple. Now, what is Judge Douglas's Popular Sovereignty? It is, as a principle, no other than that, if one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that other man nor any body else has a right to object. Applied in C4overnment, as he seeks to apply it, it is this : If, in a new Territory into which a few people are begin- ning to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits, or to establish it there, however one or the other may aifect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of persons who are after- wai-d to inhabit that Territory, or the other members of the families of communities, of which they ai-e but an incipient member, or the genei*al head of the family of State; as parent of all — however their action may affect one or the other of these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas's popular sovereignty ap- plied. lie has a good deal of trouble with popular sovereignty. His explanations ex- planatory of explanations explained are interminable. The most lengthy, and, as I suppose, the most maturely considered of his long series of explanations, is his great essay in Harper's Magazine. I will not attempt to enter on any very thorough in- vestigation of liis argument, as there made and presented. I will nevertheless occupy a good portion of your time here in drawing your attention to certain points in it. Such of you as may have read this document will have perceived that the Judge, early in the document, quotes from two persons as belonging to the Republican party, v.ithout naming them, but who can readily be recognized as being Gov. Seward of New York and myself. It is true, that exactly fifteen months ago this day, I believe, I for the first time expressed a sentiment upon this subject, and in such a manner that it should get into print, that the public might see it beyond the circle of my hearers; and my expression of it at tliat time is the quotation that Judge Douglas makes. He has not made the quotation with accuracy, but justice to hun requires me to say that it is sufficiently accurate not to change its sense. The sense of that quotation condensed is this — that this slavery element is a dur- able element of discord among us, and that Ave shall probably not have perfect peace in this country with it until it either masters the free principle in our Government, or is so far mastered by the free principle as for the public mind to rest in the behef that it is going to its end. This sentiment, which I now express in this way, was, at no great distance of time, perhaps in different language, and in connection with some collateral ideas, expressed by Gov. Seward. Judge Douglas has been so much an- noyed by the expression of that sentiment that he has constantly, I believe, in almost all his speeches since it was uttered, been referring to it. I find he alluded to it in his speech here, as well as in the copy-right essay. I do not now enter upon this for the purpose of making an elaborate argument to show that we were right in the expression of that sentiment. In other words, I shall not stop to say all that might properly be said upon this point ; but I only ask your attention to it for the purpose of making one or two point upon it. If you will read the copy-right essay, you will discover that Judge Douglas him- self says a controversy between the American Colonies and the Government of Great Britain began on the slavery question in 1699, and continued from that time until tie Revolution; and, while he did not say so, we all know that it has continued with more or less violence ever since the Revolution. Then we need not appeal to history, to the declarations of the framers of the Gov- ernment, but we know fi-om Judge Douglas himself that slavery began to be an ele- ment of discord among the white people of this country as far back as 1G99, or one hundred and sixty years ago, or ]five generations of men — counting thirty years to a generation. Now it would seem to me that it might have occurred to Judge Douglas, or any body who had turned his attention to these facts, that there was something in the nature of that tiling, slavery, somewhat durable for mischief and discord. I 244 There is another point I desire to make in regard to this matter, before I leave it. From the adoption of the Constitution down to 1820 is the precise period of our history when we had comparative peace upon this question — the precise period of time when we came nearer to having peace about it than any other time of that entire one hundred and sixty years, in which he says it began, or of the eighty years of our own Constitution. Then it would be worth our while to stop and examine into the probable reason of our coming nearer to having peace then than at any other time. This was the precise period of time in which our fathers adopted, and during which they followed, a policy restricting the spread of slavery, and the whole Union was acquiescing in it. The whole country looked forward to the ultimate extinction of the institution. It was when a policy had been adopted and was prevailing, which led all just and right-minded men to suppose that slavery was gradually coming to an end, and that they might be quiet about it, watching it as it expired. I think Judge Douglas might have perceived that too, and whether he did or not, it is worth the attention of fair-minded men, here and elsewhere, to consider whether that is not the truth of the case. If he had looked at these two facts, that this matter has been an element of discord for one hundred and sixty years among this people, and that the only comparative peace we have had about it Avas when that policy prevailed in this Government, which he now wars upon, he might then, perhaps, have been brought to a more just appreciation of what I said fifteen months ago — that " a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe that this Government cannot endure pei-manently half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall. I do not expect the Union to dissolve ; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind Avill rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultunate extinction ; or its advocates will push it forward, until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, north as well as south." That was my sentiment at that time. In connection with it, I said, " we are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was inaugurated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of tlie policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented." I now say to you here that we are advanced still farther into the sixth year since that policy of Judge Douglas — that Popular Sovereignty of his, for quieting the slavery question — was made the national policy. Fifteen months more have been added since I uttered that sentiment, and I call upon you, and all other right-minded men, to say whether that fifteen months have belied or corroborated my words. While I am here upon this subject, I cannot but express gratitude that tliis truo view of this element of discord among us — as I believe it is — is attracting more and more attention. I do not believe that Gov. Seward uttered that sentiment because I had done so before, but because he reflected upon this subject and saw the truth of it. Nor do I believe, because Gov. Seward or I uttered it, that Mr. Hickman of Pennsylvania, in different language, since that time, has declared his belief in the utter antagonism which exists between the principles of liberty and slavery. You see we are multiplying. Now, while I am speaking of Hickman, let me say, I know but little about him. I have never seen him, and know scarcely any thing about the man ; but I will say this much of him : Of all the anti-Lecompton Democracy that have been brought to my notice, he alone has the true, genuine ring of the metal. And now, without indorsing any thing else he has said, I will ask this audience to give three cheers for Hickman. [The audience responded with three rousing cheers for Hickman.] Another point in the copy-right essay to which I would ask your attention, is i-ather a feature to be extracted from the whole thing, than from any express declaration of it at any point. It is a general feature of that document, and indeed, of all of Judge Douglas's discussions of this question, that the Terri- tories of the United States and the States of this Union are exactly ahke — 245 that (here is no difference between them at all — that the Constitution applies to the Territories precisely as it does to the States — and that the United States Gov- ernment, under the Constitution, may not do in a State what it may not do in a Ter- ritory, and Avhat it must do in a State, it must do in a Territory. Gentlemen, is that a true view of the case ? It is necessary for this squatter sovereignty ; but is it true ? Let us consider. What does it depend upon ? It depends altogether upon the proposition that the States must, without the interference of the General Govern- ment, do all those things that pertain exclusively to themselves — that are local in their nature, that have no connection with the General Government. After Judge Douglas has established this proposition, which nobody disputes or ever has disputed, he proceeds to assume, without proving it, that slavery is one of those little, unim- portant, trivial matters which are of just about as much consequence as the question would be to me, w^iether my neighbor should raise horned cattle or plant tobacco ; that there is no moral question about it, but that it is altogether a matter of dollars and cents ; that when a new Territory is opened for settlement, the first man who goes into it may plant there a thing which, like the Canada thistle or some other of those pests of the soil, cannot be dug out by the miUions of men who will come there- after ; that it is one of those httle things that is so trivial in its nature that it has no effect upon any body save the few men who first plant upon the soil ; that it is not a tiling which in any way affects the family of communities composing these States, nor any way endangers the General Government. Judge Douglas ignores altogether the very well known fact, that w^e have never had a serious menace to our pohtical existence, except it sprang from this thing, which he chooses to regard as only upon a par with onions and potatoes. Turn it, and contemplate it in another view. He says, that according to his Pop- ular Sovereignty, the General Government may give to the Territories governors, judges, marshals, secretaries, and all the other chief men to govern them, but they must not touch upon this other question. Why ? The question of who shall be Gov- ernor of a Territory for a year or two, and pass away, without his track being left upon the soil, or an act which he did for good or for evil being left behind, is a ques- tion of vast national magnitude. It is so much opposed in its nature to locality, that the nation itself must decide it ; while this other matter of planting slavery upon u soil — a thing which once planted cannot be eradicated by the succeeding millions who have as much right there as the first comers, or if eradicated, not without infinite dif- ficulty and a long struggle — he considers the power to prohibit it, as one of these lit- tle, local, trivial things that the nation ought not to say a word about ; that it affects nobody save the few men who are there. Take these two things and consider them together, present the question of planting a State with the institution of slavery by the side of a question of who shall be Gov- ernor of Kansas for a year or two, and is there a man here, — is there a man on earth, who would not say the Governor question is the little one, and the slavery question is the great one ? I ask any honest Democrat if the small, the local, and the trivial and temporary question is not, who shall be Governor? AVhile the durable, the un- poj-tant and the mischievous one is, shall this soil be planted with sfavery ? This is an idea, I suppose, which has arisen in Judge Douglas's mind from his pe- culiar structure. I suppose the institution of slavery really looks small to him. He is so put up by nature that a lash upon his back would hurt him, but a lash upon any body else's back does not hurt him. That is the build of the man, and consequently he looks upon the matter of slavery in this unimportant light. Judge Douglas ought to remember when he is endeavoring to force this policy up- on the American people that while he is put up in that way a good many are not. He ought to remember that there was once in this country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a Democrat — a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalent amongst Democrats to-day, it is tnie ; but that man did not take exactly this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery which our friend Judge Douglas does. In contemplation of this thing, we all know he was led to ex- 246 claim, " I tremble for my country -when I remember that God is just ! " We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself. There was danger to this country — danger of the avenging justice of God in that little unimportant Popular Sovereignty question of Judge Douglas. He supposed there was a question of God's eternal justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so braved the arm of Jehovah — that when a nation thus dared the Al- mighty, every friend of that nation had cause to dread his wrath. Choose ye be- tween Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element among us. There is another little difficulty about this matter of treating the Territories and States alike in all things, to which I ask your attention, and I shall leave this branch of the case. If there is no difference between them, why not make the Territories States at once ? What is the reason that Kansas was not fit to come into the Union when it was organized into a Territory, in Judge Douglas's view ? Can any of you tell any reason why it should not have come into the Union at once ? They are lit, as he thinks, to decide upon the slavery question — the largest and most important with which they could possibly deal — what could they do by coming into the Union that they are not fit to do, according to his view, by staying out of it? Oh, they are not fit to sit in Congress and decide upon the rates of postage, or questions of ad va- lorem or specific duties on foreign goods, or live oak timber contracts ; they are not fit to decide these vastly important matters, which are national in their import, but they are fit, " from the jump," to decide this little negro question. But, gentlemen, the case is too plain ; I occupy too much time on this head, and I pass on. Near the close of the copy-right essay, the Judge, I think, comes very near kicking his own fat into the fire. I did not think, Avhen I commenced these remarks, that I would read from that article, but I now believe I will : " This exposition of the history of these measures, shows conclusively that the au- thors of the Compromise Measures of 1850 and of the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, as well as the members of the Continental Congress of 1774, and the found- ers of our system of Government subsequent to the Revolution, regarded the people of the Territories and Colonies as political communities which were entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their provisional legislatures, where their repre- sentation could alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity." When the Judge saw that putting in the word " slavery " would contradict his own history, he put in what he knew would pass as synonymous with it : " internal poli- ty." Whenever we find that in one of his speeches, the substitute is used in this manner ; and I can tell you the reason. It would be too bald a contradiction to say slavery, but "internal polity" is a general phrase, which would pass in some quar- ters, and which he hopes will pass with the reading community for the same thing: " This right pertains to the people collectively, as a law-abiding and peaceful com- munity, and not in the isolated individuals who may wander upon the public domain in violation of the law. It can only be exercised where there are inhabitants suffi- cient to constitute a Government, and capable of performing its various functions and duties, a fact to be ascertained and determined by" — who do you think? Judge Douglas says " By Congress ! " '' Whether the number shall be fixed at ten, fifteen or twenty thousand inhabitants, does not affect the principle." Now I have only a few comments to make. Popular Sovereignty, by his own words, does not pertain to the few persons who Avander upon the public domain in vi- olation of laAv. We have his words for that. When it does pertain to them, is when they are sufficient to be formed into an organized political community, and he fixes the minimum for that at 10,000, and the maximum at 20,000. Now I Avould like to know what is to be done with the 9,000 ? Are they all to be treated, until they are large enough to be organized into a political community, as wanderers upon the public land in violation of law ? And if so treated and driven out, at what point of time would there ever be ten thousand ? If they were not driven out, but remained there as trespassers upon the public land in violation of the law, can they establish 247 slavery there ? No, — the Judge says Pojjular Sovereignty don't pertain to them then. Can they exchide it then ? No, Popular Sovereignty don't pertain to them then. I would like to know, in the case covered by the ICssay, what condition the people of the Territory are in before they reach the number of ten thousand ? But the main point I wish to ask attention to is, that the question as to when they shall have reached a sufficient number to be formed into a regular organized commu- nity, is to be decided "by Congress." Judge Douglas says so. AVell, gentlemen, that is about all we want. No, that is all the Southerners want. That is what all those who are for slavery want. They do not want Congress to prohibit slavery from coming into the new Territories, and they do not want Popular Sovereignty to hin- der it; and as Congress is to say when they are ready to be organized, all that the South has to do is to get Congress to hold off. Let Congress hold off until they are ready to be admitted as a State, and the South has all it wants in taking slavery into and planting it in all the Territories that we now have, or hereafter may have. In a word, the whole thing, at a dash of the pen, is at last put in the power of Con- gress ; for if they do not have this Popular Sovereignty until Congress organizes them, I ask if it at last does not come from Congress ? If at last, it amounts to any thing at all. Congress gives it to them. I submit this rather for your reflection than for comment. After all that is said, at last by a dash of the pen, every thing that has gone before is undone, and he puts the whole question under the control of Con- gress. After fighting through more than three hours, if you undertake to read it, he at last places the whole matter under the control of that power which he had been contending against, and arrives at a result directly contrary to Avhat he had been la- boring to do. He at last leaves the whole matter to the control of Congress. There are two main objects, as I understand it, of this Harper's Magazine essay. One was to show, if possible, that the men of our I'evolutionary times were in favor of his Popular Sovereignty ; and the other was to show that the Dred Scott decision had not entirely squelched out this Popular Sovereignty. I do not propose, in re- gard to this argument drawn from the history of former times, to enter into a detailed examination of the historical statements he has made. I have the impression that they are inaccui-ate in a great many instances. Sometimes in positive statement, but very much more inaccurate by the suppression of statements that really belong to the history. But I do not propose to affirm that this is so to any very great extent ; or to entei- into a very minute examination of his historical statements. I avoid doing so upon this principle — that if it were important for me to pass out of this lot in the least period of time possible, and I came to that fence and saw by a calculation of my known strength and agility that I could clear it at a bound, it would be folly for me to stop and consider Mhether I could or not crawl through a crack. So I say of the whole history, contained in his essay, where he endeavored to link the men of the Revolution to Popular Sovereignty. It only requires an effort to leap out of it — a single bound to be entirely successful. If you read it over you will find that he quotes here and there from documents of the revolutionary times, tending to show that the people of the colonies were desirous of regulating their own concerns in their own way, that the British Government should not interfere ; that at one time they struggled with the British Government to be permitted to exclude the African slave- trade ; if not directly, to be permitted to exclude it indirectly by taxation sufficient to discourage and destroy it. From these and many things of this sort. Judge Dou"-- la;! argues that they were in favor of the people of our own Territories excluding slavery if they wanted to, or planting it there if they wanted tc, doing just as they pleased from the time they settled upon the Territory. Now, however his history may apply, and whatever of his argument there may be that is sound and accurate or unsound and inaccurate, if we can find out what these men did themselves do up- on this very question of slavery in the Territories, does it not end the whole thing? If after all this labor and effort to show that the men of the Revolution were in favor of his Popular Sovereignty and his mode of dealing with slavery in the Territories, we can show that these very men took hold of that subject, and dealt with it, we can 248 see for ourselves hoiv they dealt with it. It is not a matter of argument or infer- ence, but we know what they thought about it. It is precisely upon that part of the history of the country, that one important omission is made by Judge Douglas. He selects parts of the history of the United States upon the subject of slavery, and treats it as the whole, omitting from his histor- ical sketch the legislation of Congress in regard to the admission of !Missouii, by which the Missouri Compromise was established, and slavery excluded from a country half as large as the present United States. All this is left out of his history, and in nowise alluded to by him, so far as I can remember, save once, when he makes a remark, that upon his principle the Supreme Court were authorized to pronounce a decisiot that the act called the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. All that history has been left out. But this part of the history of the country was not made by the men of the Revolution. There was another part of our political history made by the very men who were the actors in the Revolution, which has taken the name of the Ordinance of '87. Let me bring that history to your attention. In 1784, I believe, this same Mr. Jef- ferson drew up an ordinance for the government of the country upon which we now stand ; or rather a frame or draft of an ordinance for the government of this coun- tiy, here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, us Avho live in Illinois, our neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan. In that oi'dinance, drawn up not only for the government of that Territory, but for the Territories south of the Ohio River, Mr. Jefferson expressly provided for the prohibition of slavery. Judge Douglas says, and perhaps is right, that that provision was lost from that ordinance. I believe that is true. "When the vote was taken upon it, a majority of all present in the Congress of the Confederation voted for it ; but there were so many absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear majority necessaiy, and it was lost. But three years after that the Congress of the Confederation were together again, and they adopted a new ordinance for the government of this Northwest Territory, not contemplating terri- tory south of the river, for the States owning that territory had hitherto refrained from giving it to the General Government ; hence they made the ordinance to apply only to what the Government owned. In that, the provision excluding slavery was inserted and passed unanimously, or at any rate it passed and became a part of the law of the land. Under that ordinance we live. First here in Ohio you were a Territory, then an enabling act was passed, authorizing you to form a Constitution and State Government, provided it was republican and not in conflict with the Ordi- nance of '87. When you framed your Constitution and presented it for admission, I think you will find the legislation upon the subject Avill show that, " whereas you had formed a Constitution that was republican, and not in conflict with the Ordinance of '87," therefore, you were admitted upon equal footing with the original States. The same process in a few years was gone through with in Indiana, and so with Illinois, and the same substantially with Michigan and Wisconsin. Not only did that ordinance prevail, but it was constantly looked to whenever a step was taken by a new Territory to become a State. Congress always turned their attention to it, and in all their movements upon tliis subject, they traced their course by that Ordinance of '87. When they admitted new States, they advertised them of this ordinance as a part of the legislation of the country. They did so be- cause they had traced the Ordinance of '87 throughout the history of this country. Begin with the men of the Revolution, and go down for sixty entire years, and until the last scrap of that Territory comes into tlie Union in the form of the State of Wisconsin — every thing was made to conform with the Ordinance of '87, excluding slavery from that vast extent of country. I omitted to mention in the right place that the Constitution of the United States was in process of being framed when that ordinance m as made by the Congress of the Confederation ; and one of the first acts of Congress itself, under the new Constitution itself, was to give force to that ordinance by putting power to carry it out in the hands of the new officers under the Constitution, in the place of the old 249 ones, who had been* legislated out of existence by the change in the Government from the Confederation to the Constitution. Not only so, but I believe Indiana once or twice, if not Ohio, petitioned the General Gtovernment for the privilege of sus- pending that provision and allowing them to have slaves. A report made by Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, himself a slaveholder, was directly against it, and the action was to refuse them the privilege of violating the Ordinance of '87. This period of history, which I have run over briefly, is, 1 presume, as familiar to most of this assembly as any other part of the history of our country. I suppose tliat few of my hearers are not as familiar with that part of history as I am, and I only mention it to recall your attention to it at this time. And hence I ask how ex- traordinary a thing it is that a man who has occupied a position upon the floor of the Senate of the United States, who is now in his third term, and wdio looks to see the Government of this whole country fall into his own hands, pretending to give a truthful and accurate history of tlie slaveiy question in this country, should so en- tirely ignore the whole of that portion of our history — the most important of all. Is it not a most extraordinary spectacle, that a man should stand up and ask for any confidence in his statemcntv-*, who sets out as he does with j)ortions of history, calling upon the people to believe that it is a true and fair representation, when the leading pai-t, and controlling feature, of the whole history is carefully suppressed? But the mere leaving out is not the most remarkable feature of this most remark- able essay. His proposition is to establish that the leading men of the Revolution were for his great principle of non-intervention by the Government in the question of slavery in the Territories ; while history shows that they decided in the cases actually brought before them, in exactly the contrary way, and he knows it. Not only did they so decide at that time, but they stuck to it during sixty years, through thick and thin, as long as there was one of the revolutionary heroes upon the stage of political action. Through their whole course, from first to last, they clung to freedom. And now he asks the community to believe that the men of the Revolu- tion were in favor of his great principle, when we have the naked history that they themselves dealt with this very subject-matter of his principle, and utterly re- pudiated his principle, acting upon a precisely contrary ground. It is as im- pudent and absurd as if a prosecuting attorney should stand up before a jury, and ask them to convict A as the murderer of B, while B was walking alive before them. I say again, if Judge Douglas asserts that the men of the Revolution acted upon princii)les by which, to be consistent with themselves, they ought to have adopted his popular sovereignty, then, upon a consideration of his own argument, he had a right to make you believe that they understood the principles of goYernment, but misap- plied them — that he has arisen to enlighten the world as to the just application of this principle. He has a right to try to persuade you that he understands their principles better than they did, and, therefore, he will apply them now, not as they did, but as they ought to have done. He has a right to go before the community, and try to convince them of this ; but he has no right to attempt to impose upon any one the belief that these men themselves approved of his gi'eat principle. There are tw^o ways of establishing a proposition. One is by trying to demonstrate it upon reason ; and the other is, to show that great men in former times have thought so and so, and thus to pass it by the weight of pure authority. Now, if Judge Douglas will demonstrate somehow that this is popular sovereignty — the right of one man to make a slave of another, without any right in that other, or any one else to object — demonstrate it as Euclid demonstrated propositions — there is no objection. But when he comes forward, seekmg to carry a principle by bringing to it the au- thority of men who themselves utterly repudiate that principle, I ask thai he shall not be permitted to do it. I see, in the Judge's speech here, a short sentence in these words : " Our fathers, when they formed this Government under which we live, understood this question just as well and even better than we do now." That is true ; I stick to that. I 250 will stand by Judge Douglas in that to the bitter end. And 'now, Judge Douglas, come and stand by me, and truthfully show how they acted, understanding it better than we do. All I ask of you, Judge Douglas, is to stick to the proposition that the men of the Revolution understood this subject better than we do now, and with thai better understanding they acted better than you are trying to act now. I wish to say something now in I'egard to the Dred Scott decision, as dealt with by Judge Douglas. In that " memorable debate " between Judge Douglas and my- self, last year, the Judge thought fit to commence a process of catechising me, and at Freeport I answered his questions, and propounded some to him. Among others propounded to him was one that I have here now. The substance, as I remember it, is, " Can the people of a United States Territory, under the Dred Scott decision, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits, prior to the formation of a State Constitution?" He answered that they could lawfully exclude slavery from the United States Territories, notwith- standing the Dred Scott decision. There was something about that answer that has probably been a trouble to the Judge ever since. The Dred Scott decision expressly gives every citizen of the United States a right to carry his slaves into the United States Territories. And now there was some inconsistency in saying that the decision Avas right, and saying, too, that the people of the Territory could lawfully drive slavery out again. When all the trash, the words, the collateral matter, was cleared away from it — all the chaif was fanned out of it, it was a bare absurdity — no less than that a thing may be lawfidly driven away from v:here it has a laivfid right to be. Clear it of all the verbiage, and that is the naked truth of his proposition — that a thing may be lawfully driven from the place where it has a lawful right to stay. Well, it w^as because the Judge couldn't help seeing this, that he has had so much trouble with it ; and what I want to ask your especial attention to, just now, is to remind you, if you have not noticed the tact, that the Judge does not any longer say that the people can exclude slavery. He does not say so in the copy-right essay ; he did not say so in the speech that he made here ; and, so far as I know, since his re-election to the Senate, he has never said, as he did at Freeport, that the people of the Territories can exclude slavery. He desires that you, who wish the Territories to remain free, should believe that he stands by that position, but he does not say it himself. He escapes to some extent the absurd position I have stated by changing his language entirely. What he says now is something different in language, and we Avill consider whether it is not differ- ent in sense too. It is now that the Dred Scott decision, or rather the Constitution under that decision, does not carry slavery into the Territories beyond the power of the people of the Territories to control it as other property. He does not say the people can drive it out, but they can control it as otlier property. The language is different ; we should consider whether the sense is different. Driving a horse out of this lot is too plain a proposition to be mistaken about ; it is putting him on the other side of the fence. Or it might be a sort of exclusion of him iiom the lot if you were to kill him and let the worms devour him ; but neither of these things is the same as " controlling him as other property." That would be to feed him, to pam- per him, to ride him, to use and abuse him, to make the most money out of him "as other property ;" but please you, what do the men who are in favor of slavery want more than this? What do they really want, other than that slavery, being in the Territories, shall be controlled as other property ? If they want any thing else, I do not comprehend it. I ask your attention to this, first, for the puqDOse of pointing out the change of ground the Judge has made ; and, in the second place, the importance of the change — that that change is not such as to give you gentlemen who want his popular sovereignty the power to exclude the in- stitution or drive it out at all. I know the Judge sometimes squints at the argument that in controlling it as other property by unfriendly legislation they may control it to death, as you might in the case of a horse, perhaps, feed him so liglitly and ride him BO much that he would die. But when you come to legislative control, there is some- 251 thing more to be attended to. I have no doubt, myself, that if the Territories should undertake to control slave property as other property — that is, control it in such a way that it Avould be the most valuable as property, and make it bear its just propor- tion in the way of burdens as property — really deal with it as property — the Supreme Court of the United States will say, " God speed you and amen." But I undertake to give the opinion, at least, that if the Territories attempt by any direct legislation to drive the man with his slave out of the Territory, or to decide that his slave is free be- cause of his being taken in there, or to tax him to such an extent that he cannot keep him there, the Supreme Court will unhesitatingly decide all such legislation uncon- stitutional, as long as that Supreme Court is constructed as the Dred Scott Supreme Court is. The first two things they have already decided, except tliat there is a little quibble among lawyers between the words dicta and decision. They have already decided a negro cannot be made free by territorial legislation. What is that Dred Scott decision ? Judge Douglas labors to show that it is one thing, while I think it is altogether different. It is a long opinion, but it is all em- bodied in this short statement : '' The Constitution of the United States forbids Congress to deprive a man of his property, without due process of law ; the right of property in slaves is distinctly and expressly affirmed in that Constitution ; there- fore if Congress shall undertake to say that a man's slave is no longer his slave, when he crosses a certain line into a Territory, that is depriving him of his property without due process of law, and is unconstitutional." There is the Avhole Dred Scott decis- ion. They add that if Congress cannot do so itself. Congress cannot confer any power to do so, and hence any effort by the Territorial Legislature to do either of these tilings is absolutely decided against. It is a foregone conclusion by that court. Now, as to this indirect mode by " unfriendly legislation," all lawyers here will readily understand that such a proposition cannot be tolerated for a moment, because a legislature cannot indirectly do that which it cannot accomplish directly. Then I say any legislation to control this property, as property, for its benefit as property, would be hailed by this Dred Scott Supreme Court, and fully sustained ; but any legislation driving slave property out, or destroying it as property, directly or indi- rectly, will most assuredly, by that court, be held unconstitutional. Judge Douglas says if the Constitution carries slavery into the Territories, beyond the power of the people of the Territories to control it as other property, then it fol- lows logically that every one who swears to support the Constitution of the United States, must give that support to that property Avhich it needs. And if tlie Constitu- tion carries slavery into the Territories, beyond the power of the people to control it as other property, then it also carries it into the States, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Now, gentlemen, if it were not for my excessive modesty I would say that I told that very thing to Judge Douglas quite a year ago. This argument is here in print, and if it were not for my modesty, as I said, I might call your attention to it. If you read it, you will fiud that I not only made that argument, but made it better than he has made it since. There is, however, this difference. I say now, and said then, there is no sort of question that the Supreme Court has decided that it is the right of the slaveholder to take Lis slave and hold him in the Territory ; and saying this, Judge Douglas him- self admits the conclusion. He says if that is so, this consequence will follow ; and because this consequence would follow, his argument is, the decision cannot, therefore, be that way — " that would spoil my Popular Sovereignty, and it cannot be possible that this great principle has been squelched out in this extraordinary way. It might be, if it were not for the extraordinary consequences of spoiling my humbug." Another feature of the Judge's argument about the Dred Scott case is, an effort to show that that decision deals altogether in declarations of negatives ; that the Consti- tution does not affirm any thing as expounded by the Dred Scott decision, but it only declares a want of power — a total absence of power, in reference to the Territories. It seems to be his purpose to make the whole of that decision to result in a mere negative declaration of a want of power in Congress to do any thing in relation to this 252 matter in the Territories. I know the opinion of the Judges states that there is a total absence of power ; but that is, unfortunately, not all it states ; for the Judges add that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. It does not stop at saying that the right of property in a slave is rec- ognized in the Constitution, is declared to exist somewhere in the Constitution, but says it is affirmed in the Constitution. Its language is equivalent to saying that it is embodied and so woven into that instrument that it cannot be detached without break- ing the Constitution itself. In a word, it is part of the Constitution. Douglas is singularly unfortunate in his effort to make out that decision to be al- together negative, when the express language at the vital part is that this is distinct- ly affirmed in the Constitution. I think myself, and I repeat it here, that this decis- ion does not merel}' carry slavery into the Territories, but by its logical conclusion it carries it into the States in which we live. One provision of that Constitution is, that it shall be the supreme law of the land — I do not quote the language — any Constitu- tion or law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. This Dred Scott decision says that the riglit of property in a slave is affirmed in that Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, any State Constitution or law notwithstanding. Then I say that to destroy a thing which is distinctly affirmed and supported by the su- preme law of the land, even by a State Constitution or law, is a violation of that supreme law, and there is no escape from it. In my judgment there is no avoiding that result, save that the American people shall see that Constitutions are better con- strued than our Constitution is construed in that decision. They must take care that it is more faithfully and truly carried out than it is there expounded. I must hasten to a conclusion. Near the beginning of my remarks, I said that this insidious Douglas Popular Sovereignity is the measure that now threatens the pur- pose of the Republican party, to prevent slavery from being nationalized in the United States. I propose to ask your attention for a little while to some propositions in af- firmance ofithat statement. Take it just as it stands, and apply it as a principle ; extend and apply that principle elsewhere and consider where it will lead you. I now put this proposition, that Judge Douglas's Popular Sovereignty applied will reopen the African slave-trade ; and I will demonstrate it by any variety of ways in which you can turn the subject or look at it. The Judge says that the people of the Territories have the right, by his principle, to have slaves, if they want them. Then I say that the people in Georgia have the right to buy slaves in Africa, if they want them, and I defy any man on earth to show any distinction between the two things — to show that the one is either more wicked or more unlawful ; to show, on original principles, that one is better or woi's6 than the other ; or to show by the Constitution, that one differs a whit from the other. He will tell me, doubtless, that there is no Constitutional provision against people taking slaves into the new Territories, and I tell him that there is equally no Constitu- tional provision against buying slaves in Africa. He will tell you that a people, in the exercise of popular sovereignty, ought to do as they please about that thing, and have slaves if they want them ; and I tell you that the people of Georgia are as much entitled to popular sovereignty and to buy slaves in Africa, if they want them, as the people of the Territory are to have slaves if they want them. I ask any man, dealing honestly with himself, to point out a distinction. I have recently seen a 1 jtter of Judge Douglas' in which, without stating that to kf the object, he doubtless endeavors to make a distinction between the two. He says he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of the laws against the African slave-trade. And why ? He then seeks to give a reason that would not apply to his popular sovereignty in the Territories. What is that reason? "The abolition of the Afri- can slave-trade is a compromise of the Constitution !" I deny it. There is no truth in the proposition that the abolition of the African slave-trade is a compromise of the Constitution. No man can put his finger on any thing in the Constitution, or on the line of history, which shows it. It is a mere barren assertion, made simply for the , 263 purpose of getting up a distinction between the revival of the African slave-trade and his '"great principle." At the time the Constitution of the United States was adopted it was expected that the slave-trade would be abolished. I should assert, and insist upon that, if Judge Douglas denied it. But I know that it was equally expected that slavery would be excluded from the Territories, and I can show by history, that in regard to tliese two things, public opinion was exactly alike, while in regard to positive action, ainst the white man. Is not that a falsehood ? If there was a necessary conflict between the white man and the iiegro, I should be for the white man as much as Judge Douglas ; but I say there is no such necessary conflict. I say that there is room enough for us all to be free, and that it not only does not wrong the white man that the negro should be free, but it positively wrongs the mass of the white men that the negro should be enslaved ; that the mass of white men are really injured by the effects of slave labor in the vicinity of the fields of their own labor. But I do not desire to dwell upon this branch of the question more than to say that this assumption of his is false, and I do hope that that fallacy will not long pre- vail in the minds of intelligent white men. At all events, you ought to thank Judge Douglas for it. It is for your benefit it is made. Tlie other branch of it is, that in a struggle between the negro and the crocodile, he is for the negro. Well, I don't know that there is any struggle between the negro and the crocodile, either. I suppose that if a crocodile (or as we old Ohio River boatmen used to call them, aUigators) should come across a white man, he would kill him if he could, and so he would a negro. But what, at last, is this prop- osition ? I believe that it is a sort of proposition in proportion, which may be stated thus: "As the negro is to the white man, so is the crocodile to the negro; and as the negro may rightfully treat the crocodile as a beast or reptile, so the white man may rightfully treat the negro as a beast or a reptile. That is really the " knip " of all that argument of his. Now, my brother Kentuckians, who believe in this, you ought to thank Judge Douglas for having put that in a much more taking way than any of yourselves have done. Again, Douglas's great principle, " Popular Sovereignty," as he calls it, gives you, by natural consequence, the revival of the slave-trade whenever you wai\t it. K 260 yon question this, listen awhile, consider awhile, what I shall advance in support oF that proposition. He says that it is the sacred right of the man who goes into the Territories, to have slavery if he wants it. Grant that for argument's sake. Is it not the sacred right of the man who don't go there equally to buy slaves in Africa, if he wants them ? Can you point out the difference ? The man who goes into the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, or any other new Territory, with the sacred right of tak- ing a slave there which belongs to Mm, would certainly have no more right to take one there than I would, who own no slave, but who would desire to buy one and take him there. You will not say — you, the friends of Judge Douglas — but that the man who does not own a slave, has an equal right to buy one and take him to the Territory, as the other does ? A voice — " I want to ask a question. Don't foreign nations interfere with the slave-trade ?" Mr. Lincoln — ^Well ! I understand it to be a principle of Democracy to whip for- eign nations whenever they interfere with us. Voice — " I only asked for infonnation. I am a Republican myself." Mr. Lincoln — You and I will be on the best terms in the world, but I do not wish to be diverted from the point I was trying to press. I say that Douglas's Popular Sovereignty, establishing his sacred right in the peo- ple, if you please, if carried to its logical conclusion, gives equally the sacred right to the people of the States or the Territories themselves to buy slaves, wherever they can buy them cheapest ; and if any man can show a distinction, I should like to hear him tiy it. If any man can show how the people of Kansas have a better right to slaves because they want them, than the people of Georgia have to buy them in Africa, I want him t6 do it. I think it cannot be done. If it is " Popular Sovereignty " for the people to have slaves because they want them, it is Popular Sovereignty for them to buy them in Africa, because they desire to do so. I know that Douglas has recently made a little effort — not seeming to notice that he had a different theory — has made an effort to get rid of that. He has written a letter, addressed to somebody I believe who resides in Iowa, declaring his opposi- tion to the repeal of the laws that prohibit the African slave-trade. He bases his opposition to such repeal upon the ground that these laws are themsehes one of the compromises of the Constitution of the United States. Now it would be \'ery inter- esting to see Judge Douglas or any of his friends turn to the Constitution of the United States and point out that compromise, to show where there is any compro- mise in the Constitution, or provision in the Constitution, express or implied, by which the administrators of that Constitution are under any obligation to repeal the African slave-trade. I know, or at least I think I know, that the framers of that Constitution did expect that the African slave-trade would be abolislied at the end of twenty years, to which tune their prohibition against its being abolished ex- tended. I think there is abundant cotemporaneous history to show that the framers of the Constitution expected it to be abolished. But while they so expected, they gave nothing for that expectation, and they put no provision in the Constitution re- quiring it should be so abolished. The migration or importation of such persons as the States shall see fit to admit shall not be prohibited, but a certain tax might be levied upon such importation. But what was to be done after that time ? The Constitu- tion is as silent about tliat as it is silent, personally, about myself. There is abso- lutely nothing in it about that subject — there is only the expectation of the framers of the Constitution that the slave-trade would be abolished at the end of that time, and they expected it would be abolished, owing to public sentiment, before that time, :md they put that provision in, in order that it should not be abolished before that time, for reasons which I suppose they thought to be sound ones, but which I will not now try to enumerate before you. But while they expected the slave-trade would be abolished at that time, they ex- pected that the spread of slavery into the new Territories should ako be restricted 261 It is as easy to prove that the framers of the Constitution of the United States ex- pected that slavery should be prohibited from extending into the new Territories, as it is to prove that it waa expected that the slave-trade should be abolished. Both these things were expected. One was no more expected than the other, and one was no more a compromise of the Constitution than the other. There was nothinnr said in the Constitution in regard to the spread of slavery into the Territory. I °grant that, but there was something very important said about it by the same generation of men in the adoption of the old Ordinance of '87, through the influence of which you here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, we in Illinois, our neighbors in Michigan and Wisconsin are happy, prosperous, teeming millions of free men. That «n;n. ei-ation of men, though not to the full extent members of the Convention that framed tliu Constitution, were to some extent members of that Convention, holding seats at the same time in one body and the other, so that if there was any compromise on either of these subjects, the strong evidence is that that compromise was in favor of the restriction of slavery from the new Territories. But Douglas says that he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of those laws ; because, in his view, it is a compromise of the Constitution. You Kentuckians, no doubt, are somewhat offended with that ! You ought not to be ! You ought to be patient ! You ought to know that if he said less than that, he would lose the power of "lugging" the Northern States to your support. Really, what you would push him to do would take from him his entire power to serve you. And you ought to remember how long, by precedent. Judge Douglas holds himself obhged to stick by compromises. You ought to remember that by the tune you yourselves think you are ready to inaugurate measures for the revival of the African slave-trade, that sufficient time will have arrived, by precedent, for Judge Douglas to break through that compromise. He says now nothing more strong than he said in 1849 when he declared in favor of the Missouri Compromise — that precisely four yours and a quarter after he declared that compromise to be a sacred thmg, which "no ruthless hand would ever dare to touch," he, himself, brought forward the measure, ruthlessly to destroy it. By a mere calculation of tune it will only be four years more until he is ready to take back his profession about the sacredness of the Compromise abolishing the slave-trade. Precisely as soon as you are ready to have his sei-vices in that direction, by fair calculation, you may be sure of having them. But you remember and set down to Judge Douglas's debt, or discredit, that he, last year, said the people of Territories can, in spite of the Dred Scott decision' exclude your slaves from those Territories; that he declared by "unfriendly legislation," the extension of your property into the new Territories may be cut off in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. He assumed that position at Freeport on the 27th of August, 1858. He said that the people of the Territories can exclude slavery, in so many words. You ou"-ht, however, to bear in mind that he has never said it since. You may hunt in every speech that he has since made, and he has never used that expression once. He has never seemed to notice that he is stating his views differently from what he did then ; but, by some sort of accident, he has always really stated it differently. He has always since then declared that "the Constitution does not carry- slavery into the Teri-itories of the United States beyond the power of the people legally to control it, as other property." Now, there is a difference in the language used upon that former occasion and in this latter day. There may or may not be a difference in the meaning, but it is worth while considering whether there is not also a difference in meaning. What is it to exclude ? Why, it is to drive it out. It is in some way to put it out of the Territory. It is to force it across the line, or change its character, so that as property it is out of existence. But what is the controlling of it "as other prop- erty?" Is controlling it as other property the same thing as destroying it, or driving it away? I should think not. I should think the controlling of it as other property would be just about what you in Kentucky should want. I understand the control- 262 fing of property means the controlling of it for the benefit of the owner of it. While I have no doubt the Supreme Court of the United States would say " God speed " to any of the Territorial Legislatures that should thus control slave property, they would sing quite a difi'erent tune, if by the pretense of controlling it they were to undertake to pass laws which virtually excluded it, and that upon a very well known principle to all lawyers, that what a Legislature cannot directly do, it cannot do by indirection ; that as the Legislature has not the power to drive slaves out, they have no power by indii-ection, by tax, or by imposing burdens in any way on that property, to effect the same end, and that any attempt to do so would be held by the Dred Scott court unconstitutional. Douglas is not willing to stand by his first proposition that they can exclude it, because we have seen that that proposition amounts to nothing more nor less than the naked absurdity, that you may lawfully drive out that which has a lawful right to remain. He admitted at first that the slave might be lawfully taken into the Ter- ritories under the Constitution of the United States, and yet asserted that he might be lawfully driven out. That being the proposition, it is the absurdity I have stated. He is not willing to stand in the face of that direct, naked and impudent absurdity ; he has, therefore, modified his language into that of being ^'■controlled as other property" The Kentuckians don't like this in Douglas ! I will tell you where it will go. He now swears by the court. He was once a leading man in Illinois to break down a court, because it had made a decision he did not like. But he now not only swears by the court, the courts having got to working for you, but he denounces all men that do not swear by the courts, as unpatriotic, as bad citizens. When one of these acts of unfriendly legislation shall impose such heavy burdens as to, in effect, destroy property in slaves in a Territory and show plainly enough that there can be no mis- take in the purpose of the Legislature to make them so burdensome, this same Supreme Court will decide that law to be unconstitutional, and he will be ready to say for your benefit, "I swear by the court; I give it up ;" and while that is gomg on he has been getting all his men to swear by the courts, and to give it up with him. In this again he serves you faithfully, and as I say, more wisely than you serve yourselves. A"-ain : I have alluded in the beginning of these remarks to the fact, that Judge Dou"-las has made great complaint of my having expressed the opinion that this Government "cannot endure permanently half slave and half free." He has com- plained of Seward for using different language, and declaring that there is an " irre- pressible conflict" between the principles of free and slave labor. [A voice — "He says it is not original with Seward. That is original with Lincoln."] I will attend to that immediately, sir. Since that time, Hickman of Pennsylvania expressed the same sentiment. He has never denounced Mr. Hickman : why ? There is a little chance, notwithstanding that opinion in the mouth of Hickman, tho,t he may yet be a Douglas man. That is the difference ! It is not unpatriotic to hold that opinion, if a man is a Douglas man. But neither I nor Seward, nor Hickman, is entitled to the enviable or unenviable distinction of having first expressed that idea. That same idea was expressed by tlie 'RxdimowA Enquirer in Virginia, in 1856 ; quite two years before it was expressed by the first of us. And Avhile Douglas was pluming himself, that in his conflict with my humble self, last year, he had "squelched out" that fatal heresy, as he delighted to call it, and had suggested that if he only had had a chance to be in New York and meet Seward he would have "squelched" it thei-e also, it never occurred to him to breathe a word against Pryor. I don't think that you can discover that Douglas ever talked of going to Virginia to "squelch" out that idea there. No. More than that. That same Roger A. Pryor was brought to Washington City and made the editor of the par excellence Douglas paper, after making use of that expression, which, in us, is so unpatriotic and heretical. From all this, my Kentucky friends may see that this opinion is heretical in his view only when it is expressed by mea 263 suspected of a desire that the countiy shall all become free, and not when expressed by those fairly known to entertain the desire that the whole country shall become slave. When expressed by that class of men, it is in nowise offensive to him. In this again, my friends of Kentucky, you have Judge Douglas with you. There is another reason why you Southern people ought to nominate Douglas at your Convention at Charleston. That reason is the wonderful capacity of the man ; the power he has of doing what would seem to be impossible. Let me call your attention to one of these apparently impossible things. Douglas had three or four very distinguished men of the most extreme anti- slavery views of any men in the Republican party, expressing their desire for his re-election to the Senate last year. That would, of itself, have seemed to be a little wonderful, but that wonder is heightened when we see that Wise of Virginia, a man exactly opposed to them, a man avIio believes in the Divine right of slaveiy, wa.s also expressing his desire that Douglas should be re-elected; that another man that may be said to be kindred to Wise, Mr. Breckinridge, the Vice President, and of your own State, was also agreeing with the anti-slavery men in the North, that Douglas ought to be re-elected. Still, to heighten the wonder, a Senator from Ken- tucky, who I have always loved with an affection as tender and endearing as I have ever loved any man ; who was opposed to the anti-slavery men for reasons which seemed sufficient to him, and equally opposed to Wise and Breckinridge, was writing letters into Illinois to secure the re-election of Douglas. Now that all these conflict- ing elements should be brought, whihe at daggers' points, witli one another, to sup- port him, is a feat that is worthy for you to note and consider. It is quite probable tliat each of these classes of men thought, by the re-election of Douglas, their pecu- liar views would gain something; it is probable that the anti-slavery men thought their views would gain something; that Wise and Breckinridge thouglit so too, as regards their opinions; that Mr. Cx'ittenden thought that his views would gain some- thing, although he was opposed to both these other men. It is probable that each and all of them thought that they were using Douglas, and it is yet an unsolved problem Avhether he was not using them all. If he was, then it is for you to consider whether that power to perform wonders, is one for you lightly to throw away. There is one other thing that I will say to you in this relation. It is but my opinion, I give it to you without a fee. It is my opinion that it is for you to take him or be defeated ; and that if you do take him you may be beaten. You will surely be beaten if you do not take him. We, the Republicans and others forming the opposition of the country, intend to "stand by our guns," to be patient and firm, and in the long run to beat you whether you take him or not. We know that before we fairly beat you, we have to beat you both together. We know that you are "all of a feather," and that we have to beat you altogether, and we expect to do it. We don't intend to be very impatient about it. We mean to be as deliberate and calm about it as it is possible to be, but as firm and resolved as it is possible for men to be. When we do as we say, beat you, you perhaps want to know what we will do with you. I will tell you, so far as I am authorized to speak for the opposition, ^'hat we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you, as near as we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson and Madison treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way to interfere with your institution ; to abide by all and every compromise of the Constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the original proposition, to treat you, so far as degenerated men (if we have degenerated) may, according to the examples of those noble fathers — Washington, Jefferson and Madison. We mean to remember that you are as good as we ; that tlici-e is no difference between us other than the difference of circumstances. We mean to recognize and bear in mind always that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people, or as we slaim to have, and treat you accordingly. Wo mean to marry your girls when we 264 have a chance — the white ones I mean, and I have the honor to inform you that 1 once did have a chance in that way. I have told you what Ave mean to do. I want to know, now, when that thing takes place, what do you mean to do. I often hear it intimated that you mean to divide the Union whenever a Republican or any thing like it, is elected President of the United States. [A voice — " That is so."] " That is sa," one of them says ; I wonder if he is a Kentuckian ? [A voice — " He is a Douglas man."] Well, then, I want to know what you are going to do with your half of it ? Are you going to split the Ohio down through, and push your half off a piece ? Or are you going to keep it right alongside of us outrageous fellows ? Or are you going to build up a wall some way between your country and ours, by which that movable property of yours can't come over here any more, to the danger of your losing it ? Do you think you can better your- selves on that subject, by leaving us here under no obligation whatever to return those specimens of your movable property that come hither ? You have divided the Union because we would not do right with you, as you think, upon that subject ; when we cease to be under obligations to do any thing for you, how much better off do you think you will be ? Will you make war upon us and kill us all ? Why, gentlemen, I think you are as gallant and as brave men as live ; that you can fight as bravely in a good cause, man for man, as any other people living ; that you have shown yourselves capable of tliis upon various occasions ; but man for man, you are not better than we are, and there are not so many of you as there are of us. You will never make much of a hand at whipping us. If we were fewer in numbei-s than you, I think that you could whip us ; if we were equal it would hkely be a drawn battle ; but being inferior in numbers, you will make nothing by attempting to master us. But perhaps I have addi*essed myself as long, or longer, to the Kentuckians than I ought to have done, inasmuch as I have said that whatever course you take we in- tend in the end to beat you. I propose to address a few remarks to our friends, by way of discussing with them the best means of keeping that promise, that I have in good faith made. It may appear a little episodical for me to mention the topic of which I shall speak now. It is a favorable proposition of Douglas's that the interference of the General Government, through the Ordinance of '87, or through any other act of the General Government, never has made or ever can make a Free State ; that the Ordinance of '87 did not make Free States of Ohio, Indiana or Illinois. That these States are free upon his " great principle " of Popular Sovex'eignty, because the people of those several States have chosen to make them so. At Columbus, and probably here, he undertook to compliment the people that they themselves have made the State of Oliio free, and that the Ordinance of '87 was not entitled in any degree to divide the honor with them. I have no doubt that the people of the State of Ohio did make her free according to their own will and judgment, but let the facts be remembered. In 1802, I believe, it was you who made your first Constitution, with the clause prohibiting slavery, and you did it I suppose very nearly unanimously ; but you should bear in mind that you — speaking of you as one people — that you did so unembarrassed by the actual presence of the institution amongst you ; that you made it a Free State, not with the embarrassment upon you of already having among you many slaves, which if they had been here, and you had sought to make a Free State, you would not know what to do with. If they had been among you, embarrassing difficulties, most probably, would have induced you to tolerate a slave Constitution instead of a free one, as indeed these very difficulties have constrained every people on this con- tinent who have adopted slavery. Pray what was it that made you free ? What kept you free ? Did you not find your country free when you came to decide that Ohio should be a Free State ? It is irapoi'tant to inquire by what reason you found it so? Let us take an illustration between the States of Ohio and Kentucky. Kentucky is separated by this River Ohio, not a mile wide. A portion of Kentucky, by reason of the course of the Ohio, is fur- ther north than this portion of Ohio, in which we now stand. Kentucky is entirely 26o covered with slavery — Ohio is entirely free from it. What made that difference? Was it climate? No! A jwrtion of Kentucky was further north than this portion of Ohio. Was it soil ? No ! There is nothing in the soil of the one more favorable to slave labor than the other. It was not climate or soil that caused one side of the line to be entirely covered with slavery and the other side free of it. What was it ? Study over it. Tell us, if you can, in all the range of conjecture, if there be any thing you can conceive of that made that difference, other than that there was no law of any sort keeping it out of Kentucky ? while the Ordinance of '87 kept it out of Ohio. If there is any other reason than this, I confess that it is wholly beyond my power to conceive of it. This, then, I offer to combat the idea that that ordinance has never made any State free. I don't stop at this illustration. I come to the State of Indiana; and what I have said as between Kentucky and Ohio, I repeat as between Indiana and Kentucky ; it is equally applicable. One additional argument is applicable also to Indiana. In her Territorial condition she more than once petitioned Congress to abrogate the or- dinance entirely, or at least so far as to suspend its operation for a time, in order that they should exercise the "Popular Sovereignty" of having slaves if they wanted them. Tlie men then controlling the General Government, imitating the men of the Revolution, refused Indiana that privilege. And so we have the evidence that In- diana su[)posed she could have slaves, if it were not for that ordinance ; that she be- sought Congress to put that barrier out of the way ; that Congress refused to do so, and it all ended at last in Indiana being a Free State. Tell me not then that the Ordinance of '87 had nothing to do with making Indiana a free state, when we find some men chafing against and only restrained by that barrier. Come down again to our State of Illinois. The great North-west Territory, in- cluding Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, was acquired first, I believe, by the British Government, in part at least, from the French. Before the estab- lishment of our independence, it becomes a part of Virginia ; enabling Virginia afterward to transfer it to the General Government. There were French settlements in what is now Illinois, and at the same time there were French settlements in what is now Missouri — in the tract of country that was not purchased till about 1803. In these French settlements negro slavery had existed for many years — perhaps more than a hundred, if not as mucii as two hundred years — at Kaskaskia, in Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, in Missouri. The number of slaves was not very great, but there was about the same number in each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory. There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave, and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slavery in Illinois ; nor did the ordinance apply to Missouri at all. What I want to ask your attention to, at this point, is that Illinois and Missouri came into the Union about the same time, Illinois in the latter part of 1818, and, Mis- souri, after a struggle, I believe sometime in 1820. They had been filling up with American people about the same pei-iod of time ; their progress enabling them to come into the Union about the same. At the end of that ten years, in which they had been so preparing (for it was about that period of time), the number of slaves in Illinois had actually decreased ; while in Missouri, beginning with very fcAv, at the end of that ten years, there were about ten thousand. This being so, and it being remem- bered that Missouri and Illinois are, to a certain extent, in the same parallel of lat- itude — that the northern half of Missouri and the southern half of Illinois are in the same parallel of latitude — so that climate would have the same eflect upon one as uj)on the other, and that in the soil there is no material difterence so far as bears upon the question of slavery being settled upon one or the other — there being none of those natural causes to produce a difference in fiUing them, and yet there being a broad difference in their filling up, we are led again to inquire what was the cause of that difference. It is most natural to say that in Missouri there was no law to keep that countrv from filling uj) with -slaves, while in Illinois there was the Ordinance of '87. The 266 ordinance being there, slavery decreased during that ten years— the ordinance not being in the other, it increased from a few to ten thousand. Can any body doubt the reason of the difference ? I think all these facts most abundantly prove that my friend Judge Douglas's prop- osition, that the Ordinance of '87, or the national restriction of slavery, never had a tendency to make a Free State, is a fallacy— a proposition without the shadow or substance of truth about it. Douglas sometimes says that all the States (and it is part of this same proposition I have been discussing) that have become free, have become so upon his " great prin- ciple ;" that the State of Illinois itself came into the Union as a slave State, and that the people, upon the " great principle " of Popular Sovereignty, have since made it a Free State. Allow me but a little while to state to you what facts there are to justify him in saying that Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State. I have mentioned to you that there were a few old French slaves there. They numbered, I think, one or two hundred. Besides that, there had been a Territorial law for indenturing black persons. Under that law, in violation of the Ordmance of '87, but without any enforcement of the ordinance to overthroAv the system, there had been a small number of slaves introduced as indentured persons. Owing to this the clause for the prohibition of slavery was slightly modified. Instead ©f running like yours, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime, of which the party shall have been duly convicted, should exist in the State, they said that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should thereafter be introduced, and that the children of indentured servants should be born free ; and nothing was said about the few old French slaves. Out of this fact, that the clause for prohibiting slavery was modified because of the actual presence of it, Douglas asserts again and again that Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State. How far the facts sustain°thc conclusion that he draws, it is for intelligent and impartial men to decide. I leave it with you with these remarks, worthy of being remembered, that that little thing, ^losefew indentured servants being there, was of itself sufiicient to modify a Con- stitution made by a people ardently desiring to have a free Constitution ; showing ;he power of the actual presence of the institution of slavery to prevent any people^ lowever anxious to make a Free State, from making it perfectly so. I have been detaining you longer perhaps than I ought to do. I am in some doubt whether to introduce another topic upon which I could talk iwhile. [Cries of " Go on," and '' Give us it."] It is this then : Douglas's Popu- ar Sovereignty, as a principle, is simply this : If one man chooses to make a slave of an- >ther man, neither that man or any body else has a right to object. Apply it to Gov- ;rnment, as he seeks to apply it, and it is this : if, in a new Territory, into which a ew people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they choose o either exclude slavery from their limits, or to establish it there, however one or he other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of Mirsons who are afterward to inhabit that Territory, or the other members of the fara- ly of communities, of which they are but an incipient member, or the general head if the family of States as parent of all — however their action may affect one or the tther of these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas's Popular Sovereignty applied. Now I think that there is a real Popular Sovereignfy in the worid. think a definition of Popular Sovereignty, in the abstract, would be about this hat each man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things vhich exclusively concern him. Applied in government, this principle would b'e, hat a general government shall do all those things which' pertain to it, and all the ocal governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to those matters which ixclusively concern them. Douglas looks upon slavery as so insignificant that the people must decide that [uestion for themselves, and yet they are not fit to decide who shall be their Gover- lor, Judge or Secretary, or who shall be any of their officers. These are vast na- ional matters, in his estimation, l)ut the little matter in his estimation is that of plant- 26T ing slavery there. That is purely of local interest, which nobody should be allowed to say a word about. Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn. There is a diiference in opinion about the elements of labor in society. Some men assume that there is a necessary connection between capital and labor, and that connection draws within it the whole of the labor of the commu- nity. They assume that nobody works unless capital excites them to work. ^ They begin next to consider what is the best way. They say there are but two ways ; one is to hire men and to allure them to labor by their consent ; the other is to buy the men and drive them to it, and that is slavery. Having assumed that, they proceed to discuss the question of whether the laborers themselves are better off in the con- dition of slaves or of hired laborers, and they usually decide that they are better off in the condition of slaves. In the first place, I say that the whole thing is a mistake. That there is a certain relation between capital and labor, I admit. That it does exist, and rightfully exists, I think is true. That men who are industrious, and sober, and honest in the pursuit of their own interests should after a while accumulate capital, and after that should be allowed to enjoy it in peace, and also if they should choose, when they have accumula- ted it, to use it to save themselves from actual labor and hire other people to labor for them, is right. In doing so they do not wrong the man they employ, for they find men who have not of their own land to work upon, or shops to work in, and who are benefited by working for others, hired laborers, receiving their capital for it. Thus a few men that own capital, hire a few others, and these establish the relation of capital and labor rightfully. A relation of which I make no complaint. But I insist that that relation after all does not embrace more than one-eighth of the labor of the country. [The speaker proceeded to argue that the hired laborer, wdth his ability to become an employer, must have every precedence over him who labors under the inducement of force.- He continued :] I have taken upon myself in the name of some of you to say, that we expect upon these principles to ultimately beat them. In order to do so, I think Ave want and must have a national policy in regard to the institution of slavery, that acknowl- edges and deals with that institution as being wrong. Whoever desires the preven- tion of the spread of slavery and the nationalization of that institution, yields all, when he yields to any policy that either recognizes slavery as being right, or as being an indifferent thing. Nothing will make you successful but setting up a policy which shall treat the thing as being wrong. When I say this, I do not mean to say that this General Government is charged with the duty of redressing or preventing all the wrongs in the world ; but I do think that it is charged wath preventing and redress- ing all wrongs w^hich are wrongs to itself. This Government is expressly charged with the duty of providing for the general welfare. We believe that the spreading out and perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe — nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has ever threatened the per- petuity of the Union itself. The only thing which has ever menaced the destruction of the government under which we live, is this very thing. To repress this thinf, we think, is providing for the general welfare. Our friends in Kentucky differ from us. We need not make our argument for them, but we who think it is wron<>- in all its relations, or in some of them at least, must decide as to our own actions, and our own course, upon our own judgment. I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists, because the Constitution forbids it, and the general welfiire does not require us to do so. We must not withhold an efiicient Fugitive Slave law because the Con stitution requires us, as I understand it, not to withhold such a law. But we must prevent the outspreading of the institution, because neither the Constitution nor gen- eral welfare requires us to extend it. We must prevent the revival of the African s^ave-trade, and the enacting by Congress of a Territorial slave code. We must pre- 268 vent each of these things being done by either congresses or courts. The f eopleof these United States are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts, not to over- tlirow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitutiofl.- To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. "We must hold conventions ; we must adopt platforms, if we conform to ordinary custom ; we must nominate can- didates, and we must carry elections. In all these things, I think that we ought to keep in view our real purpose, and in none do any thing that stands adverse to our purpose. If we shall adopt a platform that fails to recognize or express our purpose, or elect a man that declares himself inimical to our purpose, we not only take noth- ing by our success, but we tacitly admit that we act upon no other principle than a de- sirs to have " the loaves and fishes," by which, in the end, our aj)parent success is really an injury to us. I know that this is very desirable with me, as with every body else, that all -the elements of the Opposition shall unite in the next Presidential election and in all fu- ture time. I am anxious that that should be, but there are tilings seriously to be considered in relation to that matter. If the terms can be arranged, I am in favor of the Union. But suppose we shall take up some man and put him upon one end or the other of the ticket, who declares himself against us in regard to the prevention of the spread of slavery — who turns up his nose and says he is tired of hearing any thing more about it, who is more against us than against the enemy, what will be the issue ? Why, he will get no slave States after all — he has tried that already un- til being beat is the rule for him. If we nominate him upon that ground, he Avill not carry a slave State, and not only so, but that portion of our men who are high- strung upon the principle we really fight for, will not go for him, and he won't get a single electoral vote any where, except, perhaps, in the State of Maryland. There is no use in saying to us that we are stubborn and obstinate, because we won't do some such thing as this. We cannot do it. We cannot get our men to vote it. I speak by the card, that we cannot give the State of Illinois in such case by fifty thou- sand. We would be flatter down than the " Negro Democracy " themselves have the heart to wish to see us. After saying this much, let me say a little on the other side. There are plenty of men in the slave States that are altogether good enough forme to be either President or Vice President, provided they will profess their sympathy with our purpose, and ••ill place themselves on the ground that our men, upon principle, can vote for them. There are scores of them, good men in their character for intelligence and talent and integrity. If such a one will place himself upon the right ground, I am for his oc- cupying one place upon the next Republican or Opposition ticket. I will heartily go for him. Bat, unless he does so place himself, I think it a matter of perfect non- sense to attempt to bring about a. union upon any other Jjasis ; that if a union be made, the elements will scatter so that there can be no success for such a ticket, nor any thing like success. The good old maxims of the Bible are applicable, and truly applicable, to human affairs, and in this, as in other things, we may say here that he who is not for us is against us ; he who gathereth not with us scattereth. I should be glad to have some of the many good, and able, and noble men of the South to place themselves where we can confer upon them the high honor of an election upon one or the other end of our ticket. It would do my soul good to do that thing. It would enable us to teach them that, inasmuch as we select one of their own number to carry out our principles, we are free from the charge that we mean more than we say. But, my friends, I have detained you much longer than I expected to do. I believe I may do myself the compliment to say that you have stayed and heard me with great patience, for which I return you my most sincere thanks. v f.A^.^'j^y"^^-' X