Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln ANNIVERSARY EDITION This Edition is limited to one thousand numbered and registered sets. Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln Edited by JOHN G. NlCOLAY and JOHN HAY With a General Introduction by RICHARD WATSON GILDER, and Special Articles by OTHER EMINENT PERSONS New and Enlarged Edition VOLUME IV New York THE LAMB PUBLISHING COMPANY Copyright, 1894, by JOHN G. NICOLAY and JOHN HAY Copyright, 1905, by FRANCIS D. TANDY The Greatness of Lincoln/ THERE are subjects upon which nothing new can be said, but which still arouse the fervor awakened at their first enunciation. If the song was true when it started on its journey it will be sung as long as human hearts vibrate and tongues retain the gift of speech. It will be lisped by those who are tottering on toward the end, and echoed by those whose hearts are filled with the promise and the glow of youth. If the product was genuine when it passed from the Creator s hand it will neither be dimmed by age nor cheapened by familiarity: for honor is not decreased by con tact, and truth is never out of tune. If none of the old stories are ever to be re-told, many a noble inspiration must be lost, and many a tender chord must remain untouched. This is the age, I know, when the search is at its height for the new and marvelous, and in this eagerness the primeval forests are swept away, the bowels of the earth are punctured, and even *An address delivered before the Republican Club of New York City, February 12, 1903. vi The Greatness of Lincoln on the remotest sea the observant eye detects the flutter of a sail. The watchword is energy, the goal is success, but in the fever of modern enter prise a moment s rest can do no harm. We must not only acquire, we must retain. We must not only learn, we must remember. The newest is not always the best. The date or lustre of the coin does not determine its metal. The sub stance may be plain and unobtrusive, and still be gold. Whoever chooses without a proper test may die both a pauper and a fool. The paint ings of recent times have evoked the praise of critics, and yet thousands still pay their homage to an older genius. Modern literature is ablaze with beauty and with power, and yet millions are still going to one old and thumbworn text for their final consolation. Remembering the force of these examples, it will be profitable sometimes to step one side for the serious contemplation of rugged, lasting qualities in whatever age or garb they haye ap peared. The hero of an hour will pass as quickly as he came. The flashlight will dazzle and blind, but when the eyes are rubbed the im pression has passed away, but the landscape that comes slowly into view with the rising sun, growing more resplendent and distinct with his ascending power, and fading gently from the vision at the approach of night, will remain in The Greatness of Lincoln vii the mind forever to illuminate, to strengthen and to cheer. And men are like impressions. There are more examples of the flashlight kind than there are fireflies on a summer s night, but there is no nobler representative of the endur ing and immortal than he in whose name this event is celebrated. 1 Whoever imparts a new view of his character must tell it to the newborn, to whom all things are new, for to the intelligent and mature his name and virtues have been long familiar. His was the power that commanded admiration and the humanity that invited love ; mild but inflexible, just but merciful, great but simple, he possessed a head that commanded men and a heart that attracted babes. His con science was strong enough to bear continual use. It was not alone for public occasions nor great emergencies. It was never a capital, but al ways a chart. It was never his servant, to be dismissed at will, but his companion to be al ways at his side. It was with him, but never behind him, for he knew that a pursuing con science is an accuser, and not a guide, and brings remorse instead of comfort. He wore the crown of power with justice, reason and mercy, and faced defeat with humil ity and courage. His greatness did not depend upon his title, 1 Lincoln s birthday. viii The Greatness of Lincoln for greatness was his when the title was bestowed. He leaned upon no fiction of nobility, and kissed no hand to obtain his rank, but the stamp of nobility and power which he wore was conferred upon him in that log hut in Kentucky, that day in 1809, when he and Nancy Hanks were first seen there together, and it was conferred by a power which, unlike earthly potentates, never confers a title without a character that will adorn it. When we understand the tremendous advantages of a humble birth, when we realize that the privations of youth are the pillars of strength to maturer years, then we shall cease to wonder that out of such obscure surroundings as watched the coming of Abraham Lincoln should spring the colossal and supreme figure of modern history. Groves are better than temples, fields are bet ter than gorgeous carpetings, rail fences are bet ter than lines of kneeling slaves, and the winds are better than music if you are raising heroes and founding governments. Those who understand these things and have felt the heart of nature beat will not wonder that this man could stand the shock and fury of war, and yet maintain that calm serenity which enabled him to hear above the roar of the storm that enveloped him, the low, smothered cry that demanded the freedom of a race. The Greatness of Lincoln ix If you look for attributes that dazzle and be wilder you must seek them elsewhere than in the character of Abraham Lincoln. It was not by show or glitter or by sound that the great moments of history were marked and the great deeds of mankind were wrought. The color counts for nothing; it is the fibre alone that lasts. The precept will be forgotten unless the deed is remembered. The wildest strains of martial music will pass away on the wind, while the grim and deadly courage of the soldier, moving and acting without a word, will mark the spot where pilgrims of every race will linger and worship forever. No character in the world more clearly saw the worth of substance and the mockery of show, and no career ever set in such everlasting light and doctrine, that although vanity and pretense may flourish for a day, there can be no lasting triumph not founded on the truth. The life of Lincoln moved upon that high, consistent plane which the surroundings of his youth inspired. Poverty is a hard but often times a loving nurse. If fortune denies the lux uries of wealth, she makes generous compensa tion in that greater love which they alone can know who have faced privations together. The child may shiver in the fury of the blast which no maternal tenderness can shield him from, but x The Greatness of Lincoln he may feel a helpless tear drop upon his cheek which will keep him warm till the snows of time have covered his hair. It is not wealth that counts in the making of the world, but character. And character is best formed amid those sur roundings where every waking hour is filled with struggle, where no flag of truce is ever sent, and only darkness stays the conflict. Give me the hut that is small enough, the poverty that is deep enough, the love that is great enough, and I will raise from them the best there is in human character. This lad, uncouth and poor r without aid or ac cidental circumstance, rising as steadily as the sun, marked a path across the sky so luminous and clear that there is not one to mate it to be discovered in the heavens, and throughout its whole majestic length there is no spot or blem ish in it. The love of justice and fair play, and that respect for order and the law, which must un derlie every nation that would long endure, were deeply embedded in his nature. These I know are qualities destitute of show and whose names are never set to music, but unless there is in the people s heart a deep sense of their everlasting value, that people will neither command respect in times of their prosperity nor sympathy in the hour of their decay. These are the qualities that The Greatness of Lincoln xi stand the test when hurricanes sweep by. These are the joints of oak that ride the storm and when the clouds have melted and the waves are still, move on serenely in their course. Times will come when nothing but the best can save us. Without warning and without cause, out of a clear and smiling sky may descend the bolt that will scatter the weaker qualities to the winds. We have seen that bolt descend. There is dan ger at such a time. The hurricane will pass like the rushing of the sea. Then is the time to de termine whether governments can stand amid such perilous surroundings. The American character has been often proved superior to any test. No danger can be so great and no calamity so sudden as to throw it off its guard. This great strength in times of trial, and this self-restraint in times of wild ex citement have been attained by years of train ing, precept and experience. Justice has so often emerged triumphant from obstacles which seemed to chain her limbs and make the right eous path impossible, that there is now rooted in the American heart, the faith that no mat ter how dark the night, there will somehow break through at the appointed hour, a light which shall reveal to eager eyes the upright forms of Justice and the law, still moving hand in hand, still supreme over chaos and despair, xii The Greatness of Lincoln the image and the substance of the world s sub lime reliance. I should not try, if all the time were mine, to present Lincoln as an orator, a lawyer, a statesman or a politician. His name and his performances in the lines which he pursued have been cut into the rock of American history with the deepest chisel yet made use of on this continent. But it is not by the grandeur of his powers that he has most appealed to me, but rather by those softer, homelier traits that bring him down to a closer and more affectionate view. The mountain that crowds its summit to the clouds is never so magnificent to the observer on the plain below, as when by some clear and kindly light its smaller outlines are revealed. And Lincoln was never more imposing than when the milder attributes of his nature were exposed. He was genuine ; he was affectionate ; and after all is said and the end is reached, what is there without these two? You may measure the heights and sound the depths ; you may gain the great rewards of power and renown; you may quiver under the electric current of applause the time will come when these will fall from you like the rags that cover your body. The robes of power and the husks of pretense will alike be stripped away, and you must stand at The Greatness of Lincoln xiii the end as you stood at the beginning, revealed. Under such a test Abraham Lincoln might stand erect, for no man loved the humbler, nobler traits more earnestly than he. Whatever he pre tended to be, he was; genuine and sincere, he did not need embellishment. There is nothing in the world which needs so little decoration or which can so well afford to spurn it altogether as the absolutely genuine. Imitations are likely to be exposed unless care fully ornamented. Too much embellishment generally covers a blemish in the construction. It therefore happens that the first rate invariably rejects adornment and the second rate invariably puts it on. The difference between the two can be dis covered at short range, and safety from exposure lies only in imperfect examination. If the vis ion is clear and the inspection careful, there is no chance for the sham ever to be taken for the genuine, and that is why it happens that among all the forms of activity in this very active age, no struggle is more sharp than that of the first rate to be found out and of the second not to be. It is easier to conceal what a thing is than to prove it to be what it is not. One requires only concealment, the other demonstration. Sooner or later the truth will appear. Some time the decorations will fall off, and then the blemish xiv The Greatness of Lincoln will appear greater because of the surprise at finding it. None have less to fear from such a test than Abraham Lincoln, and his strength in that re gard arose, it seems to me, from the preservation through all his life of that fondness for his early home, of the tender recollections of his family and their struggles, which kept his sympathy al ways warm and young. He was never so great but that the ties of his youth still bound him. He was never so far away but that he could still hear the note of the evening bird in the groves of his nativity. They say the tides of the ocean ebb and flow by a force which, though remote, always retains its power. And so with this man, whether he rose or fell ; whether he stood in that giant-like repose that distinguished him among his fellow- men, or exercised those unequaled powers, which, to my mind, made him the foremost figure of the world, yet he always felt the ten der and invisible chord that chained him to his native rock. In whatever field he stood he felt the benign and sobering influences of his early recollections. They were the rock to which he clung in storms, the anchor which kept his head to the wind, the balm which sustained him in defeat and ennobled him in the hour of triumph. I shall not say he had his faults, for is there The Greatness of Lincoln xv any hope that man will pass through this vale of tears without them? Is there any danger that his fellowmen will fail to detect and proclaim them? He was not small in anything. He was carved in deep lines, like all heroic figures, for dangerous altitudes and great purposes. And as we move away from him, and years and events pass between us, his form will still be vis ible and distinct, for such characters built upon courage and faith, and that affection which is the seed of both, are not the plaything, but the masters of time. How long the names of men will last no hu man foresight can discover, but I believe that even against the havoc and confusion in which so many names go down, the fame of Lincoln will stand as immovable and as long as the pyra mids against the rustle of the Egyptian winds. Lincoln. 1 BY PAUL LAURENCE DUNBAR Hurt was the Nation with a mighty wound, And all her ways were filled with clam rous sound. Wailed loud the South with unremitting grief, And wept the North that could not find relief. Then madness joined its harshest tone to strife : A minor note swelled in the song of life Till, stirring with the love that filled his breast, But still, unflinching at the Right s behest Grave Lincoln came, strong-handed, from afar, The mighty Homer of the lyre of war! Twas he who bade the raging tempest cease, Wrenched from his strings the harmony of peace, Muted the strings that made the discord, Wrong, And gave his spirit up in thunderous song. Oh, mighty Master of the mighty lyre ! Earth heard and trembled at thy strains of fire: Earth learned of thee what Heav n already knew, And wrote thee down among her treasured few! "The Memory of Lincoln," copyrighted, 1899, by Small, Maynard and Co. xvii Illustrations ABRAHAM LINCOLN Frontispiece Photogravure from photograph by Brady in New York in 1860 PAGE JOHN BROWN 30 Wood-engraving from a photograph by J. W. Black & Co. GLOBE TAVERN, SPRINGFIELD, ILL 88 From the original photograph in the possession of the O. H. Oldroyd Lincoln Memorial Collection, Washington, D. C. SALMON P. CHASE 224 Wood-engraving from the original photograph by Bendann. LINCOLN S LETTER TO T. J. PICKETT, APRIL 16, 1859 334 Fac -simile of the original letter. Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln Volume IV [Sept. Oct. 1858] Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln THIRD JOINT DEBATE, AT JONESBORO, ILLINOIS, September 15, 1858. Mr. Douglas s Opening Speech. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I ap pear before you to-day in pursuance of a previous notice, and have made ar rangements with Mr. Lincoln to divide time, and discuss with him the leading political topics that now agitate the country. Prior to 1854 tms country was divided into two great political parties known as Whig and Democratic. These parties differed from each other on certain questions which were then deemed to be important to the best interests of the republic. Whigs and Democrats differed about a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the subtreasury. On those issues we went before the country, and discussed the 2 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 principles, objects, and measures of the two great parties. Each of the parties could proclaim its principles in Louisiana as well as in Massachu setts, in Kentucky as well as in Illinois. Since that period, a great revolution has taken place in the formation of parties, by which they now seem to be divided by a geographical line, a large party in the North being arrayed under the Abolition or Republican banner, in hostility to the Southern States, Southern people, and Southern institutions. It becomes important for us to inquire how this transformation of par ties has occurred, made from those of national principles to geographical factions. You re member that in 1850 this country was agitated from its center to its circumference about this slavery question it became necessary for the leaders of the great Whig party and the leaders of the great Democratic party to postpone for the time being their particular disputes, and unite first to save the Union before they should quarrel as to the mode in which it was to be governed. During the Congress of 1849-50, Henry Clay was the leader of the Union men, supported by Cass and Webster, and the leaders of the Democracy and the leaders of the Whigs, in opposition to Northern Abolitionists or Southern Disunionists. The great contest of 1850 resulted in the establishment of the com- 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 3 promise measures of that year, which measures rested on the great principle that the people of each State and each Territory of this Union ought to be permitted to regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject to no other limitation than that which the Fed eral Constitution imposes. I now wish to ask you whether that principle was right or wrong which guaranteed to every State and every community the right to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves. These measures were adopted, as I have previously said, by the joint action of the Union Whigs and Union Democrats in op position to Northern Abolitionists and South ern Disunionists. In 1858, when the Whig par ty assembled at Baltimore in national conven tion for the last time, they adopted the princi ple of the compromise measures of 1850 as their rule of party action in the future. One month thereafter the Democrats assembled at the same place to nominate a candidate for the presi dency, and declared the same great principle as the rule of action by which the Democracy would be governed. The presidential election of 1852 was fought on that basis. It is true that the Whigs claimed special merit for the adop tion of those measures, because they asserted that their great Clay originated them, their god- 4 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 like Webster defended them, and their Fillmore signed the bill making them the law of the land ; but on the other hand, the Democrats claimed special credit for the Democracy upon the ground that we gave twice as many votes in both houses of Congress for the passage of these meas ures as the Whig party. Thus you see that in the presidential election of 1852 the Whigs were pledged by their plat form and their candidate to the principle of the compromise measures of 1850, and the Democ racy were likewise pledged by our principles, our platform, and our candidate to the same line of policy, to preserve peace and quiet between the different sections of this Union. Since that period the Whig party has been transformed into a sectional party, under the name of the Republican party, whilst the Democratic party continues the same national party it was at that day. All sectional men, all men of Abolition senti ments and principles, no matter whether they were old Abolitionists or had been Whigs or Democrats, rally under the sectional Repub lican banner, and consequently all national men, all Union-loving men, whether Whigs, Demo crats, or by whatever name they have been known, ought to rally under the Stars and Stripes in defense of the Constitution as our Speech at Jonesboro 5 fathers made it, and of the Union as it has ex isted under the Constitution. How has this departure from the faith of the Democracy and the faith of the Whig party been accomplished? In 185^, certain restless, ambitious, and disappointed politicians through out the land took advantage of the temporary excitement created by the Nebraska bill to try and dissolve the Old Whig party and the old Democratic party, to Abolitionize their mem bers, and lead them, bound hand and foot, cap tives into the Abolition camp. In the State of New York a convention was held by some of these men, and a platform adopted, every plank of which was as black as night, each one relating to the negro, and not one referring to the inter ests of the white man. That example was fol lowed throughout the Northern States, the ef fort being made to combine all the free States in hostile array against the slave States. The men who thus thought that they could build up a great sectional party, and through its organi zation control the political destinies of this coun try, based all their hopes on the single fact that the North was the stronger division of the na tion, and hence, if the North could be combined against the South, a sure victory awaited their efforts. I am doing no more than justice to the truth of history when I say that in this State 6 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 Abraham Lincoln, on behalf of the Whigs, and Lyman Trumbull, on behalf of the Democrats, were the leaders who undertook to perform this grand scheme of Abolitionizing the two parties to which they belonged. They had a private arrangement as to what should be the political destiny of each of the contracting parties before they went into the operation. The arrangement was that Mr. Lincoln was to take the old-line Whigs with him, claiming that he was still as good a Whig as ever, over to the Abolitionists, and Mr. Trumbull was to run for Congress in the Belleville district, and, claiming to be a good Democrat, coax the old Democrats into the Abolition camp, and when, by the joint ef forts of the Abolitionized Whigs, the Abolition- ized Democrats, and the old-line Abolition and Free-soil party of this State, they should secure a majority in the legislature, Lincoln was then to be made United States senator in Shields s place, Trumbull remaining in Congress until I should be accommodating enough to die or re sign, and give him a chance to follow Lincoln. That was a very nice little bargain so far as Lincoln and Trumbull were concerned, if it had been carried out in good faith, and friend Lincoln had attained to senatorial dignity ac cording to contract. They went into the con test in every part of the State, calling upon all 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 7 disappointed politicians to join in the crusade against the Democracy, and appealed to the pre vailing sentiments and prejudices in all the northern counties of the State. In three con gressional districts in the north end of the State they adopted, as the platform of this new party thus formed by Lincoln and Trumbull in con nection with the Abolitionists, all of those prin ciples which aimed at a warfare on the part of the North against the South. They declared in that platform that the Wilmot proviso was to be applied to all the Territories of the United States, North as well as South of 36 degrees 30 minutes, and not only to all the territory we then had, but all that we might hereafter ac quire; that hereafter no more slave States should be admitted into this Union, even if the people of such States desired slavery; that the fugitive- slave law should be absolutely and uncondition ally repealed; that slavery, should be abolished in the District of Columbia ; that the slave-trade should be abolished between the different States, and, in fact, every article in their creed related to this slavery question, and pointed to a North ern geographical party in hostility to the South ern States of this Union. Such were their principles in northern Illi nois. A little further south they became bleached and grew paler just in proportion as 8 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 public sentiment moderated and changed in this direction. There were Republicans or Aboli tionists in the North, anti-Nebraska men down about Springfield, and in this neighborhood they contented themselves with talking about the inexpediency of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. In the extreme northern coun ties they brought out men to canvass the State whose complexion suited their political creed, and hence Fred Douglass, the negro, was to be found there, following General Cass, and at tempting to speak on behalf of Lincoln, Trum- bull, and Abolitionism, against that illustrious senator. Why, they brought Fred Douglass to Freeport, when I was addressing a meeting there, in a carriage driven by the white owner, the negro sitting inside with the white lady and her daughter. When I got through canvassing the northern counties that year, and progressed as far south as Springfield, I was met and op posed in discussion by Lincoln, Lovejoy, Trum- bull, and Sidney Breese, who were on one side. Father Giddings, the high priest of Abolition ism, had just been there, and Chase came about the time I left. ["Why didn t you shoot him?"] I did take a running shot at them, but as I was single-handed against the white, black, and mixed drove, I had to use a shot-gun and fire into the crowd instead of taking them off 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 9 singly with a rifle. Trumbull had for his lieu tenants in aiding him to Abolitionize the De mocracy, such men as John Wentworth of Chi cago, Governor Reynolds of Belleville, Sidney Breese of Carlisle, and John Dougherty of Union, each of whom modified his opinions to suit the locality he was in. Dougherty, for in stance, would not go much further than to talk about the inexpediency of the Nebraska bill, whilst his allies at Chicago advocated negro citizenship and negro equality, putting the white man and the negro on the same basis un der the law. Now these men, four years ago, were engaged in a conspiracy to break down the Democracy; to-day they are again acting to gether for the same purpose! They do not hoist the same flag; they do not own the same princi ples, or profess the same faith; but conceal their union for the sake of policy. In the northern counties you find that all the conventions are called in the name of the Black Republican party; at Springfield they dare not call a Republican convention, but invite all the enemies of the Democracy to unite, and when they get down into Egypt, Trumbull issues notices calling upon the "Free Democracy" to assemble and hear him speak. I have one of the hand-bills calling a Trumbull meeting at Water- io Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 loo the other day, which I received there, which is in the following language : A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place in Waterloo, on Monday, Sept. I3th inst., whereat Hon. Lyman Trumbull, Hon. Jehu Baker, and others will address the people upon the different political topics of the day. Members of all parties are cor dially invited to be present and hear and determine for themselves. THE MONROE FREE DEMOCRACY. What is that name of "Free Democrats" put forth for unless to deceive the people, and make them believe that Trumbull and his followers are not the same party as that which raises tfie black flag of Abolitionism in the northern part of this State, and makes war upon the Demo cratic party throughout the State. When I put that question to them at Waterloo on Saturday last, one of them rose and stated that they had changed their name for political effect in order to get votes. There was a candid admission. Their object in changing their party organiza tion and principles in different localities was avowed to be an attempt to cheat and deceive some portion of the people until after the elec tion. Why cannot a political party that is con scious of the rectitude of its purposes and the soundness of its principles declare them every- 1858] Speech at Jonesboro n where alike? I would disdain to hold any po litical principles that I could not avow in the same terms in Kentucky that I declared in Illi nois, in Charleston as well as in Chicago, in New Orleans as well as in New York. So long as we live under a constitution common to all the States, our political faith ought to be as broad, as liberal, and just as that constitution itself, and should be proclaimed alike in every portion of the Union. But it is apparent that our opponents find it necessary, for partizan effect, to change their colors in different coun ties in order to catch the popular breeze, and hope with these discordant materials combined together to secure a majority in the legislature for the purpose of putting down the Democratic party. This combination did succeed in 1854 so far as to elect a majority of their confeder ates to the legislature, and the first important act which they performed was to elect a senator in the place of the eminent and gallant Senator Shields. His term expired in the United States Senate at that time, and he had to be crushed by the Abolition coalition for the simple reason that he would not join in their conspiracy to wage war against one half of the Union. That was the only objection to General Shields. He had served the people of the State with ability in the legislature, he had served you with fidel- \ 12 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 ity and ability as auditor, he had performed his duties to the satisfaction of the whole coun try at the head of the Land Department at Washington, he had covered the State and the Union with immortal glory on the bloody fields of Mexico in defense of the honor of our flag, and yet he had to be stricken down by this un holy combination. And for what cause? Merely because he would not join a combination of one half of the States to make war upon the other half, after having poured out his heart s blood for all the States in the Union. Trum- bull was put in his place by Abolitionism. How did Trumbull get there? Before the Abolitionists would consent to go into an election for United States senator, they required all the members of this new combina tion to show their hands upon this question of Abolitionism. Lovejoy, one of their high priests, brought in resolutions defining the Abol ition creed, and required them to commit them selves on it by their votes yea or nay. In that creed as laid down by Lovejoy, they declared first, that the Wilmot proviso must be put on all the Territories of the United States, north as well as south of 36 degrees 30 minutes, and that no more territory should ever be acquired unless slavery was at first prohibited therein; second, that no more States should ever be received into 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 13 the Union unless slavery was first prohibited, by constitutional provision, in such States; third, that the fugitive-slave law must be immediately repealed, or, failing in that, then such amend ments were to be made to it as would render it useless and inefficient for the objects for which it was passed, etc. The next day after these resolutions were offered they were voted upon, part of them carried, and the others defeated, the same men who voted for them, with only two exceptions, voting soon after for Abraham Lin coln as their candidate for the United States Senate. He came within one or two votes of being elected, but he could not quite get the number required, for the simple reason that his friend Trumbull, who was a party to the bar gain by which Lincoln was to take Shield s place, controlled a few Abolitionized Demo crats in the legislature, and would not allow them all to vote for him, thus wronging Lin coln by permitting him on each ballot to be almost elected, but not quite, until he forced them to drop Lincoln and elect him (Trum bull), in order to unite the party. Thus you find that although the legislature was carried that year by the bargain between Trumbull, Lincoln, and the Abolitionists, and the union of these discordant elements in one harmonious party, yet Trumbull violated his pledge, and H Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 played a Yankee trick on Lincoln when they came to divide the spoils. Perhaps you would like a little evidence on this point. If you would, I will call Colonel James H. Matheny of Springfield, to the stand, Mr. Lincoln s especial confidential frierad for the last twenty years, and see what he will say upon the subject of this bargain. Matheny is now the Black Re publican or Abolition candidate for Congress in the Springfield district against the gallant Colonel Harris, and is making speeches all over that part of the State against me and in favor of Lincoln, in concert with Trumbull. He ought to be a good witness, and I will read an extract from a speech which he made in 1856, when he was mad because his friend Lincoln had been cheated. It is one of numerous speeches of the same tenor that were made about that time, ex posing this bargain between Lincoln, Trumbull, and the Abolitionists. Matheny then said: 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 : First, that they would all combine and elect Mr. Trumbull to Congress, and thereby carry his district for the legislature, in order to throw all the strength that could be obtained into that body against the Democrats; second, that when the legis lature should meet, the officers of that body, such as 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 15 speaker, clerks, doorkeepers, etc., would be given to the Abolitionists; and third, 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 Abolitionists got all the officers of that body, and thus far the " bond " was fairly executed. The Whigs, on their part, demanded the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that the bond might be fulfilled, the other parties to the contract having already secured to themselves all that was called for. But, in the most perfidious manner, they refused to elect Mr. Lincoln; and the mean, low-lived, sneaking Trumbull succeeded, by pledging all that was required by any party, in thrusting Lin coln 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. Matheny thought his friend Lincoln made a bad bargain when he conspired and contracted with such rogues as Trumbull and his Abolition associates in that campaign. Lincoln was shoved off the track, and he and his friends all at once began to mope; became sour and mad, and disposed to tell, but dare not; and thus they stood for a long time, until the Abolitionists coaxed and flattered him back by their assur ances that he should certainly be a senator in 1 6 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 Douglas s place. In that way the Abolitionists have been able to hold Lincoln to the alliance up to this time, and now they have brought him into a fight against me, and he is to see if he is again to be cheated by them. Lincoln this time, though, required more of them than a promise, and holds their bond, if not security, that Lovejoy shall not cheat him as Trumbull did. When the Republican convention assembled at Springfield in June last, for the purpose of nominating State officers only, the Abolitionists could not get Lincoln and his friends into it until they would pledge themselves that Lincoln should be their candidate for the Senate; and you will find, in proof of this, that that conven tion passed a resolution unanimously declaring that Abraham Lincoln was the "first, last, and only choice" of the Republicans for United States senator. He was not willing to have it understood that he was merely their first choice, or their last choice, but their only choice. The Black Republican party had nobody else. Browning was nowhere; Governor Bissell was of no account; Archie Williams was not to be taken into consideration; John Wentworth was not worth mentioning; John M. Palmer was degraded; and their party presented the extra ordinary spectacle of having but one the first, 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 17 the last, and only choice for the Senate. Sup pose that Lincoln should die, what a horrible condition the Republican party would be in! They would have nobody left. They have no other choice, and it was necessary for them to put themselves before the world in this ludi crous, ridiculous attitude of having no other choice in order to quiet Lincoln s suspicions, and assure him that he was not to be cheated by Lovejoy, and the trickery by which Trum- bull out-generaled him. Well, gentlemen, I think they will have a nice time of it before they get through. I do not intend to give them any chance to cheat Lincoln at all this time. I intend to relieve him of all anxiety upon that subject, and spare them the mortification of more exposures of contracts violated, and the pledged honor of rogues forfeited. But I wish to invite your attention to the chief points at issue between Mr. Lincoln and myself in this discussion. Mr. Lincoln, know ing that he was to be the candidate of his party on account of the arrangement of which I have already spoken, knowing that he was to receive the nomination of the convention for the United States Senate, had his speech, accepting that nomination, all written and committed to mem ory, ready to be delivered the moment the nomi nation was announced. Accordingly when it 1 8 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 was made he was in readiness and delivered his speech, a portion of which I will read in order that I may state his political principles fairly, by repeating them in his own language : We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed object, and with the confident promise of putting an end to slavery agita tion; under the operation of that policy, that agita tion has not only not ceased, but has constantly aug mented. I believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. " A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this govern ment 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 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 for ward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, North as well as South. There you have Mr. Lincoln s first and main proposition, upon which he bases his claims, stated in his own language. He tells you that this republic cannot endure permanently di vided into slave and free States, as our fathers made it. He says that they must all become free or all become slave, that they must all be 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 19 one thing or all be the other, or this government cannot last. Why can it not last, if we will exe cute the government in the same spirit and upon the same principles upon which it is founded? Lincoln, by his proposition, says to the South, "If you desire to maintain your institutions as they are now, you must not be satisfied with minding your own business, but you must invade Illinois and all the other Northern States, es tablish slavery in them, and make it universal" ; and in the same language he says to the North, "You must not be content with regulating your own affairs, and minding your own business, but if you desire to maintain your freedom, you must invade the Southern States, abolish slavery there and everywhere, in order to have the States all one thing or all the other." I say that this is the inevitable and irresistible result of Mr. Lin coln s argument, inviting a warfare between the North and the South, to be carried on with ruth less vengeance, until the one section or the other shall be driven to the wall, and become the vic tim of the rapacity of the other. What good would follow such a system of warfare? Sup pose the North should succeed in conquering the South, how much would she be the gainer? or suppose the South should conquer the North, could the Union be preserved in that way? Is this sectional warfare to be waged between 20 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 Northern States and Southern States until they all shall become uniform in their local and do mestic institutions merely because Mr. Lincoln says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and pretends that this scriptural quota tion, this language of our Lord and Master, is applicable to the American Union and the American Constitution? Washington and his compeers, in the convention that framed the Constitution, made this government divided into free and slave States. It was composed then of thirteen sovereign and independent States, each having sovereign authority over its local and domestic institutions, and all bound together by the Federal Constitution. Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the Federal Constitution, joining free and slave States together, to a house divided against itself, and says that it is contrary to the law of God and cannot stand. When did he learn, and by what authority does he proclaim, that this government is contrary to the law of God and cannot stand? It has stood thus di vided into free and slave States from its organi zation 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 Missis sippi to the Pacific ocean; we have acquired the Floridas and Texas, and other territory suffi- 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 21 cient to double our geographical extent; we have increased in population, in wealth, and in power beyond any example on earth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power to become the terror and admiration of the civilized world; and all this has been done under a Constitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says is in vio lation 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 government. Washington did not believe, nor did his compatriots, that the local laws and domestic institutions that were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Ver mont 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, uniformity in the local laws and domes tic institutions was either desirable or possible. They believed then, as our experience has proved to us now, that each locality, having different interests, a different climate, and dif ferent surroundings, required different local laws, local policy, and local institutions, adapted to the wants of that locality. Thus our govern ment was formed on the principle of diversity 22 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 in the local institutions and laws, and not on that of uniformity. As my time flies, I can only glance at these points and not present them as fully as I would wish, because I desire to bring all the points in controversy between the two parties before you in order to have Mr. Lincoln s reply. He makes war on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case known as the Dred Scott case. I wish to say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no war to make on that decision, or any other ever rendered by the Supreme Court. I am content to take that decision as it stands deliv ered 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 like it or not. Hence I do not choose to go into an argument to prove, before this audience, whether or not Chief Justice Taney understood the law better than Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln objects to that decision, first and mainly because it deprives the negro of the rights of citizenship. I am as much opposed to his reason for that objection as I am to the objection itself. I hold that a negro is not and never ought to be a citizen of the United States. 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 23 I hold that this government was made on the white basis, by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men, and none others. I do not believe that the Almighty made the negro capable of self-government. I am aware that all the Abolition 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 equal and endowed by their Creator with cer tain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. Lin coln is very much in the habit of following in the track of Lovejoy in this particular, by read ing that part of the Declaration of Independ ence to prove that the negro was endowed by the Almighty with the inalienable right of equality with white men. Now, I say to you, my fellow-citizens, that in my opinion the sign ers of the Declaration had no reference to the negro whatever, when they declared all men to be created equal. They desired to express by that phrase white men, men of European birth and European descent, and had no reference either to the negro, the savage Indians, the Fee- jee, the Malay, or any other inferior and de graded race, when they spoke of the equality of men. One great evidence that such was their 24 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 understanding, is to be found in the fact that at that time every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding colony, every signer of the Declaration represented a slaveholding constit uency, and we know that no one of them emanci pated his slaves, much less offered citizenship to them, 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 equality with him, they were bound, as honest men, that day and hour to have put their negroes on an equality with them selves. 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 preserving this government as our fathers made it. It does not follow by any means that because a negro is not your equal or mine, that hence he must neces sarily be a slave. On the contrary, it does fol low that we ought to extend to the negro every right, every privilege, every immunity which he is capable of enjoying, consistent with the good of society. When you ask rne what hese rights are, what their nature and extent is, I tell you 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 25 that that is a question which each State of this Union must decide for itself. Illinois has al ready decided the question. We have decided that the negrd must not be a slave within our limits; but we have also decided that the negro shall not be a citizen within our limits; that he shall not vote, hold office, or exercise any politi cal rights. I maintain that Illinois, as a sover eign State, has a right thus to fix her policy with reference to the relation between the white man .and the negro; but while we had that right to decide the question for ourselves, we must recog nize the same right in Kentucky and in every other State to make the same decision, or a dif ferent one. Having decided our own policy with reference to the black race, we must leave Kentucky and Missouri and every other State perfectly free to make just such a decision as they see proper on that question. Kentucky has decided that question for her self. She has said that within her limits a negro shall not exercise any political rights, and she has also said that a portion of the negroes under the laws of that State shall be slaves. She had as much right to adopt that as her policy as we had to adopt the contrary for our policy. New York has decided that in that State a negro may vote if he has two hundred and fifty dollars worth of property, and if he owns that much 26 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 he may vote upon an equality with the white man. I, for one, am utterly opposed to negro suffrage anywhere and under any circumstances; yet, inasmuch as the Supreme Court has de cided in the celebrated Dred Scott case that a State has a right to confer the privilege of vot ing 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 peo ple within the limits of their State were no bet ter than negroes, I would not quarrel with them for it, but they must not say that my white con stituents 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 relations between the white man and the negro. Judge Taney ex pressly lays down the doctrine. I receive it as law, and I say that while those States are adopt- 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 27 ing regulations on that subject disgusting and abhorrent, according to my views, I will not make war on them if they will mind their own business and let us alone. I now come back to the question, why can not this Union exist forever divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if each State will carry out the prin ciples 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 ex tend and expand until it covers the whole con tinent, and makes this confederacy one grand, ocean-bound republic. We must bear in mind that we are yet a young nation, growing with a rapidity unequaled in the history of the world, that our national increase is great, and that the emigration from the Old World is increasing, requiring us to expand and acquire new terri tory from time to time, in order to give our peo ple land to live upon. If we live up to the principle of State rights and State sovereignty, 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 in- 28 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 terests would be advanced by the acquisition of the island of Cuba. When we get Cuba we must take it as we find it, leaving the people to decide the question of slavery for themselves, without interference on the part of the Federal Government, or of any State of this Union. So when it becomes necessary to acquire any por tion of Mexico or Canada, or of this continent or the adjoining islands, we must take them as we find them, leaving the people free to do as they please to have slavery or not, as they choose. I never have inquired, and never will inquire, whether a new State applying for ad mission has slavery or not for one of her institu tions. If the constitution that is presented be the act and deed of the people, and embodies their will, and they have the requisite popula tion, I will admit them with slavery or without it, just as that people shall determine. My ob jection 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 ques tion 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 1858] Speech at Jonesboro 29 act and deed of the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will, and the recent election in that Territory, at which it was voted down by nearly ten to one, shows conclusively that I was right in saying, when the constitution was presented, that it was not the act and deed of the people, and did not embody their will. If we wish to preserve our institutions in their purity and transmit them unimpaired to our latest posterity, we must preserve with religious good faith that great principle of self-govern ment which guarantees to each and every State, old and new, the right to make just such con stitutions as they desire, and come into the Union with their own constitution, and not one palmed upon them. Whenever you sanction the doctrine that Congress may crowd a consti tution down the throats of an unwilling people, against their consent, you will subvert the great fundamental principle upon which all our free institutions rest. In the future I have no fear that the attempt will ever be made. President Buchanan declared in his annual message, that hereafter the rule adopted in the Minnesota case, requiring a constitution to be submitted to the people, should be followed in all future cases, and if he stands by that recommendation there will be no division in the Democratic party on that principle in the future. Hence 30 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 the great mission of the Democracy is to unite the fraternal feeling of the whole country, re store peace and quiet by teaching each State to mind its own business and regulate its own do mestic affairs, and all to unite in carrying 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 brethren of a common confederacy; they fought under a common flag that they might bestow upon their posterity a common destiny, and to this end they poured out their blood in common streams, and shared, in some instances, a common grave. 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 31 Mr. Lincoln s Reply in the Jonesboro Joint Debate. 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 made 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 anything that I have ever put in print contrary to what I now say upon this subject. I hold myself under consti tutional obligations to allow the people in all the States, without interference, direct or indi rect, to do exactly as they please, and I deny that I have any inclination to interfere with them, even if there were no such constitutional obligation. I can only say again that I am 32 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 placed improperly altogether improperly, in spite of all I can say when it is insisted that I entertain any other view or purpose in regard to that matter. While I am upon this subject, I will make some answers briefly to certain propositions that Judge Douglas has put. He says, "Why can t this Union endure permanently, half slave and half free?" I have said that I supposed it could not, and I will try, before this new audience, to give briefly some of the reasons for entertaining that opinion. Another form of his question is, "Why can t we let it stand as our fathers placed it?" That is the exact difficulty between us. I say that Judge Douglas and his friends have changed it from the position in which our fath ers originally placed it. I say, in the way our fathers originally left the slavery question, the institution was in the course of ultimate extinc tion, and the public mind rested in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. I say when this government 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 anywhere is that it 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 33 should be placed back again upon the basis that the fathers of our government originally placed it upon. I have no doubt that it would become extinct, for all time to come, if we but readopted the policy of the fathers by restricting it to the limits it has already covered restricting it from the new Territories. I do not wish to dwell at great length on this branch of the subject at this time, but allow me to repeat one thing that I have stated before. Brooks, the man who assaulted Senator Sumner on the floor of the Senate, and who was compli mented with dinners, and silver pitchers, and gold-headed canes, and a good many other things for that feat, in one of his speeches declared that when this government was originally estab lished, nobody expected that the institution of slavery would last until this day. That was but the opinion of one man, but it was such an opin ion 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 fram- ers of our government did not have the knowl edge that experience has taught us that ex perience 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 34 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 fathers of the government left it to the basis of its perpetuation and nationalization. I insist that this is the difference between Judge Douglas and myself that Judge Doug las is helping that change along. I insist upon this government being placed where our fath ers originally placed it. I remember Judge Douglas once said that he saw the evidences on the statute-books of Con gress of a policy in the origin of government to divide slavery and freedom by a geographi cal line that he saw an indisposition to main tain 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 prin ciples." 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 ; that 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. 1 858] Reply at Jonesboro 35 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 gov ernment in that regard. Now, fellow-citizens, in regard to this matter about a contract that was made between Judge Trumbull and myself, and all that long portion of Judge Douglas s speech on this subject, I wish simply to say what I have said to him before, that he cannot know whether it is true or not, and I do know that there is not a word of truth in it. And I have told him so before. I don t want any harsh language indulged in, but I do not know how to deal with this persistent in sisting on a story that I know to be utterly with out 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 drop ped. I don t know how to meet this kind of an argument. I don t want to have a fight with Judge Douglas, and I have no way of making an argument up into the consistency of a corn-cob and stopping his mouth with it. All I can do is, good-humoredly, to say that from the beginning to the end of all that story about a bargain be tween Judge Trumbull and myself, there is not a word of truth in it. I can only ask him to 36 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 show some sort of evidence of the truth of his story. He brings forward here and reads from what he contends is a speech by James H. Matheny, charging such a bargain between Trumbull and myself. My own opinion is that Matheny did do some such immoral thing as to tell a story that he knew nothing about. I be lieve he did. I contradicted it instantly, and it has been contradicted by Judge Trumbull, while nobody has produced any proof, because there is none. Now, whether the speech which the judge brings forward here is really the one Matheny made, I do not know, and I hope the judge will pardon me for doubting the genu ineness 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, except that it is not true, and demand that he who insists upon it shall produce some proof. That is all any man can r 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 Trum bull and myself. He says that they agreed upon a compromise in regard to the slavery question in 1850; that in a national Democratic conven- 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 37 tion resolutions were passed to abide by that compromise as a finality upon the slavery ques tion. He also says that the Whig party in na tional convention agreed to abide by and regard as a finality the compromise of 1850. I under stand the judge to be altogether right about that; I understand that part of the history of the coun try 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 presiden tial election which followed, when we had Gen eral Scott up for the presidency, Judge Douglas was around berating us Whigs as Abolitionists, precisely as he does to-day not a bit of differ ence. 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 ex tremely good name since it has passed away. When that compromise was made, it did not repeal the old Missouri Compromise. It left a region of United States territory half as large as the present territory of the United States, north of the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, in which slavery was prohibited by act of Con gress. This compromise did not repeal that one. It did not affect or propose to repeal it. But at last it became Judge Douglas s duty, as he thought (and I find no fault with him), as chairman of the Committee on Territories, to 38 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 bring in a bill for the organization of a territor ial government first of one, then of two Ter ritories 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 re pealed it. And now I ask why he could not have left that compromise alone? We were quiet from the agitation of the slavery question. We were making no fuss about it. All had ac quiesced in the compromise measures of 1850. We never had been seriously disturbed by any Abolition agitation before that period. When he came to form governments for the Territories north of the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, why could he not have let that matter stand as it was standing? Was it necessary to the organization of a Territory? Not at all. Iowa lay north of the line and had been organized as a Terri tory, and came 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 argu ments of Judge Douglas to show that the Mis souri Compromise was repealed by the compro mise of 1850. My own opinion is that a careful investigation of all the arguments to sustain the position that that compromise was virtually re- 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 39 pealed 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 com promise of 1850. I close this part of the discus sion on my part by asking him the question again, "Why, when we had peace under the Missouri Compromise, could you not have let it alone?" In complaining of what I said in my speech at Springfield, in which he says I accepted my nomination for the senatorship (where, by the way, he is at fault, for if he will examine it, he will find no acceptance in it) , he again quotes that portion in which I said that "a house di vided against itself cannot stand." Let me say a word in regard to that matter. He tries to persuade us that there must be a variety in the different institutions of the States of the Union; that that variety necessarily pro ceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the face of the country and the difference in the natural features of the States. I agree to all that. Have these very matters ever produced any difficulty amongst us? Not at all. Have 40 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 we ever had any quarrel over the fact that they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulate the commerce that springs from the production of sugar? or because we have a different class rela tive to the production of flour in this State? Have they produced any differences? Not at all. They are the very cements of this Union. They don t make the house a house divided against itself. They are the props that hold up the house and sustain the Union. But has it been so with this element of slav ery? Have we not always had quarrels and dif ficulties over it? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it? Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while to observe that we have generally had comparative peace upon the slavery question, and that there has been no cause for alarm until it was excited by the effort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it has been limited to its present bounds, and there has been no effort to spread it, there has been peace. All the trouble and convulsion has pro ceeded from efforts to spread it over more ter ritory. It was thus at the date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so again with the annex ation of Texas; so with the territory acquired by the Mexican war; and it is so now. When ever there has been an effort to spread it there has been agitation and resistance. Now, I ap- 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 4 1 peal to this audience (very few of whom are my political friends), as national men, whether we have reason to expect that the agitation in re gard 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 Compro mise was formed that which produced the agi tation 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 observa tion of the slavery question and my reading in history extend. What right have we then to hope that the trouble will cease, that the agita tion 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 opposi tion? This is the view I entertain, and this is the reason why I entertain it, as Judge Douglas has read from my Springfield speech. Now, my friends, there is one other thing that I feel under some sort of obligation to mention. Judge Douglas has here to-day in a very rambling way, I was about saying spoken of 42 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 the platforms for which he seeks to hold me re sponsible. He says, "Why can t you come out and make an open avowal of principles in all places alike?" and he reads from an advertise ment that he says was used to notify the people of a speech to be made by Judge Trumbull at Waterloo. In commenting on it he desires to know whether we cannot speak frankly and manfully as he and his friends do! How, I ask, do his friends speak out their own senti ments? A convention of his party in this State met on the aist of April, at Springfield, and passed a set of resolutions which they proclaim to the country as their platform. This does con stitute 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 that he speaks his sentiments "frankly and manfully." On the 9th of June, Colonel John Dougherty, Governor Reynolds, and others, calling themselves National Demo crats, 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 believe in and would stand upon, as Juge Douglas s platform. Now, what is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing that Colonel Dougherty and Governor Reynolds should stand upon their own written 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 43 and printed platforms as well as he upon his? Why must he look farther than their platform when he claims himself to stand by his plat form? Again, in reference to ovr platform: On the 1 6th of June the Republicans had their conven tion 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 that I should stand upon that platform? Why must he go around hunting for some one who is supporting me, or has supported me at some time in his life, and who has said something at some time contrary to that platform? Does the judge regard that rule as a good one? If it turn out that the rule is a good one for me, that I am responsible for any and every opinion that any man has ex pressed who is my friend, then it is a good rule for him. I ask, is it not as good a rule for him as it is for me? In my opinion, it is not a good rule for either of us. Do you think dif ferently, judge? Mr. Douglas: I do not. Mr. Lincoln: Judge Douglas says he does not think differently. I am glad of it. Then can he tell me why he is looking up resolutions of five or six years ago, and insisting that they 44 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 were my platform, notwithstanding my protest that they are not, and never were, my platform, and my pointing out the platform of the State convention which he delights to say nominated me for the Senate? I cannot see what he means by parading these resolutions, if it is not to hold me responsible for them in some way. If he says to me here, that he does not hold the rule to be good, one way or the other, I do not com prehend how he could answer me more fully if he answered me at greater length. I will there fore put in as my answer to the resolutions that he has hunted up against me what I, as a law yer, would call a good plea to a bad declaration. I understand that it is a maxim of law, that a poor plea may be a good plea to a bad declara tion. I think that the opinions the judge brings from those who support me, yet differ from me, are a had declaration against me, but if I can bring the same things against him, I am putting in a good plea to that kind of declaration, and now I propose to try it. At Freeport Judge Douglas occupied a large part of his time in producing resolutions and documents of various sorts, as I understood, to make me somehow responsible for them; and I propose now doing a little of the same sort of thing for him. In 1850 a very clever gentleman by the name 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 45 of Thompson Campbell, a personal friend of Judge Douglas and myself, a political friend of Judge Douglas and opponent of mine, was a candidate for Congress in the Galena district. He was interrogated as to his views on this same slavery question. I have here before me the in terrogatories, and Campbell s answers to them. I will read them: Interrogatories. 1. Will you, if elected, vote for and cordially sup port a bill prohibiting slavery in the Territories of the United States? 2. Will you vote for and support a bill abolishing slavery in the district of Columbia ? 3. Will you oppose the admission of any slave States which may be formed out of Texas or the Territories ? 4. Will you vote for and advocate the repeal of the fugitive-slave law passed at the recent session of Congress? 5. Will you advocate and vote for the election of a Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall be willing to organize the committees of that House so as to give the free States their just influence in the business of legislation ? 6. What are your views, not only as to the con stitutional right of Congress to prohibit the slave- trade between the States, but also as to the expediency of exercising that right immediately? 46 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 Campbell s Reply. To the first and second interrogatories, I answer unequivocally in the affirmative. To the third interrogatory, I reply that I am op posed to the admission of any more slave States into the Union, that may be formed out of Texan or any other territory. To the fourth and fifth interrogatories, I unhesi tatingly answer in the affirmative, To the sixth interrogatory, I reply that so long as the slave States continue to treat slaves as articles of commerce, the Constitution confers power on Con gress to pass laws regulating that peculiar commerce, and that the protection of human rights imperatively demands the interposition of every constitutional means to prevent this most inhuman and iniquitous traffic. T. CAMPBELL. I want to say here that Thompson Campbell was elected to Congress on that platform, as the Democratic candidate in the Galena district, against Martin P. Sweet. Judge Douglas: Give me the date of the letter. Mr. Lincoln: The time Campbell ran was in 1850. I have not the exact date here. It was some time in 1850 that these interrogatories were put and the answer given. Campbell was elected to Congress, and served out his term. I think a second election came up before he served out 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 47 his term, and he was not reelected. Whether defeated or not nominated, I do not know. [Mr. Campbell was nominated for reelection by the Democratic party, by acclamation.] At the end of his term his very good friend, Judge Douglas, got him a high office from President Pierce, and sent him off to California. Is not that the fact? Just at the end of his term in Congress it appears that our mutual friend Judge Douglas got our mutual friend Camp bell a good office, and sent him to California upon it. And not only so, but on the 2yth of last month, when Judge Douglas and myself spoke at Freeport in joint discussion, there was his same friend Campbell, come all the way from California, to help the judge beat me; and there was poor Martin P. Sweet standing on the platform, trying to help poor me to be elected. That is true of one of Judge Douglas s friends. So again, in that same race of 1850, there was a congressional convention assembled at Joliet, and it nominated R. S. Molony for Congress, and unanimously adopted the following reso lution: Resolved, That we are uncompromisingly opposed to the extension of slavery; and while we would not make such opposition a ground of interference with the interests of the States where it exists, yet we mod erately but firmly insist that it is the duty of Congress 48 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 to oppose its extension into territory now free by all means compatible with the obligations of the Consti tution, and with good faith to our sister States; that these principles were recognized by the ordinance of 1787, which received the sanction of Thomas Jeffer son, who is acknowledged by all to be the great oracle and expounder of our faith. Subsequently the same interrogatories were propounded to Dr. Molony which had been ad dressed to Campbell, as above, with the excep tion of the sixth, respecting the interstate slave- trade, to which Dr. Molony, the Democratic nominee for Congress, replied as follows: I received the interrogatories this day, and as you will see by the La Salle " Democrat and Ottawa "Free Trader," I took at Peru on the 5th and at Ot tawa on the 7th, the affirmative side of interrogatories ist and 2d; and in relation to the admission of any more slave States from free territory, my position taken at these meetings, as correctly reported in said papers, was emphatically and distinctly opposed to it. In relation to the admission of any more slave States from Texas, whether I shall go against it or not will depend upon the opinion that I may hereafter form of the true meaning and nature of the resolutions of annexation. If by said resolutions the honor and good faith of the nation is pledged to admit more slave States from Texas when she (Texas) may apply for admission of such State, then I should, if in Congress, 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 49 vote for their admission. But if not so pledged and bound by sacred contract, then a bill for the admission of more slave States from Texas would never receive my vote. To your fourth interrogatory I answer most decid edly in the affirmative, and for reasons set forth in my reported remarks at Ottawa last Monday. To your fifth interrogatory I also reply in the af firmative most cordially, and that I will use my utmost exertions to secure the nomination and election of a man who will accomplish the objects of said interroga tories. I most cordially approve of the resolutions adopted at the union meeting held at Princeton on the 27th of September ult. Yours, etc., R. S. MOLONY. All I have to say in regard to Dr. Molony is that he was the regularly nominated Demo cratic candidate for Congress in his district; was elected at that time; at the end of his term was appointed to a land-office at Danville. (I never heard anything of Judge Douglas s instrumen tality in this.) He held this office a consider able time, and when we were at Freeport the other day, there were handbills scattered about notifying the public that after our debate was over R. S. Molony would make a Democratic speech in favor of Judge Douglas. That is all I know of my own personal knowledge. It is added here to this resolution (and truly, I be- 50 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 lieve) that "among those who participated in the Joliet convention, and who supported its nominee, with his platform as laid down in the resolution of the convention, and in his reply as above given, we call at random the following names, all of which are recognized at this day as leading Democrats: Cook County E. B. Williams, Charles McDonell, Arno Voss, Thomas Hoyne, Isaac Cook," I reckon we ought to except Cook, "F. C. Sherman. Will Joel A. Matteson, S. W. Bowen. Kane B. F. Hall, G. W. Renwick, A. M. Herrington, Elijah Wilcox. McHenry W. M. Jackson, Enos W. Smith, Neil Donnelly. La Salle- John Rise, William Reddick" William Red- dick another one of Judge Douglas s friends that stood on the stand with him at Ottawa at the time the judge says my knees trembled so that I had to be carried away! The names are all here: "DuPage Nathan Allen. DeKalb Z. B. Mayo." Here is another set of resolutions which I think are apposite to the matter in hand. On the a8th of February of the same year, a Democratic district convention was held at Naperville, to nominate a candidate for circuit judge. Among the delegates were Bowen and Kelly, of Will; Captain Naper, H. H. Cody, Nathan Allen, of Du Page; W. M. Jackson, 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 51 J. M. Strode, P. W. Platt, and Enos W. Smith, of McHenry; J. Horsman and others, of Win- nebago. Colonel Strode presided over the con vention. The following resolutions were unan imously adopted the first on motion of P. W. Platt, the second on motion of William M. Jackson: Resolved, That this convention is in favor of the Wilmot proviso, both in principle and practice, and that we know of no good reason why any person should oppose the largest latitude in free soil, free territory, and free speech. Resolved, That in the opinion of this convention, the time has arrived when all men should be free, whites as well as others. Judge Douglas: What is the date of those resolutions? Mr. Lincoln: I understand it was in 1850, but I do not know it. I do not state a thing and say I know it when I do not. But I have the highest belief that this is so. I know of no way to arrive at the conclusion that there is an error in it. I mean to put a case no stronger than the truth will allow. But what I was going to comment upon is an extract from a 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, 52 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 for the purpose, if he secures his election, of helping to reelect Judge Douglas. He is the editor of a newspaper [DeKalb County "Sen tinel"], 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 equality of the blacks; that is, that they should enjoy all the privileges of the whites where they reside. We are aware that this is not a very popular doctrine. We have had many a confab with some who are now strong " Republicans, " we taking the broad ground of equality and they the opposite ground. We were brought up in a State where blacks were voters, and we do not know of any inconvenience re sulting from it, though perhaps it would not work so 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 popula tion in a State by themselves [in this I agree with him] ; but if within the jurisdiction of the United States, we say by all means they should have the right to have their senators and their representatives 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 53 in Congress, and to vote for President. With us "worth makes the man, and want of it the fellow." We have seen many a "nigger" that we thought more of than some white men. That is one of Judge Douglas s friends. Now I do not want to leave myself in an attitude where I can be misrepresented, so I will say I do not think the judge is responsible for this article; but he is quite as responsible for it as I would be if one of my friends had said it. I think that is fair enough. I have here also a set of resolutions passed by a Democratic State convention in Judge Doug las s own good old State of Vermont, and that, I think, ought to be good for him too. Resolved, That liberty is a right inherent and in alienable in man, and that herein all men are equal. Resolved, That we claim no authority in the Fed eral Government to abolish slavery in the several States. But we do claim for it constitutional power perpetually to prohibit the introduction of slavery into territory now free, and abolish it wherever, under the jurisdiction of Congress, it exists. Resolved, That this power ought immediately to be exercised in prohibiting the introduction and existence of slavery in New Mexico and California, in abolish ing slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Co lumbia, on the high seas, and wherever else, under the Constitution, it can be reached. 54 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 Resolved, That no more slave States should be ad mitted into the Federal Union. Resolved, That the government ought to return to its ancient policy, not to extend, nationalize, or en courage, but to limit, localize, and discourage slavery. At Freeport I answered several interroga tories 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 posi tion that I took in regard to those seven inter rogatories, 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 I will do nothing which will not be in accord ance with those answers. I have some right to assert that Judge Douglas has no fault to find with them. But he chooses to still try to thrust me upon different ground without paying any attention to my answers, the obtaining of which from me cost him so much trouble and concern. At the same time, I propounded four interroga tories to him, claiming it as a right that he should answer as many interrogatories for me as I did for him, and I would reserve myself for a future installment when I got them ready. The judge, in answering me upon this occasion, 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 55 put in what I suppose he intends as answers to all four of my interrogatories. The first one of these interrogatories I have before me, and it is in these words: Question i. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State constitution, and ask admission into the Union under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the English bill, some ninety-three thousand, will you vote to admit them ? As I read the judge s answer in the newspaper, and as I remember it as propounded at the time, he does not give any answer which is equiva lent to yes or no I will or I won t. He an swers at very considerable length, rather quar reling with me for asking the question, and insisting that Judge Trumbull had done some thing that I ought to say something about; and finally getting out such statements as induce 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 saying that, if he chooses to put a different construction upon his answer, he may do it. But if he does not, I shall from this time forward assume that he will vote for the ad mission of Kansas in disregard of the English bill. He has the right to remove any misun- 56 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 derstanding I may have. I only mention it now that I may hereafter assume this to be the true construction of his answer, if he does not now choose to correct me. The second interrogatory that I propounded to him was this : Question 2. Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State constitution? To this Judge Douglas answered that they can lawfully exclude slavery from the Territory prior to the formation of a constitution. He goes on to tell us how it can be done. As I understand him, he holds that it can be done by the territorial legislature refusing to make any enactments for the 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 first, by withholding what he assumes to be an indispensable assistance to it in the way of legislation ; and, second, by un friendly 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 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 57 prohibition of slavery in the Territories is un constitutional they have reached this proposi tion as a conclusion from their former proposi tion, that the Constitution of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves; and from that other constitutional provision, that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. Hence they reach the con clusion that as the Constitution of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves, and prohibits any person from being deprived of property without due process of law, to pass an act of Congress by which a man who owned a slave on one side of a line would be deprived of him if he took him on the other side is depriv ing him of that property without due process of law. That I understand to be the decision of the Supreme Court. I understand also that Judge Douglas adheres most firmly to that de cision; and the difficulty is, how is it possible for any power to exclude slavery from the Ter ritory unless in violation of that decision? That is the difficulty. In the Senate of the United States, in 1856, Judge Trumbull, in a speech, substantially, if not directly, put the same interrogatory to Judge Douglas, as to whether the people of a Terri tory had the lawful power to exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution? Judge 58 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 Douglas then answered at considerable length, and his answer will be found in the "Con gressional Globe," under the date of June 9, 1856. The judge said that whether the people could exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution or not was a question to be de cided by the Supreme Court. He put that proposition, as will be seen by the "Congres sional Globe," in a variety of forms, all running to the same thing in substance that it was a question for the Supreme Court. I maintain that when he says, after the Supreme Court has 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 ap peal 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 that 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 de- 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 59 cides, the people can by withholding 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 induced the judge to sheer away from his origi nal ground. Would not this be the impression of every fair-minded man? I hold that the proposition that slavery can not enter a new country without police regula tions is historically false. It is not true at all. I hold that the history of this country shows that the institution of slavery was originally planted upon this continent without these "po lice regulations" which the judge now thinks necessary for the actual establishment of it. Not only so, but is there not another fact how came this Dred Scott decision to be made? It was made upon the case of a negro being taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota Territory, claiming his freedom because the act of Con gress prohibited his being so held there. Will the judge pretend 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 Territory, not only with out police regulations, but in the teeth of con gressional legislation supposed to be valid at the time. This shows that there is vigor enough in slavery to plant itself in a new country even 60 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 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 sub ject. I wish to ask one other question. It being understood that the Constitution of the United States guarantees property in slaves in the Terri tories, if there is any infringement of the right of that property, would not the United States courts, organized for the government of the Ter ritory, 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 ac knowledged and treated as a wrong. Again: I will ask you, my friends, if you were elected members of the legislature, what would be the first thing you would have to do before entering upon 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 guar antees to your neighbor the right to hold slaves in that Territory that they are his property- how can you clear your oaths unless you give him such legislation as is necessary to enable him to enjoy that property? What do you under stand by supporting the Constitution of a State, or of the United States? Is it not to give such 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 61 constitutional helps to the rights established by that Constitution as may be practically needed? Can you, if you swear to support the Constitu tion, and believe that the Constitution estab lishes a right, clear your oath, without giving it support? Do you support the Constitution if, knowing or believing there is a right es tablished under it which needs specific legisla tion, you withhold that legislation? Do you not violate and disregard your oath. I can con ceive of nothing plainer in the world. There can be nothing in the words "support the Con stitution," if you may run counter to it by re fusing support to any right established under the Constitution. And what I say here will hold with still more force against the judge s doc trine of "unfriendly legislation." How could you, having sworn to support the Constitution, and believing that it guaranteed the right to hold slaves in the Territories, assist in legisla tion intended to defeat that right? That would be violating your own view of the Constitution. Not only so, but if you were to do so, how long would it take the courts to hold your votes un constitutional and void? Not a moment. Lastly I would ask Is not Congress itself under obligation to give legislative support to any right that is established under the United States Constitution? I repeat the question Is 62 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 not Congress itself bound to give legislative support to any right that is established in the United States Constitution? A member of Con gress swears to support the Constitution of the United States, and if he sees a right established by that Constitution which needs specific legis lative protection, can he clear his oath without giving that protection? Let me ask you why many of us who are opposed to slavery upon principle give our acquiescence to a fugitive- slave law? Why do we hold ourselves under ob ligations to pass such a law, and abide by it when it is passed? Because the Constitution makes provision that the owners of slaves shall have the right to reclaim them. It gives the right to reclaim slaves, and that right is, as Judge Doug las says, a barren right, unless there is legisla tion that will enforce it. The mere declaration, "No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in conse quence of any law or regulation therein be dis charged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due," is powerless without specific legislation to enforce it. Now, on what ground would a member of Congress who is opposed to slavery in the abstract vote for a fugitive-slave law, as I would deem it my duty 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 63 to do? Because there is a constitutional right which needs legislation to enforce it. And al though it is distasteful to me, I have sworn to support the Constitution, and having so sworn, I cannot conceive that I do support it if I with hold from that right any necessary legislation to make it practical. And if that is true in re gard to a fugitive-slave law, is the right to have fugitive slaves reclaimed any better fixed in the Constitution than the right to hold slaves in the Territories? For this decision is a just exposition of the Constitution, as Judge Douglas thinks. Is the one right any better than the other? Is there any man who, while a member of Congress, would give support to the one any more than the other? If I wished to refuse to give legis lative support to slave property in the Terri tories, if a member of Congress, I could not do it, holding the view that the Constitution estab lishes that right. If I did it at all, it would be because I deny that this decision properly con strues the Constitution. But if I acknowledge, with Judge Douglas, that this decision properly construes the Constitution, I cannot conceive that I would be less than a perjured man if I should refuse in Congress to give such protec tion to that property as in its nature it needed. At the end of what I have said here I pro pose to give the judge my fifth interrogatory, 64 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 which he may take and answer at his leisure. My fifth interrogatory is this : If the slaveholdirig citizens of a United States Territory should need and demand congres sional legislation for the protection of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation? Judge Douglas: Will you repeat that? I want to answer that question. Mr. Lincoln: If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should need and de mand congressional legislation for the protec tion of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation? I am aware that in some of the speeches Judge Douglas has made, he has spoken as if he did not know or think that the Supreme Court had decided that a territorial legislature cannot ex clude slavery. Precisely what the judge would say upon the subject whether he would say definitely that he does not understand they have so decided, or whether he would say he does understand that the court have so decided, I do not know; but I know that in his speech at Springfield he spoke of it as a thing they had not decided yet; and in his answer to me at Free- port, he spoke of it again, so far as I can com- 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 65 prehend it, as a thing that had not yet been de cided. Now I hold that if the judge does enter tain that view, I think that he is not mistaken in so far as it can be said that the court has not decided anything save the mere question of juris diction. I know the legal argements that can be made that after a court has decided that it cannot take jurisdiction in a case, it then has decided all that is before it, and that is the end of it. A plausible argument can be made in favor of that proposition, but I know that Judge Douglas has said in one of his speeches that the court went forward, like honest men as they were, and decided all the points in the case. If any points are really extra-judicially decided be cause not necessarily before them, then this one as to the power of the territorial legislature to exclude slavery is one of them, as also the one that the Missouri Compromise was null and void. They are both extra-judicial, or nei ther is, according as the court held that they had no jurisdiction in the case be tween the parties, because of want of ca pacity of one party to maintain a suit in that court. I want, if I have sufficient time, to show that the court did pass its opinion, but that is the only thing actually done in the case. If they did not decide, they showed what they were ready to decide whenever the matter was before 66 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 them. What is that opinion? After having ar gued that Congress had no power to pass a law excluding slavery from a United States Terri tory, they then used language to this effect: That inasmuch as Congress itself could not exercise such a power, it followed as a matter of course that it could not authorize a territorial govern ment to exercise it, for the territorial legislature can do no more than Congress could do. Thus it expressed its opinion emphatically against the power of a territorial legislature to exclude slav ery, leaving us in just as little doubt on that point as upon any other point they really de cided. Now, fellow-citizens, my time is nearly out. I find a report of a speech made by Judge Doug las at Joliet, since we last met at Freeport, published, I believe, in the Missouri "Repub lican," on the 9th of this month, in which Judge Douglas says: You know at Ottawa I read this platform, and asked him if he concurred in each and all of the prin ciples set forth in it. He would not answer these questions. At last I said frankly, "I wish you to an swer them, because when I get them up here where the color of your principles is a little darker than in Egypt, I intend to trot you down to Jonesboro." The very notice that I was going to take him down to Egypt made him tremble in the knees so that he had 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 67 to be carried from the platform. He laid up seven days, and in the meantime held a consultation with his political physicians ; they had Lovejoy and Farns- worth and all the leaders of the Abolition party. They consulted it all over, and at last Lincoln came to the conclusion that he would answer; so he came to Freeport last Friday. , Now that statement altogether furnishes a sub ject for philosophical contemplation. I have been treating it in that way, and I have really come to the conclusion that I can explain it in no other way than by believing the judge is crazy. If he was in his right mind, I cannot conceive how he would have risked disgusting the four or five thousand of his own friends who stood there and knew, as to my having been car ried from the platform, that there was not a word of truth in it. Judge Douglas : Didn t they carry you off? Mr. Lincoln: There; that question illustrates the character of this man Douglas exactly. He smiles now and says, "Didn t they carry you off?" But he said then, "He had to be carried off" ; and he said it to convince the country that he had so completely broken me down by his speech that I had to be carried away. Now he seeks to dodge it, and asks, "Didn t they carry you off?" Yes, they did. But, Judge 68 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 Douglas, why didn t you tell the truth? T would like to know why you didn t tell the truth about it. And then again, "He laid up seven days." He puts this in print for the people of the coun try to read as a serious document. I think if he had been in his sober senses he would not have risked that barefacedness in the presence of thousands of his own friends, who knew that I made speeches within six of the seven days at Henry, Marshall County; Augusta, Hancock County; and Macomb, McDonough County, in cluding all the necessary travel to meet him again at Freeport at the end of the six days. Now, I say, there is no charitable way to look at that statement, except to conclude that he is actually crazy. There is another thing in that statement that alarmed me very greatly as he states it that he was going to "trot me down to Egypt." Thereby he would have you to infer that I would not come to Egypt unless he forced me that I could not be got here, unless he, giant like, had hauled me down here. That state ment he makes, too, in the teeth of the knowl edge that I made the stipulation to come down here, and that he himself had been very reluc tant to enter into the stipulation. More than all this, Judge Douglas, when he made that statement, must have been crazy, and wholly 1858] Reply at Jonesboro 69 out of his sober senses, or else he would have known that, when he got me down here, that promise that windy promise of his powers to annihilate me wouldn t amount to anything. Now, how little do I look like being carried away trembling? Let the judge go on, and after he is done with his half hour, I want you all, if I can t go home myself, to let me stay and rot here; and if anything happens to the judge, if I cannot carry him to the hotel and put him to bed, let me stay here and rot. I say, then, there is something extraordinary in this statement. I ask you if you know any other living man who would make such a statement? I will ask my friend Casey, over there, if he would do such a thing? Would he send that out and have his men take it as the truth? Did the judge talk of trotting me down to Egypt to scarce me to death? Why, I know this people better than he does. I was raised just a little east of here. I am a part of this people. But the judge was raised further north, and per haps he has some horrid idea of what this people might be induced to do. But really I have talked about this matter perhaps longer than I ought, for it is no great thing, and yet the smallest are often the most difficult things to deal with. The judge has set about seriously trying to make the impression that when we 70 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 15 meet at different places I am literally in his clutches that I am a poor, helpless, decrepit mouse, and that I can do nothing at all. This is one of the ways he has taken to create that impression. I don t know any other way to meet it, except this. I don t want to quarrel with him, to call him a liar, but when I come square up to him I don t know what else to call him, if I must tell the truth out. I want to be at peace, and reserve all my fighting powers for necessary occasions. My time, now, is very nearly out, and I give up the trifle that is left to the judge to let him set my knees trembling again if he can. 1858] Rejoinder at Jonesboro 71 Mr. Douglas s Rejoinder in the Jonesboro Joint Debate. MY FRIENDS, while I am very grate ful to you for the enthusiasm which you show for me, I will say in all can dor, that your quietness will be much more agreeable than your applause, inasmuch as you deprive me of some part of my time whenever you cheer. I will commence where Mr. Lincoln left off, and make a remark upon this serious complaint of his about my speech at Joliet. I did not say there in a playful manner that when I put these questions to Mr. Lincoln at Ottawa, he failed to answer, and that he trembled, and had to be car ried off the stand, and required seven days to get up his reply. That he did not walk off from that stand he will not deny. That when the crowd went away from the stand with me, a few persons carried him home on their shoulders and laid him down, he will admit. I wish to say to you that whenever I degrade my friends and myself by allowing them to carry me on their backs along through the public streets, when I am able to walk, I am willing to be 72 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 deemed crazy. I did not say whether I beat him or he beat me in the argument. It is true I put these questions to him, and I put them not as mere idle questions, but showed that I based them upon the creed of the Black Republican party, as declared by their conventions in that portion of the State which he depends upon to elect him, and desired to know whether he in dorsed that creed. He would not answer. When I reminded him that I intended bringing him into Egypt and renewing my questions if he refused to answer, he then consulted, and did get up his answers one week after answers which I may refer to in a few minutes, and show you how equivocal they are. My object was to make him avow whether or not he stood by the platform of his party; the resolutions I then read, and upon which I based my questions, had been adopted by his party in the Galena con gressional district, and the Chicago and Bloom- ington congressional districts, composing a large majority of the counties in this State that give Republican or Abolition majorities. Mr. Lincoln cannot and will not deny that the doctrines laid down in these resolutions were in substance put forth in Lovejoy s resolutions, which were voted for by a majority of his party, some of them, if not all, receiving the support of every man of his party. Hence I laid a foun- 1858] Rejoinder at Jonesboro 73 dation for my questions to him before I asked him whether that was or was not the platform of his party. He says that he answered my ques tions. One of them was whether he would vote to admit any more slave States into the Union. The creed of the Republican party, as set forth in the resolutions of their various conventions, was that they would under no circumstances vote to admit another slave State. It was put forth in the Lovejoy resolutions in the legislature; it was put forth and passed in a majority of all the counties of this State which give Abolition or Republican majorities, or elect members to the legislature of that school of politics. I had a right to know whether he would vote for or against the admission of another slave State in the event the people wanted it. He first an swered that he was not pledged on the subject, and then said: In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in the posi tion of having to pass on that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another slave State admitted into the Union; but I must add that if slavery shall be kept out of the Ter ritories during the territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people, having a fair 74 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 chance and clear field when they come to adopt a constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual pres ence of the institution among them, I see no alterna tive, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union. Now analyze that answer. In the first place he says he would be exceedingly sorry to be put in a position where he would have to vote on the question of the admission of a slave State. Why is he a candidate for the Senate if he would be sorry to be put in that position? I trust the peo ple of Illinois will not put him in a position which he would be so sorry to occupy. The next position he takes is that he would be glad to know that there would never be another slave State, yet, in certain contingencies, he might have to vote for one. What is that contingency? "If Congress keeps slavery out by law while it is a Territory, and then the people should have a fair chance and should adopt slavery, unin fluenced by the presence of the institution," he supposed he would have to admit the State. Suppose Congress should not keep slavery out during their territorial existence, then how would he vote when the people applied for ad mission into the Union with a slave constitu tion? That he does not answer, and that is the condition of every Territory we have now got. 1858] Rejoinder at Jonesboro 75 Slavery is not kept out of Kansas by act of Con gress, and when I put the question to Mr. Lin coln, whether he will vote for the admission with or without slavery, as her people may de sire, he will not answer, and you have not got an answer from him. In Nebraska slavery is not prohibited by act of Congress, but the people are allowed, under the Nebraska bill, to do as they please on the subject; and when I ask him whether he will vote to admit Nebraska with a slave constitution if her people desire it, he will not answer. So with New Mexico, Washing ton Territory, Arizona, and the four new States to be admitted from Texas. You cannot get an answer from him to these questions. His an swer only applies to a given case, to a condition things which he knows do not exist in any one Territory in the Union. He tries to give you to understand that he would allow the peo ple to do as they please, and yet he dodges the question as to every Territory in the Union. I now ask why cannot Mr. Lincoln answer to each of these Territories? He has not done it, and will not do it. The Abolitionists up North un derstand that this answer is made with a view of not committing himself on any one Territory now in existence. It is so understood there, and you cannot expect an answer from him on a case that applies to any one Territory, or ap- j6 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 plies to the new States which by compact we are pledged to admit out of Texas, when they have the requisite population and desire admission. I submit to you whether he has made a frank answer, so that you can tell how he would vote in any one of these cases. "He would be sorry to be put in the position." Why would he be sorry to be put in this position if his duty re quired him to give the vote? If the people of a Territory ought to be permitted to come into the Union as a State, with slavery or without it, as they pleased, why not give the vote admitting them cheerfully? If in his opinion they ought not to come in with slavery, even if they wanted to, why not say that he would cheerfully vote against their admission? His intimation is that conscience would not let him vote "No," and he would be sorry to do that which his con science would compel him to do as an honest man. In regard to the contract or bargain between Trumbull, the Abolitionists, and him, which he denies, I wish to say that the charge can be proved by notorious historical facts. Trumbull, Lovejoy, Giddings, Fred Douglass, Hale, and Banks were traveling the State at that time mak ing speeches on the same side and in the same cause with him. He contents himself with the same denial that no such thing occurred. Does 1858] Rejoinder at Jonesboro 77 he deny that he, and Trumbull, and Breese, and Giddings, and Chase, and Fred Douglass, and Lovejoy, and all those Abolitionists and desert ers from the Democratic party, did make speeches all over this State in the same common cause? Does he deny that Jim Matheny was then, and is now, his confidential friend, and does he deny that Matheny made the charge of the bargain and fraud in his own language, as I have read it from his printed speech? Ma theny spoke of his own personal knowledge of that bargain existing between Lincoln, Trum bull, and the Abolitionists. He still remains Lincoln s confidential friend, and is now a can didate for Congress, and is canvassing the Springfield district for Lincoln. I assert that I can prove the charge to be true in detail if I can ever get it where I can summon and com pel the attendance of witnesses. I have the statement of another man to the same effect as that made by Matheny, which I am not per mitted to use yet, but Jim Matheny is a good witness on that point, and the history of the country is conclusive upon it. That Lincoln up to that time had been a Whig, and then un dertook to Abolitionize the Whigs and bring them into the Abolition camp, is beyond denial ; that Trumbull up to that time had been a Demo crat, and deserted, and undertook to Abolition- 78 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 ize the Democracy, and take them into the Abo lition camp, is beyond denial ; that they are both now active, leading, distinguished members of this Abolition Republican party, in full com munion, is a fact that cannot be questioned or denied. But Lincoln is not willing to be responsible for the creed of his party. He complains be cause I hold him responsible, and in order to avoid the issue he attempts to show that indi viduals in the Democratic party, many years ago, expressed Abolition sentiments. It is true that Tom Campbell, when a candidate for Congress in 1850, published the letter which Lincoln read. When I asked Lincoln for the date of that letter he could not give it. The date of the letter has been suppressed by other speakers who have used it, though I take it for granted that Lin coln did not know the date. If he will take the trouble to examine, he will find that the letter was published only two days before the election, and was never seen until after it, except in one county. Tom Campbell would have been beat to death by the Democratic party if that letter had been made public in his district. As to Molony, it is true that he uttered sentiments of the kind referred to by Mr. Lincoln, and the best Democrats would not vote for him for that reason. I returned from Washington after the 1858] Rejoinder at Jonesboro 79 passage of the compromise measures in 1850, and when I found Molony running under John Wentworth s tutelage, and on his platform, I denounced him, and declared that he was no Democrat. In my speech at Chicago, just be fore the election that year, I went before the infuriated people of that city and vindicated the compromise measures of 1850. Remember, the city council had passed resolutions nullify ing acts of Congress and instructing the police to withhold their assistance from the execution of the laws, and as I was the only man in the city of Chicago who was responsible for the passage of the compromise meas ures, I went before the crowd, justified each and every one of those measures, and let it be said to the eternal honor of the peo ple of Chicago, that when they were convinced by my exposition of those measures that they were right, and they had done wrong in oppos ing them, they repealed their nullifying resolu tions, and declared that they would acquiesce in and support the laws of the land. These facts are well known, and Mr. Lincoln can only get up individual instances, dating back to 1849-50, which are contradicted by the whole tenor of the Democratic creed. But Mr. Lincoln does not want to be held re sponsible for the Black Republican doctrine of 8o Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 no more slave States. Farnsworth is the candi date of his party to-day in the Chicago district, and he made a speech in the last Congress in which he called upon God to palsy his right arm if he ever voted for the admission of another slave State, whether the people wanted it or not. Lovejoy is making speeches all over the State for Lincoln now, and taking ground against any more slave States. Washburne, the Black Re publican candidate for Congress in the Galena district, is making speeches in favor of this same Abolition platform declaring no more slave States. Why are men running for Congress in the northern districts, and taking that Abolition platform for their guide, when Mr. Lincoln does not want to be held to it down here in Egypt and in the center of the State, and objects to it so as to get votes here. Let me tell Mr. Lincoln that his party in the northern part of the State hold to that Abolition platform, and that if they do not in the south and in the center, they present the extraordinary spectacle of a "house divided against itself," and hence "can not stand." I now bring down upon him the vengeance of his own scripture quotation, and give it a more appropriate application than he did, when I say to him that his party, Abolition in one end of the State and opposed to it in the other, is a house divided against itself, and can- 1858] Rejoinder at Jonesboro 81 not stand, and ought not to stand, for it attempts to cheat the American people out of their votes by disguising its sentiments. Mr. Lincoln attempts to cover up and get over his Abolitionism by telling you that he was raised a little east of you, beyond the Wabash in Indiana, and he thinks that makes a mighty sound and good man of him on all these ques tions. I do not know that the place where a man is born or raised has much to do with his political principles. The worst Abolitionists I have ever known in Illinois have been men who have sold their slaves in Alabama and Kentucky, and have come here and turned Abolitionists while spending the money got for the negroes they sold, and I do not know that an Abolition ist from Indiana or Kentucky ought to have any more credit because he was born and raised among slaveholders. I do not know that a na tive of Kentucky is more excusable because raised among slaves ; his father and mother hav ing owned slaves, he comes to Illiniois, turns Abolitionist, and slanders the graves of his fa ther and mother, and breathes curses upon the institutions under which he was born, and his father and mother bred. True, I was not born out West here. I was born away down in Yankee land ; I was born in a valley in Vermont, with the high mountains around me. I love 82 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 the old green mountains and valleys of Ver mont, where I was born, and where I played in my childhood. I went up to visit them some seven or eight years ago, for the first time for twenty odd years. When I got there they treat ed me very kindly. They invited me to the commencement of their college, placed me on the seats with their distinguished guests, and conferred upon me the degree of LL. D. in Latin (doctor of laws), the same as they did Old Hickory, at Cambridge, many years ago, and I give you my word and honor I under stood just as much of the Latin as he did. When they got through conferring the honorary de gree, they called upon me for a speech, and I got up with my heart full and swelling with gratitude for their kindness, and I said to them, "My friends, Vermont is the most glorious spot on the face of this globe for a man to be born in, provided he emigrates when he is very young." I emigrated when I was very young. I came out here when I was a boy, and found my mind liberalized, and my opinions enlarged when I got on these broad prairies, with only the heav ens to bound my vision, instead of having them circumscribed by the little narrow ridges that surrounded the valley where I was born. But I discard all flings at the land where a man was 1858] Rejoinder at Jonesboro 83 born. I wish to. be judged by my principles, by those great public measures and constitutional principles upon which the peace, the happiness, and the perpetuity of this republic now rests. Mr. Lincoln has framed another question, propounded it to me, and desired my answer. As I have said before, I did not put a question to him that I did not first lay a foundation for by showing that it was a part of the platform of the party whose votes he is now seeking, adopted in a majority of the counties where he now hopes to get a majority, and supported by the candidates of his party now running in those counties. But I will answer his question. It is as follows: "If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should need and de mand congressional legislation for the protec tion of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation?" I answer him that it is a fundamental article in the Democratic creed that there should be non-interference and non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories. Mr. Lincoln could have found an answer to his question in the Cincinnati platform, if he had desired it. The Democratic party have always stood by that great principle of non-interference and non-in tervention by Congress with slavery in the 84 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 States or Territories alike, and I stand on that platform now. Now I desire to call your attention to the fact that Lincoln did not define his own position in his own question. How does he stand on that question? He put the question to me at Free- port whether or not I would vote to admit Kan sas into the Union before she had 93,420 inhab itants. I answered him at once that it having been decided that Kansas had now population enough for a slave State, she had population enough for a free State. I answered the question unequivocally, and then I asked him whether he would vote for or against the admission of Kansas before she had 93,420 inhabitants, and he would not answer me. To-day he has called attention to the fact that, in his opinion, my answer on that question was not quite plain enough, and yet he has not an swered it himself. He now puts a question in relation to congressional interference in the Ter ritories to me. I answer him direct, and yet he has not answered the question himself. I ask you whether a man has any right, in common decency, to put questions, in these public dis cussions, to his opponent, which he will not an swer himself when they are pressed home to him? I have asked him three times, whether he would vote to admit Kansas whenever the 1858] Rejoinder at Jonesboro 85 people applied with a constitution of their own making and their own adoption, under circum stances that were fair, just, and unexceptionable, but I cannot get an answer from him. Nor will he answer the question which he put to me, and which I have just answered, in relation to con gressional interference in the Territories, by making a slave code there. It is true that he goes on to answer the ques tion by arguing that under the decision of the Supreme Court it is the duty of a man to vote for a slave code in the Territories. He says that it is his duty, under the decision that the court has made, and if he believes in that decision he would be a perjured man if he did not give the vote. I want to know whether he is not bound to a decision which is contrary to his opinions just as much as to one in accordance with his opinions. If the decision of the Supreme Court, the tribunal created by the Constitution to de cide the question, is final and binding, is he not bound by it just as strongly as if he was for it instead of against it originally? Is every man in this land allowed to resist decisions he does not like, and only support those that meet his approval? What are important courts worth unless their decisions are binding on all good citizens? It is the fundamental principle of the judiciary that its decisions are final. It is ere- 86 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 15 ated for that purpose, so that when you cannot agree among yourselves on a disputed point you appeal to the judicial tribunal, which steps in and decides for you, and that decision is then binding on every good citizen. It is the law of the land just as much with Mr. Lincoln against it as for it. And yet he says if that decision is binding he is a perjured man if he does not vote for a slave code in the different Territories of this Union. Well, if you [turning to Mr. Lin coln] are not going to resist the decision, if you obey it, and do not intend to array mob law against the constituted authorities, then accord ing to your own statement, you will be a per jured man if you do not vote to establish slavery in these Territories. My doctrine is, that even taking Mr. Lincoln s view that the decision recognizes the right of a man to carry his slaves into the Territories of the United States, if he pleases, yet after he gets there he needs affirma tive law to make that right of any value. The same doctrine not only applies to slave prop erty, but all other kinds of property. Chief Justice Taney places it upon the ground that slave property is on an equal footing with other property. Suppose one of your merchants should move to Kansas and open a liquor-store; he has a right to take groceries and liquors there, but the mode of selling them, and the circum- 1858] Rejoinder at Jonesboro 87 stances under which they shall be sold, and all the remedies, must be prescribed by local legis lation, and if that is unfriendly it will drive him out just as effectually as if there was a constitu tional provision against the sale of liquor. So the absence of local legislation to encourage and support slave property in a Territory excludes it practically just as effectually as if there was a positive constitutional provision against it. Hence I assert that under the Dred Scott de cision you cannot maintain slavery a day in a Territory where there is an unwilling people and unfriendly legislation. If the people are opposed to it, our right is a barren, worthless, useless right; and if they are for it, they will support and encourage it. We come right back, therefore, to the practical question, if the people of a Territory want slavery they will have it, and if they do not want it you cannot force it on them. And this is the practical question, the great principle, upon which our institutions rest. I am willing to take the decision of the Supreme Court as it was pronounced by that august tribunal, without stopping to inquire whether I would have decided that way or not I have had many a decision made against me on questions of law which I did not like, but I was bound by them just as much as if I had had 88 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 a hand in making them, and approved them. Did you ever see a lawyer or a client lose his case that he approved the decision of the court? They always think the decision unjust when it is given against them. In a government of laws like ours we must sustain the Constitution as our fathers made it, and maintain the rights of the States as they are guaranteed under the Con stitution, and then we will have peace and har mony between the different States and sections of this glorious Union. FRAGMENT: NOTES FOR SPEECHES, [September 16?] 1858 I believe the declaration that "all men are created equal" is the great fundamental princi ple upon which our free institutions rest. That negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that by our form of government that principle has not been made one of legal obligation. That by our form of government the States which have slavery are to retain or disuse it, at their own pleasure; and that all others individuals, free States, and National Government are con stitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. That our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual pres ence of slavery when it was formed. 1858] Speech at Charleston FOURTH JOINT DEBATE AT CHARLESTON, ILLI NOIS, September 18, 1858 Mr. Lincoln s Opening Speech. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It will be very difficult for an audience so large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as possible. While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equal ity between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this oc casion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would oc cupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a phys ical difference between the white and black 90 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they can not so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My under standing 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 a perfect equali ty, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas s old friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the re marks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never 1858] Speech at Charleston 9 1 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 was no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white peo ple with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this : that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State legislature not in the Congress of the United States ; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose, as the best means to prevent it, that the judge be kept at home and placed in the State legislature to fight the measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on the subject. When Judge Trumbull, our other senator in Congress, returned to Illinois in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in which he made what may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which I understand proved to be very offensive to him. The judge was at that time out upon one of his speaking tours 92 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 through the country, and when the news of it reached him, as I am informed, he denounced Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for hav ing said what he did in regard to the matter. I was traveling at that time, and speaking at the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent days, and when I heard of what Judge Trum bull had said of Douglas, and what Douglas had said back again, I felt that I was in a posi tion where I could not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter. Consequently, upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and al luded to it in no other wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by Trumbull against Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to say nothing about it that I did per sonally know Judge Trumbull that I believed him to be a man of veracity that I believed him to be a man of capacity sufficient to know very well whether an assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn from a set of facts, was true or false; and as a conclusion of my own from that, I stated it as my belief, if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove everything he had said. I said this upon two or three occasions. Upon a subsequent occa sion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before an audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his charge against Douglas, but 1858] Speech at Charleston 93 arrayed the evidence he relied upon to sub stantiate it. This speech was published at length, and subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In the course of his speech, and near the close of it, he stated in regard to myself what I will now read: "Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that Lin coln having indorsed the character of Trum bull for veracity, he should hold him (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders." I have done sim ply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitation to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally been my purpose to discuss that matter at all. But inasmuch as it seems to be the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once in my life I will play General Jackson, and to the just ex tent I take the responsibility. I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that portion of Judge T rum- bull s Alton speech which was devoted to this matter, and also that portion of Judge Doug las s speech made at Jacksonville in answer to it I shall thereby furnish the readers of this debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take half of 94 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 my first hour to do so. I can only make some comments upon them. Trumbuirs charge is in the following words: "Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a constitu tion formed in Kansas, and put in force, without giving the people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot." I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he re gards as sufficient evidence to substantiate this charge. It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon the floor of the Sen ate, had declared there had been a conference among the senators, in which conference it was determined to have an Enabling Act passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution un der; and in this conference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the peo ple after it should be formed. He then brings forward evidence to show, and showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with that clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause in serted in the bill, which would in its nature prevent a reference of the constitution back for a vote of the people if, indeed, upon a mere 1858] Speech at Charleston 95 silence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to vote upon it. These are the general statements that he has made. I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas s speech, in which he attempts to an swer that speech of Judge Trumbuirs. When you come to examine Judge Douglas s speech, you will find that the first point he makes is: "Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and that I struck it out is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution upon them against their will?" His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would say, in the first place, that that would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, as Judge Douglas states, that many territorial bills have passed without having such a provision in them. I be lieve it is true, though I am not certain, that in some instances constitutions framed under such bills have been submitted to a vote of the people, with the law silent upon the subject; but it does not appear that they once had their enabling acts framed with an express provision for sub mitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people, and then that it was stricken out when Congress did not mean to alter the effect 96 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 of the law. That there have been bills which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when was that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does this evi dence tend to prove the proposition that Trum- bull advanced, when we remember that the pro vision was stricken out of the bill almost simul taneously with the time that Bigler says there was a conference among certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be passed leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which it was agreed they should so frame the bill that there should be no submission of the constitution to a vote of the people. The judge does not notice this part of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did not require it to be submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter into a plot to put in force a consti tution for Kansas without giving the people any opportunity of voting upon it. But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is this: "But upon ex amination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain a clause requiring the constitution 1858] Speech at Charleston 97 to be submitted." This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I only want to ask this question why did not Judge Douglas say that these words were not stricken out of the Toombs bill, or this bill from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out a bill which goes by the name of Toombs, because he originally brought it forward? I ask why, if the judge wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not stricken out? Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the Toombs bill, and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were stricken out. Judge Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull says were strick en out, were not stricken out, but he says there was no provision in the Toombs bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the words. He has not under taken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about these words being stricken out; but he is really, when pushed up to it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken out, I have before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the 9$ Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 Toombs bill, in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says were in it, were, in fact, originally there. If there be any dispute upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show they were there. If there be any controversy upon the sense of the words whether these words which were stricken out really constituted a provision for submitting the matter to a vote of the people, as that is a matter of argument, I think I may as well use TrumbulPs own argu ment. He says that the proposition is in these words : That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the peo ple of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adop tion of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas. Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill when it came back, and he said this was a provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people, and his argument is this: "Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an election was to be held?" That is Trumbull s argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet 1858] Speech at Charleston 99 the charge at all, but stands up and says there was no such proposition in that bill for sub mitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people. Trumbull admits that the lan guage is not a direct provision for submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another provision. He asks you how it is pos sible to ratify the land proposition at the election for the adoption of the constitution, if there was no election to be held for the adoption of the constitution. And he goes on to show that it is not any less a law because the provision is put in that indirect shape than it would be if it was put directly. But I presume I have said enough to draw attention to this point, and I pass it by also. Another one of the points that Judge Doug las makes upon Trumbull, and at very great length, is that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to be made would have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thought so then, what ground is there for anybody thinking otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, this much may be said in re ply: That bill had been in the hands of a party to which Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of the committee at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull per- ioo Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 haps had a printed copy of the original Toombs bill. I have not the evidence on that point, ex cept a sort of inference I draw from the general course of business there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of altering, were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, until the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterward, when it was reported back, there was a discussion over it, and per haps Trumbull in reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the bearings of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not follow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive, that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that what Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did? Sup pose Trumbull had been in the plot with these other men, would that let Douglas out of it? Would it exonerate Douglas that Trumbull did n t then perceive he was in the plot? He also asks the question : Why did n t Trumbull propose to amend the bill if he thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe that everything Judge Trumbull had proposed, par ticularly in connection with this question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his friends. He 1858] Speech at Charleston 101 had no promise that an amendment offered by him to anything on this subject would receive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull did bring the notice of the Senate at that time to the fact that there was no provision for sub mitting the constitution about to be made for the people of Kansas, to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture to say that Judge Doug las made some reply to this speech of Judge Trumbull s, but he never noticed that part of it at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment, does not throw much blame upon him; and if it did, it does not reach the ques tion of fact as to what Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat that if Trumbull had himself been in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial it should be discovered that I had been impli cated in that murder, but that the prosecuting witness was guilty too,, that would not at all touch the question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck that they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to be guilty too. Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest io2 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 upon the fact that the bill had the provision in it for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people, when it went into his (Judge Douglas s) hands, that it was missing when he reported it to the Senate, and that in a public speech he had subsequently said the alteration in the bill was made while it was in committee, and that they were made in consultation be tween him (Judge Douglas) and Toombs. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of Trumbull s adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with another clause and another provision in it saying that "until the complete execution of this act there shall be no election in said Ter ritory," which Trumbull argued was not only taking the provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but was adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the question. Now in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the issue that he shifts his ground and I believe he uses the term that "it being proven false, he has changed ground," I call upon all of you when you come to examine that portion of Trumbuirs speech (for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trumbull has shifted his 1858] Speech at Charleston 103 ground or not. I say he did not shift his ground, but that he brought forward his origi nal charge, and the evidence to sustain it yet more fully, but precisely as he originally made it. Then, in addition thereto, he brought in a new piece of evidence. He shifted no ground. He brought no new piece of evidence inconsis tent with his former testimony, but he brought a new piece tending, as he thought, and as I think, to prove his proposition. To illustrate: A man brings an accusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a second trial he introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and a third witness who tells the same thing, and in addition gives further testimony corroborative of the charge. So with Trumbull. There was no shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony between the new piece of evidence and what he origi nally introduced. But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and a substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is true that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. Trumbull has not said it was not. Trumbull has himself said that it was so stricken out. He Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 says: "I am speaking of the bill as Judge Douglas reported it back. It was amended somewhat in the Senate before it passed, but I am speaking of it as he brought it back." Now, when Judge Douglas parades the fact that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he asserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only said that he originally put it in not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. When it came back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made by him in consulta tion with Toombs. Trumbull alleges there fore, as his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in. Then if Douglas wants to contradict Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not put it in, and not that he did n t take it out again. It is said that a bear is sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub, and so I pre sume it was in this case. I presume the truth is that Douglas put it in and afterward took it out. That, I take it, is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing; Douglas says another thing, and the two don t contradict one another at all. The question is, what did he put it in for? In the first place, what did he take the other provision out of the bill for? the provision which Trumbull argued was 1858] Speech at Charleston 105 necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people? What did he take that out for? and having taken it out, what did he put this in for? I say that, in the run of things, it is not unlikely forces conspired to render it vastly expedient for Judge Douglas to take that latter clause out again. The question that Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in, and he don t meet Trumbull at all unless he denies that. In the clause of Judge Douglas s speech upon this subject he uses this language toward Judge Trumbull. He says: "He forges his evidence from beginning to end, and by falsifying the record he endeavors to bolster up his false charge." Well, that is a pretty serious state ment. Trumbull forges his evidence from be ginning to end. Now upon my own authority I say that it is not true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has brought forward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to, examine whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had the bill or document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says that is a copy of the Toombs bill the amendment of fered by Toombs. He says that is a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas s hands. Now, does Judge io6 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 Douglas say that is a forgery? That is one thing Trumbull brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning to end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does Douglas say that is a forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent ex amination upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas s hands. Does Judge Douglas say that is a for- gery? Does he say it in his sweeping charge? Does he say so now? If he does not, then take this Toombs bill and the bill in the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see that the provision is in the one and not in the other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken out. But while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbuirs other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trum bull says there are in this original Toombs bill these words: "That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the convention and rati fied by the people at the election for the adop tion of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon 1858] Speech at Charleston 107 the United States and the said State of Kansas." Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper here and see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December 9, 1857: I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the bill was introduced, and the ques tion was raised and discussed, whether the constitu tion, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was held by those most intelligent on the subject, that in view of all the difficulties sur rounding that Territory, [and] the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better there should be no such provision in the Toombs bill; and it was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the convention would make a constitution, and send it here without submitting it to the popular vote. Then Trumbull follows on: In speaking of this meeting again on the 2ist De cember, 1857 [" Congressional Globe," same volume, page 113], Senator Bigler said: "Nothing was fur ther from my mind than to allude to any social or confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-official and called to promote the public good. My recollection was clear that I left the conference under the impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit io8 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this convention. This impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non intervention, to which I had great aversion ; but with the hope of accomplishing a great good, and as no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of testi mony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their submission I shall be content. I have be fore me the bill reported by the senator from Illinois on the yth of March, 1856, providing for the admis sion of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows: " That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the peo ple of Kansas, when formed, for their free accept ance or rejection; which, if accepted by the convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adop tion of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas. 5 "The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia, on the 25th of June, and referred to the committee on Territories, contained the same section word for word. Both these bills were under consid eration at the conference referred to; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate with amendments the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the convention that the constitution 1858] Speech at Charleston 109 should be approved by the people. The words, and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, had been stricken out." Now these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the "Con gressional Globe" on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is a forgery? Does he say there is no such thing in the "Congressional Globe"? What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his evidence from be- gining to end? So again he says, in another place, that Judge Douglas, in his speech Decem ber 9, 1857 ["Congressional Globe," Part I, page 15], stated: That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill from the committee on Ter ritories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assem ble and form a constitution for themselves. Subse quently the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, after being modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate. Now Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and is recorded in the "Congressional Globe." Is it a forgery? Is it there or not? It may not be there, but I want the judge to take these pieces of evidence, and no Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 distinctly say they are forgeries if he dare do it. [A voice: "He will."] Well sir, you had better not commit him. He gives other quota tions another from Judge Douglas. He says : 1 I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member of the Senate, in the whole de bate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union, from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the public. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on it; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done which ought in fairness to have been done. Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. Does Judge Doug las say it is a forgery, and was not true? Trum bull says somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any one who will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the notice of those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that provision, and then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge Doug las, where Judge Trumbull uses this language: Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probably recollecting or being re- 1858] Speech at Charleston in minded of the fact that I had objected to the Toombs bill, when pending, that it did not provide for a sub mission of the constitution to the people, made an other statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the "Globe," page 22, in which he says: u That the bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention was called to that about the time it was passed; and I took the fair construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the constitution would be submitted to the people." Whether this statement is consistent with the state ment 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. So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and yet maintain his position that TrumbulPs evidence "was forged from beginning to end." I will remark that I have not got these "Congressional Globes" with me. They are large books and difficult to carry about, and if Judge Douglas shall say that on these points where Trumbull has quoted from them, there are no such passages there, I shall not be able to prove they are there upon this occasion, but I will have another chance. Whenever he points out the forgery and says, "I declare that this particular thing which Trumbull has uttered is not to be found where ii2 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 he says it is," then my attention will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest stating now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the question is, how can Douglas call that a forgery? How can he make out that it is a forgery? What is a forgery? It is the bringing forward some thing in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect when it is altogether untrue. If you come forward with my note for one hun dred dollars when I have never given such a note, there is a forgery. If you come forward with a letter purporting to be written by me which I never wrote, there is another forgery. If you produce anything in writing or in print saying it is so and so, the document not being genuine, a forgery has been committed. How do you make this a forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine? If Judge Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false and forged, he has a full right to do so, but until he does it specifically, we don t know how to get at him. If he does say they are false and forged, I will then look further into it, and I presume I can procure the certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies. I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where Trumbull says it is. Then 1858] Speech at Charleston 113 I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in making his sweeping charge that Judge Trumbuirs evi dence is forged from beginning to end, at all meets the case if that is the way to get at the facts. I repeat again, if he will point out which one is a forgery, I will carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one of them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it any longer. I have always wanted to deal with every one I meet candidly and honestly. If I have made any assertion not warranted by facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will with draw it cheerfully. But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and the evidence he has brought forward branded in general terms "a forgery from beginning to end." This is not the legal way of meeting a charge, and I submit to all intelligent persons, both friends of Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is. The point upon Judge Douglas is this. The bill that went into his hands had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to the people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision for a submission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was known that the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge Douglas, it was not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the declaration when you got it, for a submission of the consti- ii4 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 tution to the people. And now, my direct question to Judge Douglas is to answer why, if he deemed the bill silent on this point, he found it necessary to strike out those particular harm less words. If he had found the bill silent and without this provision, he might say what he does now. If he supposes it was implied that the constitution would be submitted to a vote of the people, how could these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to strike them out? How could he infer that a submission was still implied, after its express provision had been stricken from the bill? I find the bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it out, and although he took out the other provision preventing a sub mission to a vote of the people, I ask, why did you first put it in? I ask him whether he took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges was in the bill? If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he did it for? It looks to us as if he had altered the bill. If it looks differently to him if he has a different reason for his action from the one we assign him he can tell it. I insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it. I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three minutes of being out. 1858] Speech at Charleston 115 I presume it is expired now. I therefore close. Extract from Mr, TrumbulVs 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 Beardstown, and reported in the "Missouri Republican." This extract has refer ence 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 I substantiated by a reference to the record, my colleague is reported to have said : "For when this charge was once made in a much milder form in the Senate of the United States, I did brand it as a lie in the presence of Mr. Trumbull, and Mr. Trumbull sat and heard it thus branded, with out 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 lie down his throat until he should cry enough. The miserable, craven- hearted wretch! he would rather have both ears cut off than to use that language in my presence, where I could call him to account. I see the object is to draw me into a personal controversy, with the hope thereby of concealing from the public the enormity of the n6 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 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 charac ters 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 saying that he will not make a black guard 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 discriminat ing public will judge of that for themselves; but as he says he has "no charges to make on Mr. Trum bull," I suppose politeness requires I should believe him. At the risk of again offending this mighty man of war, and losing something more than my ears, I shall have the audacity to again read the record upon him, and prove and pin upon him, so that he cannot escape it, the truth of every word I uttered at Chi cago. You, fellow-citizens, are the judges to deter- 1858] Speech at Charleston 117 mine whether I do this. My colleague says he is willing to stand on his public record. By that he shall be tried, and if he had been able to discriminate between the exposure of a public act by the record, and a personal attack upon the individual, he would have discovered that there was nothing personal in my Chicago remarks, unless the condemnation of himself by his own public record is personal, and then you must judge who is most to blame for the torture his public record inflicts upon him, he for making, or I for reading it after it was made. As an individual I care very little about Judge Douglas one way or the other. It is his public acts with which I have to do, and if they condemn, disgrace, and consign him to oblivion, he has only himself, not me, to blame. Now, the charge is that there was a plot entered into to have a constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the people an opportunity to pass upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot. This is as susceptible of proof by the record as is the fact that the State of Minnesota was ad mitted into the Union at the last session of Con gress. On the 25th of June, 1856, a bill was pending in the United States Senate to authorize the people of Kansas to form a constitution and come into the Union. On that day Mr. Toombs offered an amend ment 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 Com- ii8 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 mittee on Territories, 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 com missioners, who were to take a census of Kansas, divide the Territory into election districts, and super intend the election of delegates to form a constitu tion, and contains a clause in the i8th section which I will read to you, requiring the constitution which should be formed to be submitted to the people for adoption. It reads as follows : "That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the peo ple of Kansas, when formed, for their free accept ance or rejection; which, if accepted by the convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adop tion of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States, and upon the said State of Kansas/* etc It has been contended by some of the newspaper press that this section did not require the constitution which should be formed to be submitted to the people for approval, and that it was only the land proposi tions which were to be submitted. You will observe the language is that the propositions are to be "rati fied by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution." Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions J at the election for the adoption of the constitution," unless such an election was to be held? 1858] Speech at Charleston 119 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 re quired 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 require ment of the law. Can any candid, fair-minded man read the section I have quoted, and say that the in tention to have the constitution which should be formed submitted to the people for their adoption is not clearly expressed ? In my judgment there can be no controversy among honest men upon a proposition so plain as this. Mr. Douglas has never pretended to deny, so far as I am aware, that the Toombs amendment, as originally introduced, did require a submission of the constitution to the people. This amendment of Mr. Toombs was referred to the com mittee of which Mr. Douglas was chairman, and re ported back by him on the 3Oth of June, with the words "and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution" stricken out. I have here a copy of the bill as reported back by Mr. Douglas to substantiate the statement I make. Va rious other alterations were also made in the bill to which I shall presently have occasion to call attention. There was no other clause in the original Toombs bill requiring a submission of the constitution to the peo- 120 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 pie than the one I have read, and there was no clause whatever, after that was struck out, in the bill, as reported back by Judge Douglas, requiring a submis sion. I will now introduce a witness whose testi mony cannot be impeached, he acknowledging him self to have been one of the conspirators, and privy to the fact about which he testifies. Senator Bigler, alluding to the Toombs bill, as it was called, and which, after sundry amendments, passed the Senate, and to the propriety of submitting the constitution which should be formed to a vote of the people, made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December 9, 1857. I read from Part I, "Congressional Globe" of last session, paragraph 21 : "I was present when that subject was discussed by senators, before the bill was introduced, and the ques tion was raised and discussed whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was held by the most intelligent on the subject that in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, [and] the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better that there should be no such provision in the Toombs bill ; and it is my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the convention would make a constitution and send it here without submitting it to the popular vote." In speaking of this meeting again on the 2ist of 1858] Speech at Charleston 121 December, 1857 ("Congressional Globe," same vol ume, page 113), Senator Bigler said: "Nothing was farther from my mind than to allude to any social or confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-offi cial, and called to promote the public good. My recollection was clear that I left the conference 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 aversion; but with the hope of accomplishing great good, and as no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of testimony as to the correctness of these im pressions, and with their submission I shall be con tent. I have before me the bill reported by the sena tor from Illinois on the yth of March, 1856, provid ing for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows : That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the peo ple of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States, and upon the said State of Kansas. 7 122 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 "The bill read in place by the senator from Geor gia, on the 25th of June, and referred to the Commit tee on Territories, contained the same section, word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the conference referred to; but, sir, when the sena tor from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Sen ate, with amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the third section which indi cated to the convention that the constitution should be approved by the people. The words and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution had been stricken out." I am not now seeking to prove that Douglas was in the plot to force a constitution upon Kansas, with out allowing the people to vote directly upon it. I shall attend to that branch of the subject by and by. My object now is to prove the existence of the plot, what the design was, and I ask if I have not already done so. Here are the facts : The introduction of a bill on the yth of March, 1856, providing for the calling of a convention in Kansas to form a State constitution, and providing that the constitution should be submitted to the people for adoption ; an amendment to this bill, proposed by Mr. Toombs, containing the same requirement; a reference of these various bills to the Committee on Territories; a consultation of senators to determine whether it was advisable to have the constitution for ratification; the determination that it was not advisa ble; and a report of the bill back to the Senate next morning, with the clause providing for the submis- 1 858] Speech at Charleston 123 sion stricken out could evidence be more complete to establish the first part of the charge I have made of a plot having been entered into by somebody to have a constitution adopted without submitting it to the people ? Now, for the other part of the charge. That Judge Douglas was in this plot, whether knowingly or ignorantly, is not material to my purpose. The charge is that he was an instrument co-operating in the project to have a constitution formed and put into operation without affording the people an oppor tunity to pass upon it. The first evidence 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 with his speech in the Senate on the 9th of December, 1857 ("Congressional Globe," Part I, page 14), wherein he stated: "That during the last Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought for ward 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 colleague was an instrument in the plot to have a constitution put in force without submitting it to the people, and to forever close his mouth from attempt- 124 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 ing to deny. No man can reconcile his acts and for mer 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 en 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 government in op eration without submitting the constitution to the peo ple, my colleague (" Congressional Globe," last ses sion, Part I, page 24) stated: "I will ask the senator to show me an intimation from any one member of the Senate, in the whole de bate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the people. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on it; and if they had made it we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done which ought in fairness to have been done." I knew, at the time this statement was made, that I had urged the very objection to the Toombs bill two years before, that it did not provide for the sub mission of the constitution. You will find my re marks, made on the 2d of July, 1856, in the appendix 1858] Speech at Charleston 125 to the Congressional Globe" of that year, page 179, urging this very objection. Do you ask why I did not expose him at the time? I will tell you. Mr. Douglas was then doing good service against the Le- compton iniquity. The Republicans were then en gaged in a hand-to-hand fight with the National Democracy, to prevent the bringing of Kansas into the Union as a slave State against the wishes of its inhabitants, and of course I was unwilling to turn our guns from the common enemy to strike down an ally. Judge Douglas, however, on the same day, and in the same debate, probably recollecting, or being reminded of the fact, that I had objected to the Toombs bill, when pending, that it did not provide for the submis sion of the constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the "Congressional Globe," page 22, in which he says: "That the bill was silent on the subject is true, and my attention was called to that about the time it was 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 state ment 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 rec ords do not convict and condemn him, he may go uncondemned, so far as I am concerned. I make no 126 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 use here of the testimony of Senator Bigler to show that Judge Douglas must have been privy to the con sultation held at his house, when it was determined not to submit the constitution to the people, because Judge Douglas denies it, and I wish to use his own acts and declarations, which are abundantly sufficient for my purpose. I come to a piece of testimony which disposes of all these various pretenses which have been set up for striking out of the original Toombs proposition the clause requiring a submission of the constitution to the people, and shows that it was not done either by acci dent, 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 ap proval. What will you think, after listening to the facts already presented to show that there was a de sign 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 requiring submission was not only struck out, but that other clauses were inserted in the bill putting it absolutely out of the power of the conven tion to submit the constitution to the people for ap proval, 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 Chi cago, and more too? I propose now to furnish that evidence. It will be remembered that Mr. Toombs s bill provided for 1858] Speech at Charleston 127 holding an election for delegates to form a constitu tion under the supervision of commissioners to be ap pointed by the President, and in the bill, as reported back by Judge Douglas, these words, not to be found in the original bill, are inserted at the close of the nth 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 conven tion 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 com pletely 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 sub* mission to Congress for admission. Other amend ments reported by Judge Douglas to the original Toombs bill clearly show that the intention was to enable Kansas to become a State without any further action than simply a resolution of admission. The amendment reported by Mr. Douglas, that "until the next congressional apportionment the said State shall have one representative/ clearly shows this, no such provision being contained in the original 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 consti tution, when formed, to the people? The Toombs bill did not pass in the exact shape 1 28 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 in which Judge Douglas reported it. Several amend ments were made to it in the Senate. I am now deal ing with the action of Judge Douglas as connected with that bill, and speak of the bill as he recom mended it. The facts I have stated in regard to this matter appear upon the records, which I have here present to show to any man who wishes to look at them. They establish, beyond the power of contro versy, all the charges I have made, and show that Judge Douglas was made use of as an instrument by others, or else knowingly was a party to the scheme to have a government put in force over the people of Kansas, without giving them an opportunity to pass upon it. That others high in position in the so-called Democratic party were parties to such a scheme is confessed by Governor Bigler; and the only reason why the scheme was not carried, and Kansas long ago forced into the Union as a slave State, is the fact that the Republicans were sufficiently strong in the House of Representatives to defeat the measure. Extract from Mr. Douglas s Speech made at Jack sonville, and referred to by Mr. Lincoln in his opening at Charleston. I have been reminded by a friend behind me that there Is another topic upon which there has been a desire expressed that I should speak. I am told that Mr. Lyman Trumbull, who has the good fortune to hold a seat in the United States Senate, in violation of the bargain between him and Lincoln, was here the other day and occupied his time in making certain 1858] Speech at Charleston I2 9 charges against me, involving, if they be true, moral turpitude. I am also informed that the charges he made here were substantially the same as those made by him in the city of Chicago, which were printed in the newspapers of that city. I now propose to an swer those charges and to annihilate every pretext that an honest man has ever had for repeating them. In order that I may meet these charges fairly, I will read them, as made by Mr. Trumbull in his Chicago speech, in his own language. He says : "Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that there was a preconcerted arrangement and plot entered into by the very men who now claim credit for opposing a constitution not submitted to the peo ple, 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 coun try under banners, proclaiming popular sovereignty, by design concocted a bill on purpose to force a con stitution 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 his throat till he shall cry enough ! It is preposterous it is the most damnable effrontery that man ever put on to conceal a scheme to defraud and cheat the 130 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 people out of their rights, and then claim credit for it." That is polite and decent language for a senator of the United States. Remember 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 it was 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. Trum- bull to go round uttering calumnies of that kind, bullying and talking of cramming lies down men s throats; but if I deny any of his lies by calling him a liar, they are shocked at the indecency of the lan guage ; 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, introduced a bill into Congress authorizing the people of Kansas to form a constitution and come into the Union, that, when introduced, it contained 1858] Speech at Charleston 131 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 Frank lin Pierce, there has 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 re ported 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 constitu tion to be submitted. Hence no such clause was ever stricken out by me or anybody else. It is true, how ever, that the Toombs bill and its authors all took it for granted that the constitution would be submitted. There had never been in the history of this govern ment any attempt made to force a constitution upon an unwilling people, and nobody dreamed that any such attempt would be made, or deemed it necessary 132 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 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? In order to give more pertinency to that question, I will read an extract from Trumbull s speech in the Senate, on the Toombs bill, made on the 2d day of July, 1856. He said: u We are asked to amend this bill, and make it per fect, 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 satis faction 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 applica tion of the Wilmot proviso to the Territories, and the second the repeal of all the laws passed by the territorial legislature. He did not then say that it was necessary to put in a clause requiring the submis sion 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 bill was silent as to the subject of submission, and also that he, and everybody else, took it for granted that the constitution would be submit ted. Now for the evidence. In his second speech he says: " The bill in many of its features meets my 1858] Speech at Charleston 133 approbation." So he did not think it so very bad. Further on he says : " In regard to the measure introduced by the sena tor from Georgia [Mr. Toombs], and recommended by the committee, I regard it, in many respects, as a most excellent 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 measure, nor one which will give peace, and I will give my reasons. First, it affords no im mediate relief. It provides for taking a census of the voters in the Territory, for an election in Novem ber, 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. I suppose that constitution would have to be ratified by the people before it becomes valid." He there expressly declared that he supposed, un der the bill, the constitution would have to be sub mitted to the people before it became valid. He went on to say: " No provision is made in this bill for such a ratifi cation. 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? Not- 134 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 withstanding 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 re jection. Perhaps the convention would have the right to submit it, if it should think proper; but it is certainly not compelled to do so, according to the provisions of the bill. If it is to be submitted to the people, it will take time, and it will not be until some time next year that this new constitution, affirmed and ratified by the people, would be submitted here to Congress for its acceptance, and what is to be the condition of that people in the mean time? " You see that his argument then was that the Toombs bill would not get Kansas into the Union quick enough, and was objectionable on that account. He had no fears about this submission, or why did he not introduce an amendment to meet the case? [A voice: " Why didn t you? You were chairman of the committee."] I will answer that question for you. In the first place, no such provision had ever be fore been put in any similar act passed by Congress. I did not suppose that there was an honest man who would pretend that the omission of such a clause furnished evidence of a conspiracy or attempt to im pose on the people. It could not be expected that 1858] Speech at Charleston 135 such of us as did not think that omission was evidence of such a scheme would offer such an amendment; but if Trumbull then believed what he now says, why did he not offer the amendment, and try to prevent it, when he was, as he says, invited to do so ? In this connection I will tell you what the main point of discussion was. There was a bill pending to admit Kansas whenever she should have a popula tion of 93,420, that being the ratio required for a member of Congress. Under that bill Kansas could not have become a State for some years, because she could not have had the requisite population. Mr. Toombs took it into his head to bring in a bill to admit Kansas then, with only twenty-five or thirty thousand people, and the question 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 over ruled me by deciding in favor of the immediate ad mission 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 enter tained the most serious and grave doubts in regard to the propriety of indorsing the proposition relates to the fact that, in the absence of any census of the inhabitants, there is reason to apprehend that the Territory does not contain sufficient population to en title them to demand admission under the treaty with France, if we take the ratio of representation for a member of Congress as the rule." 136 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 Thus you see that in the written report accompany ing 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 Territory, prepa ratory to its admission into the Union as a State, jus tice, the genius of our institutions, the whole theory of our republican system imperatively demand that the voice of the people shall be fairly expressed, and their will embodied in that fundamental law without fraud or violence, or intimidation, or any other im proper 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 Geor gia refers all matters in dispute to the decision of the present population, with guarantees of fairness and safeguards 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 1858] Speech at Charleston 137 only all the emigrants who have arrived in the Ter ritory this year, but all the law-abiding men who re fused to join in the act of open rebellion against the constituted authorities of the Territory last year by making the unauthorized and unlawful action of a political party the fundamental law of the whole peo- pie." Then, again, I repeat that under that bill the ques tion is to be referred to the present 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 requiring submis sion was originally in the bill, and was stricken out by me. When that falsehood was exposed by a publica tion of the record, he went to Alton and made an other speech, repeating the charge, and referring to other and different evidence to sustain it. He saw that he was caught in his first falsehood, so he changed the issue, and instead of resting upon the allegation of striking out, he made it rest upon the declaration that I had introduced a clause into the bill prohibit ing the people from voting upon the constitution. I am told that he made the same charge here that he made at Alton, that I had actually introduced and incorporated into the bill a clause which prohibited the people from voting upon their constitution. I hold his Alton speech in my hand, and will read the amendment which he alleges that I offered. It is in these words : 138 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 "And until the complete execution of this act no other election shall be held in said Territory." Trumbull says the object of that amendment was to prevent the convention from submitting the con stitution to a vote of the people. I will read what he said at Alton on that subject: " This clause put it out of the power of the con vention, had it been so disposed, to submit the con stitution to the people for adoption; for it absolutely prohibited the holding of any other election, than that for the election of delegates, till that act was completely executed, which would not have been till Kansas was admitted as a State, or, at all events, till her constitution was fully prepared and ready for submission to Congress for admission." Now, do you suppose that Mr. Trumbull supposed that that clause prohibited the convention from sub mitting the constitution to the people, when, in his speech in the Senate, he declared that the convention had a right to submit it? In his Alton speech, as will be seen by the extract which I have read, he declared that the clause put it out of the power of the conven tion to submit the constitution, and in his speech in the Senate he 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 re jection. Perhaps the convention could have the right to submit it, if it should think proper, but it is cer- 1858] Speech at Charleston 139 tainly not compelled to do so according to the provi sions of the bill." Thus you see that, in Congress, he declared the bill to be silent on the subject, and a few days since, at Alton, he made a speech, and said that there was a provision in the bill prohibiting submission. I have two answers to make to that. In the first place, the amendment which he quotes as depriving the people of an opportunity to vote upon the consti tution was stricken out on my motion absolutely stricken out and not voted on at all ! In the second place, in lieu of it, a provision was voted in authoriz ing the convention to order an election whenever it pleased. I will read. After Trumbull had made his speech in the Senate, declaring that the constitution would probably be submitted to the people, although the bill was silent upon that subject, I made a few remarks, and offered two amendments, which you may find in the appendix to the "Congressional Globe," volume XXXIII, first session of the thirty-fourth Congress, page 795. I quote : "Mr. Douglas: I have an amendment to offer from the Committee on Territories. On page 8, sec tion 1 1 , strike out the words until the complete exe cution of this act no other election shall be held in said Territory, and insert the amendment which I hold in my hand." The amendment was as follows: * That all persons who shall possess the other qual- 140 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 ifications prescribed for voters under this act, and who shall have been bona fide inhabitants of said Ter ritory since its organization, and who shall have ab sented themselves therefrom in consequence of the disturbances therein, and who shall return before the first day of October next, and become bona fide inhab itants of the Territory, with the intent of making it their permanent home, and shall present satisfactory evidence of these facts to the Board of Commission ers, shall be entitled to vote at said election, and shall have their names placed on said corrected list of voters for that purpose." That amendment was adopted unanimously. After its adoption, the record shows the following : " Mr. Douglas: I have another amendment to of fer from the committee, to follow the amendment which has been adopted. The bill reads now: And until the complete execution of this act, no other elec tion shall be held in said Territory. It has been suggested that it should be modified in this way: And to avoid all conflict in the complete execution of this act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby postponed until such time as said convention shall appoint ; so that they can appoint the day in the event that there should be a failure to come into the Union." This amendment was also agreed to without dis sent. Thus you see that the amendment quoted by Trum- bull at Alton as evidence against me, instead of being 1858] Speech at Charleston 141 put into the bill by me, was stricken out on my motion, and never became a part thereof at all. You also see that the substituted clause expressly authorized the convention to appoint such day of election as it should deem proper. Mr. Trumbull, when he made that speech, knew these facts. He forged his evidence from beginning to end, and by falsifying the record he endeavors to bolster up his false charge. I ask you what you think of Trumbull thus going around the country, falsify ing and garbling the public records? I ask you whether you will sustain a man who will descend to the infamy of such conduct? Mr. Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln] responsible for the slanders. 142 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 Senator Douglas s Reply In the Charleston Joint Debate. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I had supposed that we assembled here to-day for the purpose of a joint discussion be tween Mr. Lincoln and myself, upon the politi cal questions which now agitate the whole country. The rule of such discussions is, that the opening speaker shall touch upon all the points he intends to discuss, in order that his opponent, in reply, shall have the opportunity of answering them. Let me ask you what ques tions of public policy, relating to the welfare of this State or the Union, has Mr. Lincoln dis cussed before you? Mr. Lincoln simply con tented himself at the outset by saying, that he was not in favor of social and political equality between the white man and the negro, and did not desire the law so changed as to make the latter voters or eligible to office. I am glad that I have at last succeeded in getting an an swer out of him upon this subject of negro-citi zenship and eligibility to office, for I have been trying to bring him to the point on it ever since this canvass commenced. 1858] Reply at Charleston 143 I will now call your attention to the question w 7 hich Mr. Lincoln has occupied his entire time in discussing. He spent his whole hour in re tailing a charge made by Senator Trumbull against me. The circumstances out of which that charge was manufactured, occurred prior to the last presidential election, over two years ago. If the charge was true, why did not Trumbull make it in 1856, when I was dis cussing the questions of that day all over this State with Lincoln and him, and when it was pertinent to the then issue? He was then as silent as the grave on the subject. If the 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 the 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 proved if true? Were they not false to you and false to the country in going through that entire cam paign, concealing their knowledge of this enor mous conspiracy which, Mr. Trumbull says, he then knew and would not tell? Mr. Lincoln intimates, in his speech, a good reason why Mr. Trumbull would not tell; for he says that it 144 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 might be true, as I proved that it was at Jack sonville, that Trumbull was also in the plot, yet that the fact of TrumbulPs being in the plot would not in any way relieve me. He illus trates this argument by supposing himself on trial for murder, and says that it would be no extenuating circumstance if, on his trial, an other man was found to be a party to his crime. Well, if Trumbull was in the plot, and con cealed 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 forward and indorse that charge, occupying his whole hour in read ing Mr. TrumbulPs 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 TrumbulPs speech at Alton? I supposed that Mr. Lincoln was capable of making a public speech on his own account, or I should not have accepted the banter from him for a joint dis cussion. ["How about the charges?"] Do not trouble yourselves ; I am going to make my speech in my own way, and I trust, as the Dem ocrats listened patiently and respectfully to Mr. Lincoln, that his friends will not interrupt me when I am answering him. When Mr. Trum- 1858] Reply at Charleston 145 bull returned from the East, the first thing he did when he landed at Chicago was to make a speech wholly devoted to assaults upon my pub lic character and public action. Up to that time I had never alluded to his course in Con gress, or to him directly or indirectly; and hence his assaults upon me were entirely without provocation and without excuse. Since then he has been traveling from one end of the State to the other repeating his vile charge. I pro pose now to read it in his own language : Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that there was a preconcerted arrangement and plot entered into by the very men who now claim credit for opposing a constitution formed and put in force without giving the people any opportunity to pass upon it. This, my friends, is a serious charge, but I charge it to-night that the very men who traverse the country under banners proclaiming popular sov ereignty, by design concocted a bill on purpose to force a constitution upon that people. In answer to some one in the crowd, who asked him a question, Trumbull said: And you want to satisfy yourself that he was in the plot to force a constitution upon that 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 his throat till he shall cry enough. 146 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 It is preposterous it is the most damnable effront ery that man ever put on to conceal a scheme to defraud and cheat the people out of their rights, and then claim credit for it. That is the polite language Senator Trum- bull applied to me, his colleague, when I was two hundred miles off. Why did he not speak out as boldly in the Senate of the United States, and cram the lie down my throat when I denied the charge, first made by Bigler, and made him take it back? You all recollect how Bigler as saulted me when I was engaged in a hand-to- hand fight, resisting a scheme to force a con stitution on the people of Kansas against their will. He then attacked me with this charge; but I proved its utter falsity, nailed the slander to the counter, and made him take the back track. There is not an honest man in America who read that debate who will pretend that the charge is true. Trumbull was then present in the Senate, face to face with me, and why did he not then rise and repeat the charge, and say he would cram the lie down by throat? I tell you that Trumbull then knew it was a lie. He knew that Toombs denied that there ever was a clause in the bill he brought forward, calling for and requiring a submission of the Kansas constitution to the people. I will tell you what the facts of the case were. I introduced a bill 1858] Reply at Charleston 147 to authorize the people of Kansas to form a constitution and come into the Union as a State whenever they should have the requisite popu lation for a member of Congress, and Mr. Toombs proposed a substitute, authorizing the people of Kansas, with their then population of only 25,000, to form a constitution, and come in at once. The question at issue was, whether we would admit Kansas with a population of 25,000, or make her wait until she had the ratio entitling her to a representative in Con gress, which was 93,420. That was the point of dispute in the Committee on Territories, to which both my bill and Mr. Toombs s substitute had been referred. I was overruled by a ma jority of the committee, my proposition re jected, and Mr. Toombs s proposition to admit Kansas then, with her population of 25,000, adopted. Accordingly a bill to carry out his idea of immediate admission was reported as a substi tute for mine the only points at issue being, as I have already said, the question of popu lation, and the adoption of safeguards against frauds at the election. Trumbull knew this, the whole Senate knew it, and hence he was silent at that time. He waited until I be came engaged in this canvass, and finding that I was showing up Lincoln s Abolitionism and 148 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 negro-equality doctrines, that I was driving Lincoln to the wall, and white men would not support his rank Abolitionism, he came back from the East and trumped up a system of charges against me, hoping that I would be compelled to occupy my entire time in defend ing myself, so that I would not be able to show up the enormity of the principles of the Abo litionists. Now the only reason, and the true reason, why Mr. Lincoln has occupied the whole of his first hour in this issue between Trumbull and myself, is to conceal from this vast audience the real questions which divide the two great parties. I am not going to allow them to waste much of my time with these personal matters. I have lived in this State twenty-five years, most of that time have been in public life, and my record is open to you all. If that record is not enough to vindicate me from these petty, malicious as saults, I despise ever to be elected to office by slandering my opponents and traducing other men. Mr. Lincoln asks you to elect him to the United States Senate to-day solely because he and Trumbull can slander me. Has he given any other reason? Has he avowed what he was desirous to do in Congress on any one ques tion? He desires to ride into office, not upon his own merits, not upon the merits and sound- 1858] Reply at Charleston 149 ness of his principles, but upon his success in fastening a stale old slander upon me. I wish you to bear in mind that up to the time of the introduction of the Toombs bill, and after its introduction, there had never been an act of Congress for the admission of a new State which contained a clause requiring its constitution to be submitted to the people. The general rule made the law silent on the subject, taking it for granted that the people would demand and compel a popular vote on the rati fication of their constitution. Such was the general rule under Washington, Jefferson, Mad ison, Jackson, and Polk, under the Whig presi dents and the Democratic presidents from the beginning of the government down, and nobody dreamed that an effort would ever be made to abuse the power thus confided to the people of a Territory. For this reason our attention was not called to the fact of whether there was or was not a clause in the Toombs bill compelling submission, but it was taken for granted that the constitution would be submitted to the peo ple whether the law compelled it or not. Now I will read from the report by me as chairman of the Committee on Territories at the time I reported back the Toombs substitute to the Senate. It contained several things which I had voted against in committee, but 150 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 had been overruled by a majority of the mem bers, and it was my duty as chairman of the committee to report the bill back as it was agreed upon by them. The main point upon which I had been overruled was the question of population. In my report accompanying the Toombs bill, I said : In the opinion of your committee, whenever a con stitution shall be formed in any Territory, prepara tory to its admission into the Union as a State, jus tice, the genius of our institutions, the whole theory of our republican system, imperatively demand that the voice of the people shall be fairly expressed, and their will embodied in that fundamental law, without fraud, or violence, or intimidation, or any other im proper or unlawful influence, and subject to no other restrictions than those imposed by the Constitution of the United States. There you find that we took it for granted that the constitution was to be submitted to the people, whether the bill was silent on the sub ject or not. Suppose I had reported it so, fol lowing the example of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fill- more, and Pierce, would that fact have been evidence of conspiracy to force a constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will? 1858] Reply at Charleston 151 If the charge which Mr. Lincoln makes be true against me, it is true against Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and every Whig president, as well as every Democratic president, and against Henry Clay, who, in the Senate or House, for forty years advocated bills similar to the one I reported, no one of them containing a clause compelling the submission of the con stitution to the people. Are Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull prepared to charge upon all those eminent men from the beginning of the govern ment down to the present day, that the absence of a provision compelling submission, in the various bills passed by them, authorizing the people of Territories to form State constitu tions, is evidence of a corrupt design on their part to force a constitution upon an unwilling people? I ask you to reflect on these things, for I tell you that there is a conspiracy to carry this elec tion for the Black Republicans by slander, and not by fair means. Mr. Lincoln s speech this day is conclusive evidence of the fact. He has devoted his entire time to an issue between Mr. Trumbull and myself, and has not uttered a word about the politics of the day. Are you going to elect Mr. TrumbulPs colleague upon an issue between Mr. Trumbull and me? I thought I was running against Abraham Lin- 152 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 coin, that he claimed to be my opponent, had challenged me to a discussion of the public questions of the day with him, and was dis cussing these questions with me; but it turns out that his only hope is to ride into office on Trum- bull s back, who will carry him by falsehood. Permit me to pursue this subject a little fur ther. An examination of the record proves that Trumbuirs charge that the Toombs bill orig inally contained a clause requiring the consti tution to be submitted to the people is false. The printed copy of the bill which Mr. Lin coln held up before you, and which he pretends contains such a clause, merely contains a clause requiring a submission of the land grant, and there is no clause in it requiring a submission of the constitution. Mr. Lincoln cannot find such a clause in it. My report shows that we took it for granted that the people would re quire a submission of the constitution, and se cure it for themselves. There never was a clause in the Toombs bill requiring the consti tution to be submitted ; Trumbull knew it at the time, and his speech made on the night of its passage discloses the fact that he knew it was silent on the subject; Lincoln pretends, and tells you that Trumbull has not changed his evidence in support of his charge since he made his speech in Chicago. Let us see. The Chicago 1858] Reply at Charleston 153 "Times" took up Trumbull s Chicago speech, compared it with the official records of Con gress, and proved that speech to be false in its charge that the original Toombs bill required a submission of the constitution to the people. Trumbull then saw that he was caught, and his falsehood exposed, and he went to Alton, and, under the very walls of the penitentiary, made a new speech, in which he predicated his assault upon me in the allegation that I had caused to be voted into the Toombs bill a clause which prohibited the convention from submitting the constitution to the people, and quoted what he pretended was the clause. Now, has not Mr. Trumbull entirely changed the evidence on which he bases his charge? The clause which he quoted in his Alton speech (which he has published and circulated broad cast 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 in said Terri tory." Trumbull says that the object of that amend ment was to prevent the convention from sub mitting 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 154 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 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 rejection. Perhaps the convention will have the right to submit it, if it should think proper; but it is cer tainly not compelled to do so according to the provi sions of the bill. Thus you see that Trumbull, when the bill was on its passage in the Senate, said that it was silent on the subject of submission, and that there was nothing in the bill one way or the other on it. In his Alton speech he says there was a clause in the bill preventing its submis sion to the people, and that I had it voted in as an amendment. Thus I convict him of false hood and slander by quoting from him on the passage of the Toombs bill in the Senate of the United States, his own speech, made on the night of July 2, 1856, and reported in the "Congres sional Globe" for the first session of the Thirty- fourth Congress, Vol. XXXIII. 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 1858] Reply at Charleston 155 motion and another substituted in its place. I call your attention to the same volume of the "Congressional Globe" to which I have already referred, page 795, where you will find the fol lowing report of the proceedings of the Senate: Mr. Douglas: I have an amendment to offer from the Committee on Territories. On page 8, section n, strike out the words "until the complete execu tion of this act, no other election shall be held in said Territory," and insert the amendment which I hold in my hand. You see from this that I moved to strike out the very words that 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 place. On the same page you will find that my amendment was agreed to unanimously. I then offered another amendment, recognizing the right of the people of Kansas, under the Toombs bill, to order just such elections as they saw proper. You can find it on page 796 of the same volume. I will read it: Mr. Douglas : I have another amendment to offer from the committee, to follow the amendment which has been adopted. The bill reads now: "And until the complete execution of this act, no other election 156 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 shall be held in said Territory." It has been sug gested 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 post poned until such time as said convention shall ap point " ; so that they can appoint the day in the event that there should be a failure to come into the Union. The amendment was unanimously agreed to clearly and distinctly recognizing the right of the convention to order just as many elections as 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 on my motion, and the other fact that this other clause was put in the bill on my motion, and made the false charge that I incorporated into the bill a clause preventing submission, in the face of the fact that, on my motion, the bill was so amended before it passed as to recognize in express words the right and duty of sub mission. On this record that I have produced before you, I repeat my charge that Trumbull did fal sify 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 what I state is true ; Mr. Lincoln has this day indorsed Mr. Trum- bull s veracity after he had my word for it that 1858] Reply at Charleston 157 that veracity was proved to be violated and for feited by the public records. It will not do for Mr. Lincoln, in parading his calumnies against me, to put Mr. Trumbull between him and the odium and responsibility which justly attach to such calumnies. I tell him that I am as ready to prosecute the indorser as the maker of a forged note. I regret the necessity of occupy ing my time with these petty personal matters. It is unbecoming the dignity of a canvass for an office of the character for which we are candi dates. When I commenced the canvass at Chi cago, I spoke of Mr. Lincoln in terms of kind ness, as an old friend ; I said that he was a good citizen, of unblemished character, against whom I had nothing to say. I repeated these compli mentary remarks about him in my successive speeches, until he became the indorser for these and other slanders against me. If there is any thing personally disagreeable, uncourteous, or disreputable in these personalities, the sole re sponsibility rests on Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Trum bull, and their backers. I will show you another charge made by Mr. Lincoln against me, as an offset to his determi nation of willingness to take back anything that is incorrect, and to correct any false statement he may have made. He has several times charged that the Supreme Court, President 158 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself, at the time I introduced the Nebraska bill, in Janu ary, 1854, at Washington, entered into a con spiracy to establish slavery all over this coun try. I branded this charge as a falsehood, and then he repeated it, asked me to analyze its truth, and answer it. I told him, "Mr. Lin coln, I know what you are after; you want to occupy my time in personal matters, to prevent me from showing up the revolutionary princi ples which the Abolition party whose candi date 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 the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, there was no such case as the Dred Scott case pending in the Supreme Court, nor was it brought there for years afterward, and hence that it was im possible there could have been any such con spiracy between the judges of the Supreme Court and the other parties involved. I proved by the record that the charge was false, and what did he answer? Did he take it back like an honest man and say he had been mistaken? No ; he repeated the charge, and said, that although* there was no such case pending that year, there was an understanding between the Democratic owners of Dred Scott and the judges of the Su preme Court and other parties involved, that 1858] Reply at Charleston 159 the case should be brought up. I then demand ed to know who those Democratic owners of Dred Scott were. He could not or would not tell ; he did not know. In truth, there were no Democratic owners of Dred Scott on the face of the land. Dred Scott was owned at that time by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress from Springfield, Massachusetts, and his wife; and Mr. Lincoln ought to have known that Dred Scott was so owned, for the reason that as soon as the decision was an nounced by the court, Dr. Chaffee and his wife executed a deed emancipating him, and put that deed on record. It was a matter of public record, therefore, that at the time the case was taken to the Su preme Court, Dred Scott was owned by an Abolition member of Congress, a friend of Lin coln s, and a leading man of his party, while the defense was conducted by Abolition law yers; and thus the Abolitionists managed both sides of the case. I have exposed these facts to Mr. Lincoln, and yet he will not withdraw his charge of conspiracy. I now submit to you whether you can place any confidence in a man who continues to make a charge when its utter falsity is proven by the public records. I will state another fact to show how utterly reckless and unscrupulous this charge against the Su- 160 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 preme Court, President Pierce, President Bu chanan, and myself is. Lincoln says that Presi dent Buchanan was in the conspiracy at Wash ington in the winter of 1854, when the Nebraska bill was introduced. The history of this coun try shows that James Buchanan was at that time representing this country at the Court of St. James, Great Britain, with distinguished ability and usefulness, that he had not been in the Uni ted States for nearly a year previous, and that he did not return until about three years after. Yet Mr. Lincoln keeps repeating this charge of conspiracy against Mr, Buchanan when the public records prove it to be untrue. Having proved it to be false as far as the Supreme Court and President Buchanan are concerned, I drop it, leaving the public to say whether I, by my self, without their concurrence, could have gone into a conspiracy with them. My friends, you see that the object clearly is to conduct the can vass on personal matters, and hunt me down with charges that are proven to be false by the public records of the country. I am willing to throw open my whole public and private life to the inspection of any man, or all men who desire to investigate it. 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 liv- 1858] Reply at Charleston 161 ing of my age, or who ever did live, and having survived it all and still commanded your con fidence, I am willing to trust to your knowledge of me and my public 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. Lincoln, none against Mr. Trumbull, and none against any man who is a candidate, except in repelling their assaults upon me. If Mr. Lincoln is a man of bad char acter, I leave you to find it out; if his votes in the past are not satisfactory, I leave others to ascertain 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, I leave you to ascer tain 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 tms country was divided into two great political parties, one the Whig, the other the Democratic. I, as a Dem ocrat for twenty years prior to that time, had been in public discussions in this State as an advocate of Democratic principles, and I can appeal with confidence to every old-line Whig 162 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 within the hearing of my voice to bear testi mony that during all that period I fought you Whigs like a man on every question that sepa rated the two parties. I had the highest re spect for Henry Clay as a gallant party-leader, as an eminent statesman, and as one of the bright ornaments of this country; but I cosncientiously 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 Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, or any one of the lead ers of that great party, whilst I combated with all my energy the measures they advocated. What did we differ about in those days? Did Whigs and Democrats differ about this slavery question? On the contrary, did we not, in 1850, unite to a man in favor of that system of com promise measures which Mr. Clay introduced, Webster defended, Cass supported, and Fill- more approved and made the law of the land by his signature? While we agreed on these compromise measures, we differed about a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, the subtreasury, and other questions of that descrip tion. Now, let me ask you, which one of those questions on which Whigs and Democrats then differed now remains to divide the two great parties? Every one of those questions which 1858] Reply at Charleston 163 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 subtreasury, and other questions, be cause they no longer continue living issues. What, then, has taken the place of those ques tions about which we once differed? The slav ery question has now become the leading and controlling issue; that question on which you and I agreed, on which the Whigs and Demo crats united, has now become the leading issue between the National Democracy 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 slav ery 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 retired to Ashland, having, as he sup posed, performed his mission on earth, and was preparing himself for a better sphere of exist ence in another world. In that retirement he heard the discordant, harsh, and grating sounds of sectional strife and disunion ; and he aroused 164 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 and came forth and resumed his seat in the Sen ate, that great theater of his great deeds. From the moment that Clay arrived among us he be came the leader of all the Union men, whether Whigs or Democrats. For nine months we each assembled, each day, in the council-cham ber, Clay in the chair, with Cass upon his right hand and Webster upon his left, and the Demo crats and Whigs gathered around, forgetting differences, and only animated by one common patriotic sentiment, to devise means and meas ures by which we could defeat the mad and revolutionary scheme of the Northern Aboli tionists and Southern disunionists. We did de vise those means. Clay brought them forward, Cass advocated them, the Union Democrats and Union Whigs voted for them, Fillmore signed them, and they gave peace and quiet to the country. Those compromise measures of 1850 were founded upon the great fundamental prin ciple that the people of each State and each Ter ritory ought to be left free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Federal Constitution. I will ask every old-line Democrat and every old-line Whig within the hearing of my voice, if I have not truly stated the issues as they then presented themselves to the country. You recol lect that the Abolitionists raised a howl of in- 1858] Reply at Charleston 165 dignation, and cried for vengeance and the de struction 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 affirmative votes on all those measures, I came forward and addressed the assembled in habitants, defended each and every one of Clay s compromise measures as they passed the Senate and the House and were approved by President Fillmore. Previous to that time, the city coun cil had passed resolutions nullifying the act of Congress, and instructing the police to with hold all assistance from its execution; but the people of Chicago listened to my defense, and like candid, frank, conscientious men, when they became convinced that they had done an injus tice 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 honor of the people of Chicago, that they returned to their duty when they found that they were wrong, and did justice to those whom they had blamed and abused unjustly. When the legis- 1 66 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 lature of this State assembled that year, they proceeded to pass resolutions approving the compromise measures of 1850. When the Whig party assembled in 1852 at Baltimore in national convention for the last time, to nomi nate Scott for the presidency, they adopted as a part of their platform the compromise meas ures of 1850 as the cardinal plank upon which every Whig would stand and by which he would regulate his future conduct. When the Demo cratic party assembled at the same place, one month after, to nominate General Pierce, we adopted the same platform so far as those com promise 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 wandered from the true path marked out by Clay and carried out broad and wide by the great Webster? How is it that so many old-line Democrats have aban doned the old faith of their party, and joined with Abolitionism and Free-soilism to overturn the platform of the old Democrats, and the plat form of the Old Whigs? You cannot deny that 1858] Reply at Charleston 167 since 1854 there has been a great revolution on this one question. How has it been brought about? I answer that no sooner was the sod grown green over the grave of the immortal Clay, no sooner was the rose planted on the tomb of the god-like Webster, than many of the lead ers 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 tem porary excitement produced in this country by the introduction of the Nebraska bill, the disap pointed 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 Abo- litionized Democrats and Abolitionized Whigs, banded together in an Abolition platform. And who led that crusade against national principles in this State? I answer, Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the 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 Sen ate in place of General Shields, and that Trum bull should go to Congress from the Belleville district, until I would be accommodating enough 1 68 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 either to die or resign for his benefit, and then he was to go to the Senate in my place. You all remember that during the year 1854 these two worthy gentlemen, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull, one an old-line Whig and the other an old-line Democrat, were hunting in partner ship to elect a legislature against the Demo cratic party. I canvassed the State that year from the time I returned home until the elec tion came off, and spoke in every county that I could reach during that period. In the north ern part of the State I found Lincoln s ally, in the person of Fred Douglass, the negro, preach ing Abolition doctrines, while Lincoln was dis cussing the same principles down here, and Trumbull, a little further down, was advocating the election of members to the legislature who would act in concert with Lincoln s and Fred Douglass s friends. I witnessed an effort made at Chicago by Lincoln s then associates, and now supporters, to put Fred Douglass, the negro, on the stand at a Democratic meeting, to reply to the illustrious General Cass when he was addressing the people there. They had the same negro hunting me down, and they now have a negro traversing the northern counties of the State, and speaking in behalf of Lincoln. Lincoln knows that when we were at Freeport in joint discussion, there was a distinguished 1 858] Reply at Charleston 169 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 in terest 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 gentle men for their advocates in 1854, m company with Lincoln and Trumbull, as they have now. When, in October, 1854, I went down to Springfield to attend the State fair, I found the leaders of this party all assembled together un der the title of an anti-Nebraska meeting. It was Black Republican up north, and anti-Ne braska 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 Abolition camp, and Trumbull, Sidney Breese, and Governor Reynolds, all making 170 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. is speeches against the Democratic party and my self, at the same place and in the same cause. The same men who are now fighting the Dem ocratic party and the regular Democratic nomi nees in this State were fighting us then. They did not then acknowledge that they had become Abolitionists, and many of them deny it now. Breese, Dougherty, and Reynolds were then fighting the Democracy under the title of anti- Nebraska men, and now they are fighting the Democracy under the pretense that they are simon-pure Democrats, saying that they are authorized to have every officeholder in Illinois beheaded who prefers the election of Douglas to that of Lincoln, or the success of the Demo cratic ticket in preference to the Abolition ticket for members of Congress, State officers, members of the legislature, or any office in the State. They canvassed the State against us in 1854, as they are doing now, owning different names and different principles in different lo calities, but having a common object in view, viz. : the defeat of all men holding national prin ciples in opposition to this sectional Abolition party. They carried the legislature in 1854, and when it assembled in Springfield they pro ceeded to elect a United States senator, all vot ing for Lincoln with one or two exceptions, which exceptions prevented them from quite 1858] Reply at Charleston 171 electing him. And why should they not elect him? Had not Trumbull agreed that Lincoln should have Shields s place? Had not the Abo litionists 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 Abolitionized Democrats, would not al low them all to vote for Lincoln on any one ballot, and thus kept him for some time within one or two votes of an election, until he worried out Lincoln s friends, and compelled them to drop him and elect Trumbull in violation of the bargain. I desire to read you a piece of testi mony in confirmation of the notoriously public facts which I have stated to you. Colonel James H. Matheny, of Springfield, is, and for twenty years has been, the confidential personal and political friend and manager of Mr. Lin coln. Matheny is this very day the candidate of the Republican or Abolition party for Con gress against the gallant Major Thomas L. Har ris, 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, be ing mad at Trumbull for having played a 172 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 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 : First, that they would all combine and elect Mr. Trumbull to Congress, and thereby carry his district for the legislature, in order to throw all the strength that could be obtained into that body against the Democrats. Second, that when the legis lature should meet, the officers of that body, such as speaker, clerks, doorkeepers, etc., would be given to the Abolitionists; and, third, that the Whigs were to have the United States senator. That, according ly, in good faith Trumbull was elected to Congress, and his district carried for the legislature, and when it convened the Abolitionists got all the officers of that body, and thus far the " bond " was fairly executed. The Whigs, on their part, demanded the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that the bond might be fulfilled, the other parties to the contract having already secured to themselves all that was called for. But, in the most perfidious manner, they refused to elect Mr. Lincoln ; and the mean, low lived, sneaking Trumbull succeeded, by pledging all that was required by any party, in thrusting Lincoln aside and foisting himself, an excrescence from the rotten bowels of the Democracy, into the United 1858] Reply at Charleston 173 States Senate; and thus it has ever been, that an hon est 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 wheth er Lincoln had as high an opinion of TrumbuH s veracity when the latter agreed to support him for the Senate, and then cheated him, as he has 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 everywhere that Trumbull had cheated them out of the bargain, and Lincoln found, sure enough, that it was a bad bargain to con tract and conspire with rogues. And now I will explain to you what has been a mystery all over the State and Union, the rea son why Lincoln was nominated for the United States Senate by the Black Republican conven tion. You know it has never been usual for any party, or any convention, to nominate a can didate for United States senator. Probably this was the first time that such a thing was ever done. The Black Republican convention had not been called for that purpose, but to nomi- 174 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 nate a State ticket, and every man was surprised and many disgusted when Lincoln was nomi nated. Archie Williams thought he was enti tled 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 ar rangements to secure it; but, to their utter amazement, Lincoln was nominated by the con vention, and not only that, but he received the nomination unanimously, by a resolution de claring that Abraham Lincoln was "the first, last, and only choice" of the Republican party. How did this occur? Why, because they could not get Lincoln s friends to make another bar gain 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 Trum- bull before. Thus, by passing this resolution, the Abo litionists are all for him, Lovejoy and Farns- worth are canvassing for him, Giddings is ready to come here in his behalf, and the negro speakers are already on the stump for him, and he is sure not to be cheated this time. He would not go into the arrangement until he got their bond for it, and Trumbull is compelled 1858] Reply at Charleston 175 now to take the stump, get up false charges against me, and travel all over the State to try to elect Lincoln, in order to keep Lincoln s friends quiet about the bargain in which Trum- bull cheated them four years ago. You see now why it is that Lincoln and Trumbull are so mighty fond of each other. They have entered into a conspiracy to break me down by these as saults on my public character, in order to draw my attention from a fair exposure of the mode in which they attempted to Abolitionize the Old Whig and the old Democratic parties and lead them captive into the Abolition camp. Do you not all remember that Lincoln went around here four years ago making speeches to you, and telling that you should all go for the Abolition ticket, and swearing that he was as good a Whig as he ever was ; and that Trumbull went all over the State making pledges to the old Democrats, and trying to coax them into the Abolition camp, swearing by his Maker, with the uplifted hand, that he was still a Democrat,, always intended to be, and that never would he desert the Democratic party. He got your votes to elect an Abolition legislature, which passed Abolition resolutions, attempted to pass Aboli tion laws, and sustained Abolitionists for office, State and national. Now, the same game is attempted to be played 176 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 over again. Then Lincoln and Trumbull made captives of the Old Whigs and old Democrats and carried them into the Abolition camp, where Father Giddings, the high priest of Abolitionism, received and christened them in the dark cause just as fast as they were brought in. Giddings found the converts so numerous that he had to have assistance, and he sent for John P. Hale, N. P. Banks, Chase, and other Abolitionists, and they came on, and with Lovejoy and Fred Douglass, the negro, helped to baptize these new converts as Lin coln, Trumbull, Breese, Reynolds, and Dough erty 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 con vention "Republican," but are obliged to say "a convention of all men opposed to the Demo cratic party," and in Monroe County and lower Egypt Trumbull advertises their meetings as follows : 1858] Reply at Charleston 177 A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place at Waterloo, on Monday, September I2th inst., whereat Hon. Lyman Trumbull, Hon. Jehu Baker, and others, will address the people upon the different political topics of the day. Members of all parties are cordially invited to be present, and hear and de termine for themselves. THE FREE DEMOCRACY. September 9, 1858. 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 cen ter, and another in the south. When I used to practise law before my distinguished judicial friend whom I recognize in the crowd before me, if a man was charged with horse-stealing, and the proof showed that he went by one name in Stephenson County, another in Sangamon, a third in Monroe, and a fourth in Randolph, we thought that the fact of his changing his name so often to avoid detection was pretty strong evidence of his guilt. I would like to know why it is that this great Free-soil Abolition party is not willing to avow the same name in all parts of the State? If this party believes that its course is just, why does it not avow the same principles in 178 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 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."] 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, you will find that it declares that "this paper is devoted to the cause" of Black Repub licanism. I had a copy of it, and intended to bring it down here into Egypt to let you see what name the party rallied under up in the northern part of the State, and to convince you that their principles are as different in the two sections of the State as is their name. I am sorry 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 Republi can 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 1 858] Reply at Charleston 179 State, when it wants to come into the Union, to do just as it pleases on the question of slavery. In the north you find Lovejoy, their candidate for Congress in the Bloomington district; Farns- worth, their candidate in the Chicago district; and Washburne, their candidate in the Galena district, all declaring that never will they con sent under any circumstances to admit another slave State, even if the people want it. Thus, while they avow one set of principles up there, they avow another and entirely different set down here. And here let me recall to Mr. Lin coln the scriptural quotation which he has ap plied to the Federal Government, that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and ask him how does he expect this Abolition party to stand when in one half of the State it advocates a set of principles which it has repudiated in the other half? I am told that I have but eight minutes more. I would like to talk to you an hour and a half longer, but I will make the best use I can of the remaining eight minutes. Mr. Lincoln said in his first remarks that he was not in favor of the social and political equality of the negro with the white man. Everywhere up north he has declared that he was not in favor of the social and political equality of the negro, but he would not say 180 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 whether or not he was opposed to negroes voting and negro citizenship. I want to know wheth er he is for or against negro citizenship? He declared his utter opposition to the Dred Scott decision, and advanced as a reason that the court had decided that it was not possible for a negro to be a citizen under the Constitution of the United States. If he is opposed to the Dred Scott decision for that reason, he must be in favor of conferring the right and privilege of citizenship upon the negro. I have been try ing to get an answer from him on that point, but have never yet obtained one, and I will show you why. In every speech he made in the north he quoted the Declaration of Independence to prove that all men were created equal, and in sisted that the phrase "all men" included the negro as well as the white man, and that the equality rested upon divine law. Here is what he said on that point: I should like to know if, taking this old Declara tion of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another say it does not mean some other man? If that Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute-book in which we find it and tear it out. 1858] Reply at Charleston 181 Lincoln maintains there that the Declaration of Independence asserts that the negro is equal to the white man, and that under divine law; and if he believes so it was rational for him to advocate negro citizenship, which, when al lowed, puts the negro on an equality under the law. I say to you in all frankness, gentlemen, that in my opinion a negro is not a citizen, can not be, and ought not to be, under the Constitu tion of the United States. I will not even qualify my opinion to meet the declaration of one of the judges of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, "that a negro descended from African parents, who was imported into this country as a slave, is not a citizen, and cannot be." I say that this government was established on the white basis. It was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and never should be administered by any except white men. I declare that a negro ought not to be a citizen, whether his parents were imported into this country as slaves or not, or whether or not he was born here. It does not depend upon the place a negro s parents were born, or whether they were slaves or not, but upon the fact that he is a negro, belonging to a race incapable of self-government, and for 1 82 Stephen A. Douglas [Sept. 18 that reason ought not to be on an equality with white men. My friends, I am sorry that I have not time to pursue this argument further, as I might have done but for the fact that Mr. Lincoln com pelled me to occupy a portion of my time in repelling those gross slanders and falsehoods that Trumbull has invented against me and put in circulation. In conclusion, let me ask you why should this government be divided by a geographical line arraying all men North in one great hostile party against all men South? Mr. Lincoln tells you, in his speech at Spring field, that a house divided against itself cannot stand; that this government, divided into free and slave States, cannot endure permanently; that they must either be all free or all slave, all one thing or all the other. Why cannot this government endure divided into free States and slave States, as our fathers made it? When this government was established by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Hamil ton, 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 ex- 1858] Reply at Charleston 183 tension of territory, and all the elements of power and greatness, until we have become the first nation on the face of the globe. Why can we not thus continue to prosper? We can if we will live up to and execute the gov ernment upon those principles upon which our fathers established it. During the whole period of our existence Divine Providence has smiled upon us, and showered upon our nation richer and more abundant blessings than have ever been conferred upon any other. 184 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 Mr. Lincoln s Rejoinder in the Charleston Joint Debate. FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour answer to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried one. I shall only be able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I shall have to totally omit others for the want of time. Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citi zenship. So far as I know, the judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I men tioned in a certain speech of mine, which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had de cided that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen, and without saying what was my ground of complaint in regard to that, or wheth er I had any ground of complaint, Judge Doug- 1858] Rejoinder at Charleston 185 las has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he ever says about my disposi tion 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 Su preme 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 power. If the State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it. That is all I have to say about it. Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speeches south that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north, and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and I dare him to point out any differ ence between my speeches north and south. While I am here perhaps I ought to say a word, 1 86 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 if I have the time, in regard to the latter por tion of the judge s speech, which was a sort of declamation in reference to my having said I entertained the belief that this government would not endure half slave and half free. I have said so, and I did not say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhaps would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in detail; but let me ask you a few questions. Have we ever had any peace on this slavery question? When are we to have peace upon it if it is kept in the posi tion it now occupies? How are we ever to have peace upon it? That is an important question. To be sure, if we will all stop and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march on in their present career until they plant the institution all over the nation, here and wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be peace. But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is going to get the people to do that? They have been wrangling over this question for at least forty years. This was the cause of the agitation resulting in the Missouri Compro mise; this produced the troubles at the annexa tion of Texas, in the acquisition of the territory acquired in the Mexican war. Again, this was the trouble which was quieted by the compro mise of 1850, when it was settled "forever," as 1858] Rejoinder at Charleston 187 both the great political parties declared in their national conventions. That "forever" turned out to be just four years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. When is it likely to come to an end? He in troduced the Nebraska bill in 1854 to P ut an ~ other end to the slavery agitation. He prom ised 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 slav ery 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 Lecomp ton constitution. How is it over? That was only one of the attempts at putting an end to the slavery agitation one of these "final set tlements." 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 vot ing down of that constitution put an end to all the trouble? Is that more likely to settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery agitation? Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more fore- 1 88 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 tell where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can see the end of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas bill was introduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end, we may say we are four years and a half nearer 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 con clude it. If Kansas should sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth s sur face, this vexed question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon the basis where our fathers placed it, no way but to keep it out of our new Territories to restrict it forever to the old States where it now exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to the slavery agitation. The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States cease speaking of it as in any way a wrong regard slavery as one of the common matters of prop erty, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and cattle. But while it drives on in its state 1858] Rejoinder at Charleston 189 of progress as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not 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 this matter about Trum- bull and myself having made a bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854, Judge Douglas brings forward no evi dence to sustain his charge, except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he told a cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral principles that Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the simple truth. I do not care greatly for the story, but this is the truth of it, and I have twice told Judge Doug las 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 190 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 which we were just talking, by producing the record. He did n t bring the record, because there was no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready to indorse Trumbull s veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me, I would not be likely to indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity because neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years that I have known Lyman Trumbull, have I known 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 postmaster] : What does Ford s history say about him? Mr. Lincoln: Some gentleman asks me what Ford s history says about him. My own recollection is, that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful terms in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal worse of Judge Douglas. I refer you, sir, to the his tory for examination. Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on the part of Trum bull and myself to attack him personally. I want to attend to that suggestion a moment. I don t want to be unjustly accused of dealing illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either in court, or in a political canvass, or anywhere 1858] Rejoinder at Charleston 191 else. I would despise myself if I supposed my self ready to deal less liberally with an adver sary than I was willing to be treated myself. Judge Douglas, in a general way, without put ting it in a direct shape, revives the old charge against me in reference to the Mexican war. He does not take the responsibility of putting it in a very definite form, but makes a general reference to it. That charge is more than ten years old. He complains of Trumbull and my self, because he says we bring charges against him one or two years old. He knows, too, that in regard to the Mexican war story, the more respectable papers of his own party throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and acknowledge that it was a lie. [Here Mr. Lincoln turned to the crowd on the platform, and selecting Hon. Orlando B. Ficklin, led him forward and said:] I do not mean to do anything with Mr. Fick lin, 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 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 sup plies for the army, and he knows, as well as 192 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 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. Ficklin: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter. Mr. Lincoln and my self are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas and myself. In reference to this Mex ican war, my recollection is that when Ash- mun s resolution [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun of Massachusetts, in which he de clared that the Mexican war was unnessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the Presi dent, my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution. Mr. Lincoln: That is the truth. Now you all remember that was a resolution censuring the President for the manner in which the war was begun. You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their country. I say that Ficklin knows it is false. When that charge was brought for ward 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 making speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. If the judge now says that he offers this 1858] Rejoinder at Charleston 193 as a sort of a set-off to what I said to-day in ref erence to Trumbuirs charge, then I remind him that he made this charge before I said a word about Trumbull s. He brought this forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the opening speech that Judge Douglas made, he attacked me in regard to a matter ten years old. Is n t he a pretty man to be whining about people making charges against him only two years old ! The judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon this charge of Trum- bulPs at all. I gave the apology for doing so in my opening speech. Perhaps it did n t fix your attention. I said that when Judge Doug las was speaking at places where I spoke on the succeeding day, he used very harsh language about this charge. Two or three times after ward I said I had confidence in Judge Trum bull s veracity and intelligence; and my own opinion was, from what I knew of the character of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his position, and prove whatever he had stated to be true. This I repeated two or three times ; and then I dropped it without saying anything more on the subject for weeks perhaps a month. I passed it by without noticing it at all till I found at Jacksonville that Judge Doug las, in the plenitude of his power, is not willing 194 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 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 Lin coln having indorsed the character of Trum bull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln] responsible for the slanders." What was Lin coln to do? Did he not do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas here, to tell him he was ready for the responsi bility? 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 suc ceeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it. You all heard me call upon him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery. Does he say that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a forgery? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported by himself is a forgery? Or what is presented as a transcript from the "Globe," of the quotations from Bigler s speech, is a for gery? Does he say the quotations from his own speech are forgeries? Does he say this tran- 1858] Rejoinder at Charleston 195 script from Trumbull s speech is a forgery? ["He did n t deny one of them."] I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of a story is true, the whole story turns out false? I take it these people have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Doug las in playing cuttlefish, a small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself when pur sued except by throwing out a black fluid, which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Is not the judge play ing the cuttlefish? Now I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge Douglas s speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces of testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown to be such. Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery. Then I ask the original ques tion, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is it possible that the whole is a falsehood? In regard to TrumbulPs charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the people^ what was his answer? He comes here and reads from the "Congressional Globe" to show that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill. Why, Trumbull has not 196 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. is 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. Trumbull shows you by his intro ducing the bill that 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 prove me a liar by showing that you were in Mattoon yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your head, and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole force of Douglas s argument. Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge Douglas deny that fact? Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull reads was put in that bill? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he dare to deny that? He does not, and I have the right to repeat the question why Judge Doug las took it out? Bigler has said there was a combination of certain senators, among whom 1858] Rejoinder at Charleston 197 he did not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas bill should have a clause in it not to have the constitution formed under it submitted to a vote of the people. He did not say that Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in con cert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and done with a mutual under standing after the conference ; and while we do not know that it was absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that we have a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it was done, to tell what the true reason was. When he will not tell what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude of an accused thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to account refuses to tell where he got them. Not only is this the evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then, but since, that these alterations and modifica tions in the bill had been made by him, in con sultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells us the same to-day. He says there were centain modifications made in the bill in committee that he did not vote for. I 198 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 18 ask you to remember while certain amendments were made which he disapproved of, but which a majority of the committee voted in, he has himself told us that in this particular the altera tions and modifications were made by him upon consultation with Toombs. We have his own word that these alterations were made by him and not by the committee. Now, I ask what is the reason Judge Doug las is so chary about coming to the exact ques tion? What is the reason he will not tell you anything about how it was made, by whom it was made, or that he remembers it being made at all? Why does he stand playing upon the meaning of words, and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? If he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have a right to infer that Judge Douglas understood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering that bill through, to make a constitution, and have Kan sas come into the Union with that constitution, without its being submitted to a vote of the peo ple. If he will explain his action on this ques tion, by giving a better reason for the facts that happened than he has done, it will be satisfac tory. But until he does that until he gives a better or more plausible reason than he has of fered against the evidence in the case I sug gest to him it will not avail him at all that he 1858] Rejoinder at Charleston 199 swells himself up, takes on dignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word in Trumbull s speech that depends on Trumbuirs veracity at all. He has only arrayed the evi dence and told you what follows as a matter of reasoning. There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends on Trumbull s word. If you have ever studied geometry, you remem ber that by a course of reasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a triangle are equal to two right angles. Euclid has shown you how to work it out. Now, if you undertake to dis prove that proposition, and to show that it is erroneous, would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar? They tell me that my time is out, and therefore I close. ORDER FOR FURNITURE, September 25, 1858 My old friend Henry Chew, the bearer of this, is in a strait for some furniture to com mence housekeeping. If any person will fur nish him twenty-five dollars worth, and he does not pay for it by the ist of January next, I will. A. LINCOLN. HON. A. LINCOLN, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS. My Dear Friend: I herewith inclose your order which you gave your friend Henry Chew. You will please send me a draft for the same and oblige yours, URBANA, February 16, 1859. S. LITTLE. 200 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. FRAGMENT: NOTES FOR SPEECHES, [October i, 1858?] BUT there is a larger issue than the mere question of whether the spread of negro slavery shall or shall not be prohibited by Congress. That larger issue is stated by the Richmond "Enquirer," a Buchanan paper in the South, in the language I now read. It is also stated by the New York "Day-book," a Buchan an paper in the North, in this language. And in relation to indigent white children, the same Northern paper says. In support of the Ne braska bill, on its first discussion in the Senate, Senator Pettit of Indiana declared the equality of men, as asserted in our Declaration of Inde pendence, to be a "self-evident lie." In his nu merous speeches now being made in Illinois, Senator Douglas regularly argues against the doctrine of the equality of men; and while he does not draw the conclusion that the superiors ought to enslave the inferiors, he evidently wishes his hearers to draw that conclusion. He shirks the responsibility of pulling the house down, but he digs under it that it may fall of its own weight. Now, it is impossible to not see 1858] Notes for Speeches 201 that these newspapers and senators are laboring at a common object, and in so doing are truly representing the controlling sentiment of their party. It is equally impossible to not see that that common object is to subvert, in the public mind, and in practical administration, our old and only standard of free government, that "all men are created equal," and to substitute for it some different standard. What that substitute is to be is not difficult to perceive. It is to deny the equality of men, and to assert the natural, moral, and religious right of one class to en slave another. FRAGMENT: NOTES FOR SPEECHES, [October i, 1858?] Suppose it is true that the negro is inferior to the white in the gifts of nature; is it not the exact reverse of justice that the white should for that reason take from the negro any part of the little which he has had given him? "Give to him that is needy" is the Christian rule of charity; but "Take from him that is needy" is the rule of slavery. Pro-slavery Theology. The sum of pro-slavery theology seems to be this: "Slavery is not universally right, nor yet 202 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i universally wrong; it is better for some people to be slaves ; and, in such cases, it is the will of God that they be such." Certainly there is no contending against the will of God ; but still there is some difficulty in ascertaining and applying it to particular cases. For instance, we will suppose the Rev. Dr. Ross has a slave named Sambo, and the question is, "Is it the will of God that Sambo shall remain a slave, or be set free?" The Almighty gives no audible answer to the question, and his reve lation, the Bible, gives none or at most none but such as admits of a squabble as to its mean ing; no one thinks of asking Sambo s opinion on it. So at last it comes to this, that Dr. Ross is to decide the question; and while he considers it, he sits in the shade, with gloves on his hands, and subsists on the bread that Sambo is earning in the burning sun. If he decides that God wills Sambo to continue a slave, he thereby re tains his own comfortable position; but if he decides that God wills Sambo to be free, he thereby has to walk out of the shade, throw of! his gloves, and delve for his own bread. Will Dr. Ross be actuated by the perfect impartiality which has ever been considered most favorable to correct decisions? 1858] Notes for Speeches 203 FRAGMENT: NOTES FOR SPEECHES, [October i, 1858?] At Freeport I propounded four distinct inter rogations to Judge Douglas, all which he as sumed to answer. I say he assumed to answer them ; for he did not very distinctly answer any of them. To the first, which is in these words, "If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely un objectionable in all other respects, adopt a State constitution, and ask admission into the Union under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the English bill, some ninety-three thousand, will you vote to admit them?" the judge did not answer "Yes" or "No," "I would" or "I would not," nor did he answer in any other such distinct way. But he did so answer that I infer he would vote for the admission of Kansas in the supposed case stated in the interrogatory that, other objec tions out of the way, he would vote to admit Kansas before she had the requisite population according to the English bill. I mention this now to elicit an assurance that I correctly un derstood the judge on this point. To my second interrogatory, which is in these words, "Can the people of a United States Ter ritory, in any lawful way, against the w r ish of 204 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i any citizen of the United States, exclude slav ery from their limits, prior to the formation of a State constitution?" the judge answers that they can, and he proceeds to show how they can exclude it. The how, as he gives it, is by with holding friendly legislation and adopting un friendly legislation. As he thinks, the people still can, by doing nothing to help slavery and by a little unfriendly leaning against it, exclude it from their limits. This is his position. This position and the Dred Scott decision are abso lutely inconsistent. The judge furiously in dorses the Dred Scott decision; and that deci sion holds that the United States Constitution guarantees to the citizens of the United States the right to hold slaves in the Territories, and that neither Congress nor a territorial legisla ture can destroy or abridge that right. In the teeth of this, where can the judge find room for his unfriendly legislation against their right? The members of a territorial legisla ture are sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. How dare they legislate un friendly to a right guaranteed by that Consti tution? And if they should how quickly would the courts hold their work to be unconstitu tional and void! But doubtless the judge s chief reliance to sustain his proposition that the people can exclude slavery, is based upon non- 1858] Notes for Speeches 205 action upon withholding friendly legislation. But can members of a territorial legislature, having sworn to support the United States Con stitution, conscientiously withhold necessary legislative protection to a right guaranteed by that Constitution? Again, will not the courts, without territorial legislation, find a remedy for the evasion of a right guaranteed by the United States Consti tution? It is a maxim of the courts that "there is no right without a remedy." But, as a mat ter of fact, non-action, both legislative and ju dicial, will not exclude slavery from any place. It is of record that Dred Scott and his family were held in actual slavery in Kansas without any friendly legislation or judicial assistance. It is well known that other negroes were held in actual slavery at the military post in Kansas under precisely the same circumstances. This was not only done without any friendly legisla tion, but in direct disregard of the congressional prohibition, the Missouri Compromise, then supposed to be valid, thus showing that it re quires positive law to be both made and exe cuted to keep actual slavery out of any Terri tory where any owner chooses to take it. Slavery having actually gone into a territory to some extent, without local legislation in its favor, and against congressional prohibition, 206 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i how much more will it go there now that by a judicial decision that congressional prohibition is swept away, and the constitutional guaranty of property declared to apply to slavery in the Territories. But this is not all. Slavery was originally planted on this continent without the aid of friendly legislation. History proves this. After it was actually in existence to a sufficient extent to become, in some sort, a public interest, it began to receive legislative attention, but not before. How futile, then, is the proposition that the people of a Territory can exclude slav ery by simply not legislating in its favor. Learned disputants use what they call the argu- mentum ad hominem a course of argument which does not intrinsically reach the issue, but merely turns the adversary against himself. There are at least two arguments of this sort which may easily be turned against Judge Douglas s proposition that the people of a Ter ritory can lawfully exclude slavery from their limits prior to forming a State constitution. In his report of the I2th of March, 1856, on page 28, Judge Douglas says: "The sovereignty of a Territory remains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people, until they shall be admitted into the Union as a State." If so, if they have no active living 1858] Notes for Speeches 207 sovereignty, how can they readily enact the judge s unfriendly legislation to slavery? But in 1856, on the floor of the Senate, Judge Trumbull asked Judge Douglas the direct ques tion, "Can the people of a Territory exclude slavery prior to forming a State constitution?" and Judge Douglas answered, "That is a ques tion for the Supreme Court." I think he made the same answer to the same question more than once. But now, when the Supreme Court has decided that the people of a Territory cannot so exclude slavery, Judge Douglas shifts his ground, saying the people can exclude it, and thus virtually saying it is not a question for the Supreme Court. I am aware Judge Douglas avoids admitting in direct terms that the Supreme Court have decided against the power of the people of a Territory to exclude slavery. He also avoids saying directly that they have not so decided; but he labors to leave the impression that he thinks they have not so decided. For instance, in his Springfield speech of July 17, 1858, Judge Douglas, speaking of me says: "He infers that it [the court] would decide that the territorial legislatures could not prohibit slav ery. I will not stop to inquire whether the courts will carry the decision that far or not." The court has already carried the decision ex- Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i actly that far, and I must say I think Judge Douglas very well knows it has. After stating that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories, the court adds : "And if Congress itself cannot do this, if it be beyond the powers conferred on the Federal Government, it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a territorial government to exercise them, it could confer no power on any local government, established by its authority, to vio late the provisions of the Constitution." Can any mortal man misunderstand this lan guage? Does not Judge Douglas equivocate when he pretends not to know that the Supreme Court has decided that the people of a Territory cannot exclude slavery prior to forming a State constitution? My third interrogatory to the judge is in these words: "If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adopting, and following such decision as a rule of political action?" To this question the judge gives no answer whatever. He disposes of it by an attempt to ridicule the idea that the Supreme Court will ever make such a decision. When Judge Douglas is drawn up to a distinct point, there is significance in all he says, and in all he omits to say. In 1858] Notes for Speeches 209 this case he will not, on the one hand, face the people and declare he will support such a de cision when made, nor on the other will he trammel himself by saying he will not support it. Now I propose to show, in the teeth of Judge Douglas s ridicule, that such a decision does logically and necessarily follow the Dred Scott decision. In that case the court holds that Con gress can legislate for the Territories in some respects, and in others it cannot; that it cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories, because to do so would infringe the "right of property" guaranteed to the citizen by the fifth amend ment to the Constitution, which provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Un questionably there is such a guaranty in the Constitution, whether or not the court right fully apply it in this case. I propose to show, beyond the power of quibble, that that guaranty applies with all the force, if not more, to States than it does to Territories. The answers to two questions fix the whole thing: to whom is this guaranty given? and against whom does it pro tect those to whom it is given? The guaranty makes no distinction between persons in the States and those in the Territories ; it is given to persons in the States certainly as much as, 2io Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i if not more than, to those in the Territories. "No person," under the shadow of the Consti tution, "shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Against whom does this guaranty protect the rights of property? Not against Congress alone, but against the world against State con stitutions and laws, as well as against acts of Congress. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land; this guaranty of property is expressly given in that Constitution, in that supreme law; and no State constitution or law can override it. It is not a case where power over the subject is reserved to the States, because it is not expressly given to the General Government; it is a case where the guaranty is expressly given to the individual citizen, in and by the organic law of the General Government; and the duty of maintaining that guaranty is imposed upon that General Government, over riding all obstacles. The following is the article of the Constitu tion containing the guaranty of property upon which the Dred Scott decision is based: ARTICLE V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment by a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the 1858] Notes for Speeches 211 militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, lib erty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Suppose, now, a provision in a State consti tution should negative all the above proposi tions, declaring directly or substantially that "any person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," a di rect contradiction collision would be pro nounced between the United States Constitution and such State constitution. And can there be any doubt but that which is declared to be the supreme law would prevail over the other to the extent of the collision? Such State consti tution would be unconstitutional. There is no escape from this conclusion but in one way, and that is to deny that the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, properly applies this constitutional guaranty of property. The Constitution itself impliedly admits that a per son may be deprived of property by "due pro cess of law," and the Republicans hold that if there be a law of Congress or territorial legisla ture telling the slaveholder in advance that he 212 Abraham Lincoln [ ct - * shall not bring his slave into the Territory upon pain of forfeiture, and he still will bring him, he will be deprived of his property in such slave by "due process of law." And the same would be true in the case of taking a slave into a State against a State constitution or law pro hibiting slavery. FRAGMENT: NOTES FOR SPEECHES, [October i, 1858?] . . . When Douglas ascribes such to me, he does so, not by argument, but by mere bur lesque on the art and name of argument by such fantastic arrangements of words as prove "horse-chestnuts to be chestnut horses." In the main I shall trust an intelligent community to learn my objects and aims from what I say and do myself, rather than from what Judge Doug las may say of me. But I must not leave the judge just yet. When he has burlesqued me into a position which I never thought of assum ing myself, he will, in the most benevolent and patronizing manner imaginable, compliment me by saying "he has no doubt I am perfectly conscientious in it." I thank him for that word "conscientious." It turns my attention to the wonderful evidences of conscience he manifests. When he assumes to be the first discoverer and sole advocate of the right of a people to govern 1858] Notes for Speeches 213 themselves, he is conscientious. When he af fects to understand that a man, putting a hun dred slaves through under the lash, is simply governing himself, he is more conscientious. When he affects not to know that the Dred Scott decision forbids a territorial legislature to ex clude slavery, he is most conscientious. When, as in his last Springfield speech, he declares that I say, unless I shall play my batteries success fully, so as to abolish slavery in every one of the States, the Union shall be dissolved, he is absolutely bursting with conscience. It is noth ing that I have never said any such thing. With some men it might make a difference; but consciences differ in different individuals. Judge Douglas has a greater conscience than most men. It corresponds with his other points of greatness. Judge Douglas amuses himself by saying I wish to go into the Senate on my qualifications as a prophet. He says he has known some other prophets, and does not think very well of them. Well, others of us have also known some prophets. We know one who nearly five years ago prophesied that the "Ne braska bill" would put an end to slavery agita tion in next to no time one who has renewed that prophecy at least as often as quarter-yearly ever since; and still the prophecy has not been fulfilled. That one might very well go out of 214 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i the Senate on his qualifications as a false prophet. Allow me now, in my own way, to state with what aims and objects I did enter upon this campaign. I claim no extraordinary exemp tion from personal ambition. That I like pre ferment as well as the average of men may be admitted. But I protest I have not entered upon this hard contest solely, or even chiefly, for a mere personal object. I clearly see, as I think, a powerful plot to make slavery uni versal and perpetual in this nation. The effort to carry that plot through will be persistent and long continued, extending far beyond the sena torial term for which Judge Douglas and I are just now struggling. I enter upon the contest to contribute my humble and temporary mite in opposition to that effort. At the Republican State convention at Springfield I made a speech. That speech has been considered the opening of the canvass on my part. In it I arrange a string of incontesta ble facts which, I think, prove the existence of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery. The evi dence was circumstantial only; but nevertheless it seemed inconsistent with every hypothesis, save that of the existence of such conspiracy. I believe the facts can be explained to-day on no other hypothesis. Judge Douglas can so ex- 1 858] Notes for Speeches 215 plain them if any one can. From warp to woof his handiwork is everywhere woven in. At New York he finds this speech of mine, and devises his plan of assault upon it. At Chi cago he develops that plan. Passing over, un noticed, the obvious purport of the whole speech, he cooks up two or three issues upon points not discussed by me at all, and then authoritatively announces that these are to be the issues of the campaign. Next evening I answer, assuring him that he misunderstands me that he takes issues which I have not tendered. In good faith I try to set him right. If he really has misunderstood my meaning, I give him language that can no longer be misunder stood. He will have none of it. At Bloom- ington, six days later, he speaks again, and per verts me even worse than before. He seems to have grown confident and jubilant, in the belief that he has entirely diverted me from my pur pose of fixing a conspiracy upon him and his co-workers. Next day he speaks again at Springfield, pursuing the same course, with in creased confidence and recklessness of assertion. At night of that day I speak again. I tell him that as he has carefully read my speech making the charge of conspiracy, and has twice spoken of the speech without noticing the charge, upon his own tacit admission I renew the charge 216 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i against him. I call him, and take a default upon him. At Clifton, ten days after, he comes in with a plea. The substance of that plea is that he never passed a word with Chief Justice Taney as to what his decision was to be in the Dred Scott case; that I ought to know that he who affirms what he does not know to be true falsifies as much as he who affirms what he does know to be false; and that he would pronounce the whole charge of conspiracy a falsehood, were it not for his own self-respect! Now I demur to this plea. Waiving objec tion that it was not filed till after default, I demur to it on the merits. I say it does not meet the case. What if he did not pass a word with Chief Justice Taney? Could he not have as distinct an understanding, and play his part just as well, without directly passing a word with Taney, as with it? But suppose we con strue this part of the plea more broadly than he puts it himself suppose we construe it, as in an answer in chancery, to be a denial of all knowledge, information, or belief of such con spiracy. Still I have the right to prove the conspiracy, even against his answer; and there is much more than the evidence of two witnesses to prove it by. Grant that he has no knowl edge, information, or belief of such conspiracy, and what of it? That does not disturb the facts 1858] Notes for Speeches 217 in evidence. It only makes him the dupe, in stead of a principal, of conspirators. What if a man may not affirm a proposition without knowing it to be true? I have not af firmed that a conspiracy does exist. I have only stated the evidence, and affirmed my belief in its existence. If Judge Douglas shall assert that I do not believe what I say, then he affirms what he cannot know to be true, and falls within the condemnation of his own rule. Would it not be much better for him to meet the evidence, and show, if he can, that I have no good reason to believe the charge? Would not this be far more satisfactory than merely vociferating an intimation that he may be pro voked to call somebody a liar? So far as I know, he denies no fact which I have alleged. Without now repeating all those facts, I recall attention to only a few of them. A provision of the Nebraska bill, penned by Judge Douglas, is in these words: It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Con stitution of the United States. 2i 8 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i In support of this the argument, evidently prepared in advance, went forth: "Why not let the people of a Territory have or exclude slavery, just as they choose? Have they any less sense or less patriotism when they settle in the Territories than when they lived in the States?" Now the question occurs : Did Judge Doug las, even then, intend that the people of a Ter ritory should have the power to exclude slavery? If he did, why did he vote against an amend ment expressly declaring they might exclude it? With men who then knew and intended that a Supreme Court decision should soon follow, de claring that the people of a Territory could not exclude slavery, voting down such an amend ment was perfectly rational. But with men not expecting or desiring such a decision, and really wishing the people to have such power, voting down such an amendment, to my mind, is wholly inexplicable. That such an amendment was voted down by the friends of the bill, including Judge Doug las, is a recorded fact of the case. There was some real reason for so voting it down. What that reason was, Judge Douglas can tell. I be lieve that reason was to keep the way clear for a court decision, then expected to come, and which has since come, in the case of Dred Scott. 1858] Notes for Speeches 219 If there was any other reason for voting down that amendment, Judge Douglas knows of it and can tell it. Again, in the before-quoted part of the Nebraska bill, what means the pro vision that the people of the "State" shall be left perfectly free, subject only to the Consti tution? Congress was not therein legislating for, or about, States or the people of States. In that bill the provision about the people of "States" is the odd half of something, the other half of which was not yet quite ready for exhi bition. What is that other half to be? An other Supreme Court decision, declaring that the people of a State cannot exclude slavery, is exactly fitted to be that other half. As the power of the people of the Territories and of the States is cozily set down in the Nebraska bill as being the same: so the constitutional limita tions on that power will then be judicially held to be precisely the same in both Territories and States that is, that the Constitution permits neither a Territory nor a State to exclude slav ery. With persons looking forward to such addi tional decision, the inserting a provision about States in the Nebraska bill was perfectly ra tional; but to persons not looking for such decision it was a puzzle. There was a real reason for inserting such provision. Judge 220 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i Douglas inserted it, and therefore knows, and can tell, what that real reason was. Judge Douglas s present course by no means lessens my belief in the existence of a purpose to make slavery alike lawful in all the States. This can be done by a Supreme Court decision holding that the United States Constitution for bids a State to exclude slavery; and probably it can be done in no other way. The idea of forc ing slavery into a free State, or out of a slave State, at the point of the bayonet, is alike non sensical. Slavery can only become extinct by being restricted to its present limits, and dwin dling out. It can only become national by a Supreme Court decision. To such a decision, when it comes, Judge Douglas is fully commit ted. Such a decision acquiesced in by the peo ple effects the whole object. Bearing this in mind, look at what Judge Douglas is doing every day. For the first sixty-five years under the United States Constitution, the practice of government had been to exclule slavery from the new free Territories. About the end of that period Congress, by the Nebraska bill, resolved to abandon this practice; and this was rapidly succeeded by a Supreme Court decision holding the practice to have always been unconstitu tional. Some of us refuse to obey this decision as a political rule. Forthwith Judge Douglas 1858] Notes for Speeches 221 espouses the decision, and denounces all opposi tion to it in no measured terms. He adheres to it with extraordinary tenacity; and under rather extraordinary circumstances. He es pouses it not on any opinion of his that it is right within itself. On this he forbears to commit himself. He espouses it exclusively on the ground of its binding authority on all citizens a ground which commits him as fully to the next decision as to this. I point out to him that Mr. Jefferson and General Jackson were both against him on the binding political authority of Supreme Court decisions. No response. I might as well preach Christianity to a grizzly bear as to preach Jefferson and Jackson to him. I tell him I have often heard him denounce the Supreme Court decision in favor of a na tional bank. He denies the accuracy of my rec ollection which seems strange to me, but I let it pass. I remind him that he, even now, indorses the Cincinnati platform, which declares that Con gress has no constitutional power to charter a bank; and that in the teeth. of a Supreme Court decision that Congress has such power. This he cannot deny; and so he remembers to for get it. I remind him of a piece of Illinois history about Supreme Court decisions of a time 222 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i when the Supreme Court of Illinois, consisting of four judges, because of one decision made, and one expected to be made, were overwhelmed by the adding of five new judges to their num ber; that he, Judge Douglas, took a leading part in that onslaught, ending in his sitting down on the bench as one of the five added judges. I suggest to him that as to his ques tions how far judges have to be catechized in advance, when appointed under such circum stances, and how far a court, so constituted, is prostituted beneath the contempt of all men, no man is better posted to answer than he, having once been entirely through the mill himself. Still no response, except "Hurrah for the Dred Scott decision!" These things warrant me in saying that Judge Douglas adheres to the Dred Scott decision under rather extraordinary circumstances circumstances suggesting the question, "Why does he adhere to it so pertina ciously? Why does he thus belie his whole past life? Why, with a long record more marked for hostility to judicial decisions than almost any living man, does he cling to this with a de votion that nothing can baffle?" In this age, and this country, public sentiment is every thing. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts stat- 1858] Notes for Speeches 223 utes or pronounces judicial decisions. He makes possible the enforcement of them, else impossible. Judge Douglas is a man of large influence. His bare opinion goes far to fix the opinions of others. Besides this, thousands hang their hopes upon forcing their opinions to agree with his. It is a party necessity with them to say they agree with him, and there is danger they will repeat the saying till they really come to believe it. Others dread, and shrink from, his denunciations, his sarcasms, and his ingenious misrepresentations. The susceptible young hear lessons from him, such as their fathers never heard when they were young. If, by all these means, he shall succeed in molding public sentiment to a perfect accord ance with his own; in bringing all men to in dorse all court decisions, without caring to know whether they are right or wrong; in bring ing all tongues to as perfect a silence as his own, as to there being any wrong in slavery; in bring ing all to declare, with him, that they care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up; that if any people want slaves they have a right to have them; that negroes are not men; have no part in the Declaration of Independence; that there is no moral question about slavery; that liberty and slavery are perfectly consistent 224 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i indeed, necessary accompaniments; that for a strong man to declare himself the superior of a weak one, and thereupon enslave the weak one, is the very essence of liberty, the most sacred right of self-government; when, I say, public sentiment shall be brought to all this, in the name of Heaven what barrier will be left against slavery being made lawful everywhere? Can you find one word of his opposed to it? Can you not find many strongly favoring it? If for his life, for his eternal salvation, he was solely striving for that end, could he find any means so well adapted to reach the end? If our presidential election, by a mere plu rality, and of doubtful significance, brought one Supreme Court decision that no power can ex clude slavery from a Territory, how much more shall a public sentiment, in exact accordance with the sentiments of Judge Douglas, bring another that no power can exclude it from a State? And then, the negro being doomed, and damned, and forgotten, to everlasting bondage, is the white man quite certain that the tyrant demon will not turn upon him too? 1858] Notes for Speeches 225 FRAGMENT: NOTES FOR SPEECHES, [October i, 1858?] FROM time to time, ever since the Chicago "Times" and "Illinois State Register" declared their opposition to the Lecomp- ton constitution, and it began to be understood that Judge Douglas was also opposed to it, I have been accosted by friends of his with the question, "What do you think now?" Since the delivery of his speech in the Senate, the question has been varied a little. "Have you read Doug las s speech?" "Yes." "Well, what do you think of it?" In every instance the question is accompanied with an anxious inquiring stare, which asks, quite as plainly as words could, "Can t you go for Douglas now?" Like boys who have set a bird-trap, they are watching to see if the birds are picking at the bait and likely to go under. I think, then, Judge Douglas knows that the Republicans wish Kansas to be a free State. He knows that they know, if the question be fairly submitted to a vote of the people of Kan sas, it will be a free State ; and he would not ob ject at all if, by drawing their attention to this 226 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i particular fact, and himself becoming vocifer ous for such fair vote, they should be induced to drop their own organization, fall into rank behind him, and form a great free-State Demo cratic party. But before Republicans do this, I think they ought to require a few questions to be answered on the other side. If they so fall in with Judge Douglas, and Kansas shall be secured as a free State, there then remaining no cause of differ ence between him and the regular Democracy, will not the Republicans stand ready, haltered and harnessed, to be handed over by him to the regular Democracy, to filibuster indefinitely for additional slave territory, to carry slavery into all the States, as well as Territories, under the Dred Scott decision, construed and enlarged from time to time, according to the demands of the regular slave Democracy, and to assist in reviving the African slave-trade in order that all may buy negroes where they can be bought cheapest, as a clear incident of that "sacred right of property," now held in some quarters to be above all constitutions? By so falling in, will we not be committed to or at least compromitted with, the Nebraska policy? If so, we should remember that Kansas is saved, not by that policy or its authors, but in 1858] Notes for Speeches 227 spite of both by an effort that cannot be kept up in future cases. Did Judge Douglas help any to get a free- State majority into Kansas? Not a bit of it the exact contrary. Does he now express any wish that Kansas, or any other place, shall be free? Nothing like it. He tells us, in this very speech, expected to be so palatable to Repub licans, that he cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up. His whole effort is devoted to clearing the ring, and giving slavery and free dom a fair fight. With one who considers slav ery just as good as freedom, this is perfectly nat ural and consistent. But have Republicans any sympathy with such a view? They think slavery is wrong; and that, like every other wrong which some men will commit if left alone, it ought to be pro hibited by law. They consider it not only morally wrong, but a "deadly poison" in a gov ernment like ours, professedly based on the equality of men. Upon this radical difference of opinion with Judge Douglas, the Republican party was organized. There is all the differ ence between him and them now that there ever was. He will not say that he has changed ; have you? Again, we ought to be informed as to Judge Douglas s present opinion as to the inclination 228 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i of Republicans to marry with negroes. By his Springfield speech we know what it was last June; and by his resolution dropped at Jack sonville in September we know what it was then. Perhaps we have something even later in a Chicago speech, in which the danger of being "stunk out of church" was descanted upon. But what is his opinion on the point now? There is, or will be, a sure sign to judge by. If this charge shall be silently dropped by the judge and his friends, if no more resolutions on the subject shall be passed in Douglas Democratic meetings and conventions, it will be safe to swear that he is courting. Our "witching smile" has "caught his youthful fancy"; and henceforth Cuffy and he are rival beaux for our gushing affections. We also ought to insist on knowing what the judge now thinks on "Sectionalism." Last year he thought it was a "clincher" against us on the question of Sectionalism, that we could get no support in the slave States, and could not be allowed to speak, or even breathe, south of the Ohio River. In vain did we appeal to the justice of our principles. He would have it that the treat ment we received was conclusive evidence that we deserved it. He and his friends would bring speakers from the slave States to their 1858] Notes for Speeches 229 meetings and conventions in the free States, and parade about, arm in arm with them, breathing in every gesture and tone, "How we national apples do swim!" Let him cast about for this particular evidence of his own nation ality now. Why, just now, he and Fremont would make the closest race imaginable in the Southern States. In the present aspect of affairs what ought the Republicans to do? I think they ought not to oppose any measure merely because Judge Douglas proposes it. Whether the Lecompton constitution should be accepted or rejected is a question upon which, in the minds of men not committed to any of its antecedents, and con trolled only by the Federal Constitution, by re publican principles, and by a sound morality, it seems to me there could not be two opinions. It should be throttled and killed as hastily and as heartily as a rabid dog. What those should do who are committed to all its antecedents is their business, not ours. If, therefore, Judge Douglas s bill secures a fair vote to the people of Kansas, without contrivance to commit any one farther, I think Republican members of Congress ought to support it. They can do so without any inconsistency. They believe Con gress ought to prohibit slavery wherever it can be done without violation of the Constitution 230 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i or of good faith. And having seen the noses counted, and actually knowing that a majority of the people of Kansas are against slavery, pass ing an act to secure them a fair vote is little else than prohibiting slavery in Kansas by act of Congress. Congress cannot dictate a constitution to a new State. All it can do at that point is to secure the people a fair chance to form one for themselves, and then to accept or reject it when they ask admission into the Union. As I un derstand, Republicans claim no more than this. But they do claim that Congress can and ought to keep slavery out of a Territory, up to the time of its people forming a State constitution ; and they should now be careful to not stultify themselves to any extent on that point. I am glad Judge Douglas has, at last, dis tinctly told us that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. Not so much that this is any news to me; nor yet that it may be slightly new to some of that class of his friends who delight to say that they "are as much op posed to slavery as anybody." I am glad because it affords such a true and excellent definition of the Nebraska policy it self. That policy, honestly administered, is ex actly that. It seeks to bring the people of the nation to not care anything about slavery. This 1858] Notes for Speeches 231 is Nebraskaism in its abstract purity in its very best dress. Now, I take it, nearly everybody does care something about slavery is either for it or against it; and that the statesmanship of a meas ure which conforms to the sentiments of nobody might well be doubted in advance. But Nebraskaism did not originate as a piece of statesmanship. General Cass, in 1848, in vented it, as a political manoeuver, to secure himself the Democratic nomination for the pres idency. It served its purpose then, and sunk out of sight. Six years later Judge Douglas fished it up, and glozed it over with what he called, and still persists in calling, "sacred rights of self-government." Well, I, too, believe in self-government as I understand it; but I do not understand that the privilege one man takes of making a slave of another, or holding him as such, is any part of "self-government." To call it so is, to my mind, simply absurd and ridiculous. I am for the people of the whole nation doing just as they please in all matters which concern the whole nation ; for those of each part doing just as they choose in all matters which concern no other part; and for each individual doing just as he chooses in all matters which concern nobody else. This is the principle. Of course I am 232 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i content with any exception which the Constitu tion, or the actually existing state of things, makes a necessity. But neither the principle nor the exception will admit the indefinite spread and perpetuity of human slavery. I think the true magnitude of the slavery ele ment in this nation is scarcely appreciated by any one. Four years ago the Nebraska policy was adopted, professedly, to drive the agitation of the subject into the Territories, and out of every other place, and especially out of Con gress. When Mr. Buchanan accepted the presiden tial nomination, he felicitated himself with the belief that the whole thing would be quieted and forgotten in about six weeks. In his inau gural, and in his Silliman letter, at their re spective dates, he was just not quite in reach of the same happy consummation. And now, in his first annual message, he urges the acceptance of the Lecompton constitution (not quite satis factory to him) on the sole ground of getting this little unimportant matter out of the way. Meanwhile, in those four years, there has really been more angry agitation of this sub ject, both in and out of Congress, than ever be fore. And just now it is perplexing the mighty ones as no subject ever did before. Nor is it confined to politics alone. Presbyterian assem- 1858] Notes for Speeches 233 blies, Methodist conferences, Unitarian gather ings, and single churches to an indefinite extent, are wrangling, and cracking, and going to pieces on the same question. Why, Kansas is neither the whole nor a tithe of the real ques tion. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure per manently half slave and half free. I expressed this belief a year ago; and subsequent develop ments have but confirmed me. 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 put it in 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. Do you doubt it? Study the Dred Scott decision, and then see how little even now remains to be done. That decision may be reduced to three points. The first is that a negro cannot be a citizen. That point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitu- 234 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i tion which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and im munities of citizens in the several States." The second point is that the United States Constitution protects slavery, as property, in all the United States territories, and that neither Congress, nor the people of the Territories, nor any other power, can prohibit it at any time prior to the formation of State constitutions. This point is made in order that the Terri tories may safely be filled up with slaves, before the formation of State constitutions, thereby to embarrass the free-State sentiment, and enhance the chances of slave constitutions being adopted. The third point decided is that the voluntary bringing of Dred Scott into Illinois by his mas ter, and holding him here a long time as a slave, did not operate his emancipation did not make him free. This point is made, not to be pressed imme diately; but if acquiesced in for a while, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott s master might lawfully do with Dred in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one or one hun dred slaves in Illinois, or in any other free State. Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine is to educate and mold public opinion to "not care whether slav- 1858] Notes for Speeches 235 ery is voted up or voted down." At least North ern public opinion must cease to care anything about it. Southern public opinion may, with out offense, continue to care as much as it pleases. Welcome or unwelcome, agreeable or dis agreeable, whether this shall be an entire slave nation is the issue before us. Every incident every little shifting of scenes or of actors only clears away the intervening trash, compacts and consolidates the opposing hosts, and brings them more and more distinctly face to face. The conflict will be a severe one; and it will be fought through by those who do care for the result, and not by those who do not care by those who are for, and those who are against, a legalized national slavery. The combined charge of Nebraskaism and Dred-Scottism must be repulsed and rolled back. The deceitful cloak of "self-government," wherewith "the sum of all villainies" seeks to protect and adorn itself, must be torn from its hateful carcassi. That burlesque upon judicial decisions, and slander and profanation upon the honored names and sacred history of republican America, must be overruled and expunged from the books of authority. To give the victory to the right, not bloody bullets, but peaceful ballots only are necessary. 236 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. i Thanks to our good old Constitution, and or ganization under it, these alone are necessary. It only needs that every right thinking maa shall go to the polls, and without fear or preju dice vote as he thinks. 1858] Speech at Galesburg 237 FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURG, ILLINOIS, Octobery, 1858. Mr. Douglas s Opening Speech. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Four years ago I appeared before the people of Knox County for the purpose of de fending my political action upon the compro mise measures of 1850 and the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Those of you before me who were present then will remember that I vindicated myself for supporting those two measures by the fact that they rested upon the great fundamental principle that the people of each State and each Territory of this Union have the right, and ought to be permitted to exercise the right, of regulating their own domestic con cerns in their own way, subject to no other lim itation or restriction than that which the Con stitution of the United States imposes upon them. I then called upon the people of Illinois to decide whether that principle of self-govern ment was right or wrong. If it was and is right, then the compromise measures of 1850 were right, and, consequently, the Kansas and 238 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 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 there from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. For the last four years I have devoted all my energies, in private and public, to commend that principle to the American people. Whatever else may be said in condemnation or support of my po litical course, I apprehend that no honest man will doubt the fidelity with which under all cir cumstances 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 admis sion of Kansas into the Union under the Le- compton constitution. In my opinion, the at tempt to force Kansas in under that constitu tion was a gross violation of the principle enun ciated in the compromise measures of 1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854, and there fore I led off in the fight against the Lecompton constitution, and conducted it until the effort to carry that constitution through Congress was 1858] Speech at Galesburg 239 abandoned. And I can appeal to all men, friends and foes, Democrats and Republicans, Northern men and Southern men, that during the whole of that fight I carried the banner of popular sovereignty aloft, and never allowed it to trail in the dust, or lowered my flag until victory perched upon our arms. When the Le- compton 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 gen eral amnesty and political pardon to all men who had fought against the Lecompton consti tution, 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 differ ences of opinion at that time, in the event those who opposed it favored the English bill, was an admission that they did not think that oppo sition to Lecompton impaired a man s standing in the Democratic party. Now the question arises : What was that English bill which cer tain men are now attempting to make a test of political orthodoxy in this country? It pro vided, in substance, that the Lecompton consti tution should be sent back to the people of Kan- 240 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 sas for their adoption or rejection, at an elec tion which was held in August last, and in case they refused admission under it, that Kansas should be kept out of the Union until she had 93,420 inhabitants. I was in favor of sending the 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 out until they had double or treble the population they then had, I never would sanction by my vote. The reason why I could not sanction it is to be found in the fact that by the English bill, if the people of Kan sas had only agreed to become a slaveholding State under the Lecompton constitution, they could have done so with 35,000 people, but if they insisted on being a free State, as they had a right to do, then they were to be punished by being kept out of the Union until they had near ly three times that population. I then said in my place in the Senate, as I now say to you, that whenever Kansas has population enough for a slave State she has population enough for a free State. I have never yet given a vote, and I never intend to record one, making an odious and unjust distinction between the different States of this Union. I hold it to be a funda- 1858] Speech at Galesburg 241 mental principle in our republican form of gov ernment that all the States of this Union, old and new, free and slave, stand on an exact equal ity. Equality among the different States is a cardinal principle on which all our institutions rest. Wherever, therefore, you make a discrim ination, saying to a slave State that it shall be admitted with 35,000 inhabitants, and to a free State that it shall not be admitted until it has 93,000 or 100,000 inhabitants, you are throwing the whole weight of the Federal Government into the scale in favor of one class of States against the other. Nor would I on the other hand any sooner sanction the doctrine that a free State could be admitted into the Union with 35,000 people, while a slave 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 Congress, accord ing to the then existing ratio. But while I have always been, and am now, willing to adopt that general rule, I was not willing and would not consent to make an exception of Kansas, as a punishment for her obstinacy in demanding the right to do as she pleased in the formation of her constitution. It is proper that I should re mark here that my opposition to the Lecomp- 242 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 ton constitution did not rest upon the peculiar position taken by Kansas on the subject of slav ery. 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 principle of self-government which asserts the right of every people to decide for themselves the nature and character of the do mestic institutions and fundamental law under which they are to live. The effort has been, and is now being, made in this State by certain postmasters and other federal office-holders, to make a test of faith on the support of the English bill. These men are now making speeches all over the State against me and in favor of Lincoln, 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 organization in this State, how is it in the other States? Go to Indiana, and there you find that English him self, the author of the English bill, who is a candidate for reelection to Congress, has been 1858] Speech at Galesburg 243 forced by public opinion to abandon his own darling project, and to give a promise that he will vote for the admission of Kansas at once, whenever she forms a constitution in pursuance of law, and ratifies it by a majority vote of her people. Not only is this the case with English himself, but I am informed that every Demo cratic candidate for Congress in Indiana takes the same ground. Pass to Ohio, and there you find that Groesbeck, and Pendleton, and Cox, and all the other anti-Lecompton men who stood shoulder to shoulder with me against the Le- compton 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 pro claimed at the time in the Senate, and upon which the Democracy of Illinois now stand. And yet, notwithstanding the fact that every Lecompton and anti-Lecompton Democrat in the free States has abandoned the English bill, you are told that it is to be made a test upon me, while the power and patronage of the gov ernment are all exerted to elect men to Con gress in the other States who occupy the same 244 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 position with reference to it that I do. It seems that my political offense consists in the fact that I did not first 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 administration would now be advocating my reelection, as it is that of the others who have pursued this course. I did not choose to give that pledge, for the reason that I did not intend to carry out that principle. I never will consent, for the sake of conciliat ing the frowns of power, to pledge myself to do that which I do not intend to perform. I now submit the question to you, as my constituency, whether I was not right first, in resisting the adoption of the Lecompton constitution; and secondly, in resisting the English bill. I re peat 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 Kan- 1858] Speech at Galesburg 245 sas under the English bill last August, and then, at a fair election, they rejected the Lecompton constitution by a vote of from eight to ten against it to one in its favor. Since it has been voted down by so 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 out of every hundred people here present agree that I was right in defeating that project, yet my enemies use the fact that I did defeat it by doing right, to break me down and put another man in the United States Senate in my place. The very men who acknowledge that I was right in de feating 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 using their influence and the patronage of the government against me in revenge for my having defeated the Lecompton constitu tion. What do you Republicans think of a political organization that will try to make an 246 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 unholy and unnatural combination with its pro fessed 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 proscrip tion is threatened every Democrat by the pres ent administration, unless he supports the Re publican ticket in preference to my Democratic associates and myself. I could find an instance in the postmaster of the city of Galesburg, and in every other postmaster in this vicinity, all of whom have been stricken down simply because they discharged the duties of their offices hon estly, and supported the regular Democratic ticket in this State in the right. The Repub lican party is availing itself of every unworthy means in the present contest to carry the elec tion, because its leaders know that if they let this chance slip they will never have another, and their hopes of making this a Republican State will be blasted forever. Now, let me ask you whether the country has any interest in sustaining this organization known as the Republican party. That party is unlike all other political organizations in this country. All other parties have been national in their character have avowed their princi ples alike in the slave and free States, in Ken- 1858] Speech at Galesburg 247 tucky 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 Demo crats 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 Ameri can soil. But now you have a sectional organization, a party which appeals to the Northern section of the Union against the Southern, a party which appeals to Northern passion, Northern pride, Northern ambition, and Northern preju dices, against Southern people, the Southern States, and Southern institutions. The leaders of that party hope that they will be able to unite the Northern States in one great sectional party, and inasmuch as the North is the stronger section, that they will thus be enabled to out j vote, conquer, govern, and control the South. Hence you find that they now make speeches advocating principles and measures which can not be defended in any slave-holding^ State of this Union. Is there a Republican residing in Galesburg who can travel into Kentucky, and carry his principles with him across the Ohio? What Republican from Massachusetts can visit the Old Dominion without leaving his princi- 248 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 pies behind him when he crosses Mason s and Dixon s line? Permit me to say to you in per fect good humor, but in all sincerity, that no political creed is sound which cannot be pro claimed fearlessly in every State of this Union where the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not only is this Republican party unable to proclaim its principles alike in the North and in the South, in the free States and in the slave States, but it cannot even pro claim them in the same forms and give them the same strength and meaning in all parts of the same State. My friend Lincoln finds it ex tremely difficult to manage a debate in the cen tral part of the State, where there is a mixture of men from the North and the South. In the extreme northern part of Illinois he can pro claim 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 ido with Abolitionism, or negro equality, or negro citizenship. I once before hinted this of Mr. Lincoln in a public speech, and at Charleston he defied me to show that there was any difference between his speeches in the north and in the south, and that they were 1858] Speech at Galesburg 249 not in strict harmony. I will now call your attention to two of them, and you can then say whether you would be apt to believe that the same man ever uttered both. In a speech in reply to me at Chicago in July last, Mr. Lin coln, in speaking of the equality of tfie negro with the white man, used the following lan guage: I should like to know if, taking this old Declara tion of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man? If the Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute-book in which we find it and tear it out. Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out. You find that Mr. Lincoln there proposed that if the doctrine of the Declaration of Inde pendence, declaring all men to be born equal, did not include the negro and put him on an equality with the white man, that we should take the statute-book and tear it out. He there took the ground that the negro race is included in the Declaration of Independence as the equal of the white race, and that there 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 : 250 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 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 in ferior 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. ["That s right," etc.] Yes, I have no doubt that you think it is right, but the Lincoln men down in Coles, Tazewell, and Sangamon counties do not think it is right. In the conclusion of the same speech, talking to the Chicago Abolitionists, he said: "I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal. * ["Good, good!"] Well, you say good to that, and you are going to vote for Lincoln because he holds that doctrine. I will not blame you for supporting him on that ground, but I will show you, in immediate contrast with that doc trine, what Mr. Lincoln said down in Egypt in order to get votes in that locality where they do not hold to such a doctrine. In a joint dis cussion between Mr. Lincoln and myself, at Charleston, I think, on the i8th of last month, 1858] Speech at Galesburg 251 Mr. Lincoln, referring to this subject, used the following language: 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 free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical 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. ["Good for Lincoln!"] Fellow-citizens, here you find men hurrahing for Lincoln, and saying that he did right when in one part of the State he stood up for negro equality, and in another part, for political effect, discarded the doctrine, and declared that there always must be a superior and inferior race. Abolitionists up north are expected and required to vote for Lincoln because he goes for the equality of the races, holding that by the Dec laration of Independence the white man and the negro were created equal, and endowed by 252 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 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 su perior and the other inferior, and that he is in favor of maintaining the superiority of the white race over the negro. Now, how can you reconcile those two posi tions of Mr. Lincoln? He is to be voted for in the south as a pro-slavery man, and he is to be voted for in the north as an Abolitionist. Up here he thinks it is all nonsense to talk about a difference between the races, and says that we must "discard all quibbling about this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior po sition." Down south he makes this "quibble" about this race and that race and the other race being inferior as the creed of his party, and de clares that the negro can never be elevated to the position of the white man. You find that his political meetings are called by different names in different counties in the State. Here they are called Republican meetings, but in old Tazewell, where Lincoln made a speech last Tuesday, he did not address a Republican meet ing, but "a grand rally of the Lincoln men." There are very few Republicans there, because Tazewell County is filled with old Virginians 1858] Speech at Galesburg 253 and Kentuckians, all of whom are Whigs or Democrats, and if Mr. Lincoln had called an Abolition or Republican meeting there, he would not get many votes. Go down into Egypt, and you will find that he and his party are operating under an alias there, which his friend Trumbull has given them, in order that they may cheat the people. When I was down in Monroe County a few weeks ago addressing the people, I saw handbills posted announcing that Mr. Trumbull was going to speak in be half 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 De mocracy of Monroe County, and the bill was signed "Many Free Democrats." The reason that Mr. Lincoln and his party adopted the name of "Free Democracy" down there was because Monroe County has always 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 fighting for Lincoln as Democrats. Come up to Springfield, where Lincoln now lives and always has lived, and you find that the convention of his party which assembled to nominate candidates for the legislature, who are expected to vote for him if elected, dare not 254 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 adopt the name of Republican, but assembled under the title of "All opposed to the Democ racy." Thus you find that Mr. Lincoln s creed cannot travel through even one half of the coun ties of this State, but that it changes its hues, and becomes lighter and lighter as it travels from the extreme north, until it is nearly white when it reaches the extreme south end of the State. I ask you, my friends, why cannot Re publicans 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 prin ciples in one part of the State, and a different set in another part. If I do not truly and honorably represent your feelings and principles, then I ought not to be your senator; and I will never conceal my opinions, or modify or change them a hairV breadth, in order to get votes. I tell you that this Chicago doctrine of Lincoln s declaring that the negro and the white man are made equal by the Declaration of Independence and by Divine Providence is a monstrous heresy. The signers of the Declaration of Independence never dreamed of the negro when they were writing that document. They referred to white men, to men of European birth and European descent, when they declared the equality of all 1858] Speech at Galesburg 255 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- holding constituency. Recollect, also, that no one of them emancipated his slaves, much less put them on an equality with himself, after he signed the Declaration. On the contrary, they all continued to hold their negroes as slaves dur ing the Revolutionary War. Now, do you be lieve are you willing to have it said that every man who signed the Declaration of Inde pendence declared the negro his equal, and then was hypocrite enough to hold him as a slave, in violation of what he believed to be the divine law? And yet when you say that the Declara tion of Independence includes the negro, you charge the signers of it with hypocrisy. I say to you frankly, that in my opinion this 256 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. r 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 for ever, 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 negro is not a citizen, cannot be a citizen, and ought not to be a citizen, it does not follow by any means that he should be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow that the negro as an inferior race ought to possess every right, every privilege, every immunity which he can safely exercise consistent with the safety of the society in which he lives. Humanity re quires, and Christianity commands, that you shall extend to every inferior being, and every dependent being, all the privileges, immunities, and advantages which can be granted to them consistent with the safety of society. If you ask me the nature and extent of these privileges, I answer that that is a question which the people of each State must decide for themselves. Illi nois has decided that question for herself. We have said that in this State the negro shall not be a slave, nor shall he be a citizen. Kentucky holds a different doctrine. New York holds one different from either, and Maine one differ ent from all. Virginia, in her policy on this question, differs in many respects from the oth- 1858] Speech at Galesburg 257 ers, and so on, until there are hardly two States whose policy is exactly alike in regard to the relation of the white man and the negro. Nor can you reconcile them and make them alike. Each State must do as it pleases. Illinois had as much right to adopt the policy which we have on that subject as Kentucky had to adopt a dif ferent policy. The great principle of this gov ernment 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 inter fere with us, or complain of us merely because our system differs from theirs. In the com promise measures of 1850, Mr. Clay declared that this great principle ought to exist in the Territories as well as in the States, and I reas serted his doctrine in the Kansas and Nebraska bill in 1854. But Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to under stand, 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 can not explain it to the satisfaction of all impartial men. Chief Justice Taney has said, in his opin ion in the Dred Scott case, that a negro slave, 258 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 being property, stands on an equal footing with other property, and that the owner may carry them into United States territory the same as he does other property. Suppose any two of you neighbors shall conclude to go to Kansas, one carrying $100,000 worth of negro slaves and the other $100,000 worth of mixed merchandise, including quantities of liquors. You both agree that under that decision you may carry your property to Kansas, but when you get it there, the merchant who is possessed of the liquors is met by the Maine liquor law, which prohibits the sale or use of his property, and the owner of the slaves is met by equally unfriendly legisla tion, which makes his property worthless after he gets it there. What is the right to carry your property into the Territory worth to either, when unfriendly legislation in the Territory renders it worthless after you get it there? The slaveholder, when he gets his slaves there, finds that there is no local law to protect him in holding them, no slave code, no po lice regulations maintaining and supporting him in his right, and he discovers at once that the absence of such friendly legislation ex cludes his property from the Territory just as irresistibly as if there was a positive constitu tional prohibition excluding it. Thus you find it is with any kind of property 1858] Speech at Galesburg 259 in a Territory; it depends for its protection on the local and municipal law. If the people of a Territory want slavery, they make friendly legislation to introduce it, but if they do not want it, they withhold all protection from it, and then it cannot exist there. Such was the view taken on the subject by different Southern men when the Nebraska bill passed. See the speech of Mr. Orr, of South Carolina, the pres ent Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, made at that time, and there you will find this whole doctrine argued out at full 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 want it. I hold that in this country there is no power on the face of the globe that can force any institution on an unwilling people. The great fundamental principle of our government is that the people of each State and each Terri tory shall be left perfectly free to decide for themselves what shall be the nature and char acter of their institutions. When this govern ment was made, it was based on that principle. At the time of its formation there were twelve slaveholding States, and one free State, in this Union. Suppose this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln 260 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 and the Republicans, of uniformity of laws of all the States on the subject of slavery, had pre vailed; suppose Mr. Lincoln himself had been a member of the convention which framed the Constitution, and that he had risen in that au gust body, and, addressing the Father of his Country, had said as he did at Springfield: 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. What do you think would have been the re sult? Suppose he had made that convention believe that doctrine, and they had acted upon it, what do you think would have been the re sult? Do you believe that one free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus abolished slavery? On the contrary, would not the twelve slaveholding States have outvoted the one free State, and under his doc trine have fastened slavery by an irrevocable constitutional provision upon every inch of the American republic? Thus you see that the doc trine he now advocates, if proclaimed at the be ginning of the government, would have estab lished slavery everywhere throughout the Amer- 1858] Speech at Galesburg 261 lean continent; and are you willing, now that we have the majority section, to exercise a power which we never would have submitted to when we were in the minority? If the Southern States had attempted to control our institutions, and make the States all slave when they had the power, I ask would you have submitted to it? If you would not, are you willing, now that we have become the strongest under that great prin ciple of self-government that allows each State to do as it pleases, to attempt to control the Southern institutions? Then, my friends, I say to you that there is but one path of peace in this republic, and that is to administer this govern ment as our fathers made it, divided into free and slave States, allowing each State to decide for itself whether it wants slavery or not. If Illinois will settle the slavery question for her self, and mind her own business and let her neighbors alone, we will be at peace with Ken tucky, and every other Southern State. If every other State in the Union will do the same, there will be peace between the North and South, and in the whole Union. 262 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 Mr. Lincoln s Reply in the Galesburg Joint Debate. MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge Douglas has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in print. I do not mean that for a hit upon the judge at all. If I had not been interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I was able to make to a very large 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 dis cussed in a large portion of the speech which he has just delivered. I make these remarks for the purpose of excusing myself for not pass ing 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 backward upon some notes which I have taken, reversing the order and beginning where he concluded. The judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and insisted that negroes are not 1858] Reply at Galesburg 263 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 lan guage of that instrument to the negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery? Would he not at once have freed them? I only have to remark upon this part of the judge s speech (and that, too, very briefly, for I shall not detain myself, or you, upon that point for any great length of time), that I believe the entire records of the world, from the date of the Declaration of Indpendence 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 Wash ington 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 264 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 very subject, he used the strong language that "he trembled for his country when he remem bered that God was just" ; and I will offer the highest premium in my power to Judge Doug las if he will show that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of Jef ferson. The next thing to which I will ask your at tention is the judge s comments upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call our public meetings as Republican meetings ; and he instances Tazewell County as one of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called a pub lic meeting and have not dared to name it a Republican meeting. He instances Monroe County as another where Judge Trumbull and Jehu Baker addressed the persons whom the judge assumes to be friends of Lincoln, calling them the "Free Democracy." I have the honor to inform Judge Douglas that he spoke in that very county of Tazewell last Saturday, and I was there on Tuesday last, and when he spoke there he spoke under a call not venturing to use the word "Democrat." [Turning to Judge Douglas.] What think you of this? So, again, there is another thing to which I would ask the judge s attention upon this sub ject. In the contest of 1856 his party delighted to call themselves together as the "National 1858] Reply at Galesburg 265 Democracy," but now, if there should be a no tice put up anywhere for a meeting of the "Na tional Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not come. They would not sup pose themselves invited. They would under stand 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 each other. Those speeches have been before the public for a con siderable time, and if they have any inconsis tency in them, if there is any conflict in them, the public have been able to detect it. When the judge says, in speaking on this subject, that I make speeches of one sort for the people of the northern end of the State, and of a different sort for the 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 commun ity 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 266 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 if we do not confess that there is a sort of in equality between the white and black races which justifies us in making them slaves, we must, then, insist that there is a degree of equal ity that requires us to make them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken a broad dis tinction in regard to that matter; and that is all there is in these different speeches which he arrays here, and the entire reading of either of the speeches will show that that distinction was made. Perhaps by taking two parts of the same speech he could have got up as much of a conflict as the one he has found. I have all the while maintained that in so far as it should be insisted that there was an equality between the white and black races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility. This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have said that in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap piness," 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 and consider when we are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed with the actual presence of the evil slavery. I have never manifested any impatience with the neces sities that spring from the actual presence of 1858] Reply at Galesburg 267 black people amongst us, and the actual exist ence of slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have insisted that, in legislating for new countries where it does not exist, there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract right. With reference to those new countries, those maxims as to the right of a people to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were the just rules to be constantly referred to. There is no misunderstanding this, except by men in terested to misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an intelligent and reading com munity who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge whether I advance improper or unsound views, or whether I advance hypo critical and deceptive and contrary views in dif ferent portions of the country. I believe my self to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am en tirely free from all error in the opinions I ad vance. The judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction between his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national party ours a sectional one. He does this in asking the question whether this country has any interest in the maintenance of the Republi can party? He assumes that our party is alto gether sectional that the party to which he 268 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 adheres is national; and the argument is that no party can be a rightful party can be based upon rightful principles unless it can an nounce its principles everywhere. I presume that Judge Douglas could not go into Russia and announce the doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Rus sia ; 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 Demo cracy, because there is a section so directly op posed to it that they will not tolerate us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of a doc trine, that in some places people won t let you proclaim it? Is that the way to test the truth of any doctrine? Why, I understand that at one time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a certain favorite doc trine of his. I commend to his consideration the question, whether he takes that as a test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little while on this occasion. What has always been the evidence brought for ward to prove that the Republican party is a sectional party? The main one was that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did not let the Republicans proclaim their doctrines 1858] Reply at Galesburg 269 amongst them. That has been the main evi dence brought forward that they had no sup porters, or substantially none ; in the slave States. The South have not taken hold of our principles as we announce them; nor does Judge Douglas now grapple with those principles. We have a Republican State platform, laid down in Springfield in June last, stating our position all the way through the questions be fore the country. We are now far advanced in this canvass. Judge Douglas and I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have now for the fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I have not found either Judge Douglas or any friend of his tak ing hold of the Republican platform or laying his finger upon anything in it that is wrong. I ask you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away from the platform of principles to the fact that he can find people somewhere who will not allow us to announce those principles. If he had great confidence that our principles were wrong, he would take hold of them and demonstrate them to be wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he has of their being wrong is in the fact that there are people who won t allow us to preach them. I ask again is that the way to test the soundness of a doctrine? I ask his attention also to the fact that by the 270 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. ^ rule of nationality he is himself fast becoming sectional. I ask his atention to the fact that his speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio River as they have formerly gone there. I ask his attention to the fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all the Democrats of the free States are agreeing with him, while he omits to tell us that the 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 sectional too. I see it rapidly approaching. Whatever may be the result of this ephemeral contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day rapidly approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has been thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be crowded down his own throat. Now in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his speech) about the compro mise of 1850 containing the principle of the Ne braska bill; although I have often presented my views upon that subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you please, detain you a little with them. I have always main tained so far as I was able that there was noth ing of the principle of the Nebraska bill in the compromise of 1850 at all nothing whatever. 1858] Reply at Galesburg 271 Where can you find the principle of the Ne braska bill in that compromise? If anywhere, in the two pieces of the compromise organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was expressly provided in these two acts that, when they came to be admitted into the Union, they should be admitted with or without slav ery, as they should choose, by their own consti tutions. 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 dur ing the territorial existence, and that these old Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can that be used as a principle for declaring that during the territorial existence, as well as at the time of framing the 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 Nebraska bill? I maintain that the organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general prin ciple at all. It had no feature establishing a general principle. The acts to which I have referred were a part of a general system of com- 272 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 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 to come in in that shape, because in an other way it was paid for considering that as a part of that system of measures called the com promise of 1850, which finally included half a dozen acts. It included the admission of Cali fornia 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 un defined before, which was in itself a slavery question ; for if you pushed the line further west, you made Texas larger, and made more slave Territory; while if you drew the line toward the east, you narrowed the boundary and dimin ished the domain of slavery, and by so much increased free Territory. It included the aboli tion of the slave-trade in the District of Colum bia. It included the passage of a new fugitive- slave law. All these things were put together, and though passed in separate acts, were never theless in legislation (as the speeches at the time will show) made to depend upon each other. Each got votes, with the understanding that the other measures were to pass, and by this system 1858] Reply at Galesburg 273 of compromise, in that series of measures, those two bills the New Mexico and Utah bills were passed ; and I say for that reason they could not be taken as models, framed upon their own intrinsic principle, for all future Territories. And I have the evidence of this in the fact that Judge Douglas, a year afterward, or more than a year afterward perhaps, when he first intro duced bills for the purpose of framing new Ter ritories, did not attempt to follow these bills of New Mexico and Utah; and even when he in troduced this Nebraska bill, I think you will discover that he did not exactly follow them. But I do not wish to dwell at great length upon this branch of the discussion. My own opin ion is that a thorough investigation will show most plainly that the New Mexico and Utah bills were part of a system of compromise, and not designed as patterns for future territorial legislation, and that this Nebraska bill did not follow them as a pattern at all. The judge tells us, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any odious distinctions be tween free and slave States. I am altogether unaware 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 Re publicans in this. I suppose that the real dif- 274 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 ference between Judge Douglas and his friends and the Republicans, on the contrary, is that the judge is not in favor of making any difference between slavery and liberty that he is in favor of eradicating, of pressing out of view, the ques tions of preference in this country for free or slave institutions; and consequently every senti ment he utters discards the idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Everything that ema nates from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery. All their arguments, if you will consider them, will be seen to exclude the thought that there is any thing whatever wrong in slavery. If you will take the judge s speeches, and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him, as his declaration that he "don t care whether slavery is voted up or down," you will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he don t care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot logi cally say that anybody has a right to do wrong. 1858] Reply at Galesburg 275 He insists that, upon the score of equality, the owners of slaves and owners of property of horses and every other sort of property should be alike, and hold them alike in a new Territory. That is perfectly logical, if the two species of property are alike, and are equally founded in right. But if you admit that one of them is wrong, you cannot institute any equality be tween right and wrong. And from this differ ence of sentiment the belief on the part of one that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that belief which looks to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong; and this other sentiment, that it is no wrong, and a policy sprung from that sentiment which will tolerate no idea of preventing that wrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end of it through all the existence of things arises the real difference between Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand, and the Republicans on the other. Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us, and the difficulties of get ting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but who, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a 276 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end. Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, if not the seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or combi nation between the National Democrats and Re publicans. 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 Lecompton constitution than Mr. Buchanan had; though at last, when they reached it, they quarreled over it, and their friends divided upon it. I am very free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have no objection to the division; but I defy the judge to show any evidence that I have in any way promoted that division, unless he insists on being a witness himself in merely say ing so. I can give all fair friends of Judge Douglas here to understand exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to that division. Don t you remember how two years ago the opponents of the Democratic party divided be tween Fremont and Fillmore? I guess you do. Any Democrat who remembers that division 1858] Reply at Galesburg 277 will remember also that he was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to see all there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans. What we now think of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fremont and Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. But if the judge continues to put forward the declaration that there is an unholy, unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the Na tional Democrats, I now want to enter my pro test against receiving him as an entirely com petent witness upon that subject. I want to call to the judge s attention an attack he made upon me in the first one of these debates, at Ottawa, on the 2ist 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 Oc tober, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he de clared I had taken part in that convention. It turned out that although a few men calling themselves an anti-Nebraska State convention had sat at Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So apparent had it become that the resolutions which he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by any State 278 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 convention in which I had taken part, that seven days afterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas de clared 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 investi gate the matter. Since then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made the investigation ; but a month has passed since he has been there, and so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of his investigation. I have waited as I think a sufficient time for the report of that investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A fraud, an abso lute forgery, was committed, and the perpetra tion of it was traced to the three Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be nar rowed in any way, so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge Douglas s report would probably show. It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were published in the Illinois "State Register" on the i6th of October, 1854, as being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska con vention which had sat in that same month of October, at Springfield. But it is also true that the publication in the "Register" was a forgery then, and the question is still behind, which of 1858] Reply at Galesburg 279 the three, if not all of them, committed that for gery? The idea that it was done by mistake is absurd. The article in the Illinois "State Reg ister" contains part of the real proceedings of that Springfield convention, showing that the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him, and purposely threw out the gen uine resolutions passed by the convention, and fraudulently substituted the others. Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of the "Register," so that there seems to be but little room for his escape. But then it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the other two. The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to Congress, and that object was known to be exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and Doug las were both in Springfield when the conven tion 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 that 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 280 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 what was to be done with him, "Take the eels out and set him 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 at tempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the Senate of the United States, as will appear from the appendix to the "Congressional Globe" of that date. On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton in the House of Representatives, as will appear by the same document the appendix to the "Con gressional Globe" of that date. On the 2ist of August last, all three Lanphier, Douglas, and Harris reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. It has been clung to and played out again and again as an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio. And now that it has been discov ered 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 as cozy now, and just as active in the concoction of new schemes as they were before the general discovery of this fraud. Now all this is very natural if they are all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any one of them is innocent. Lan- 1858] Reply at Galesburg 281 phier 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 difficult to make a satis factory 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 reelection 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 seeming to think that this one unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate, will be the least drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He asks a re election to the lower House of Congress without seeming to remember at all that he is involved in this dishonorable fraud! The Illinois "State Register," edited by Lanphier, then, as now, the central organ of both Harris and Douglas, con tinues to din the public ear with these assertions without seeming to suspect that they are 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. Lanphier knows. Lan phier cannot be ignorant of how and by whom it 282 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 was originally concocted. Can he be induced to tell, or if he has told, can Judge Douglas be induced to tell, how it originally was concocted? It may be true that Lanphier insists that the two men for whose benefit it was originally de vised shall at least bear their share of it! How that is, I do not know, and while it remains un explained, I hope to be pardoned if I insist that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making charges against Trumbull and myself is not quite suffi cient evidence to establish them ! While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I answered certain interroga tories which Judge Douglas had propounded to me, and there in turn propounded some to him, which he in a sort of way answered. The third one of these interrogatories I have with me, and wish now to make some comments upon it. It was in these words: "If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adopting, and following such decision as a rule of political action?" To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense of the word. He con tented himself with sneering at the thought that it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. He sneered at me for propounding the interrogatory. I had not pro- 1858] Reply at Galesburg 283 pounded it without some reflection, and I wish now to address to this audience some remarks upon it. In the second clause of the sixth article, I be lieve 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 supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the con trary notwithstanding." The essence of the Dred Scott case is com pressed into the sentence which I will now read: "Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution." I repeat it, "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and ex pressly affirmed in the Constitution"! What is to be "affirmed" in the Constitution? Made firm in the Constitution so made that it can not be separated from the Constitution without breaking the Constitution durable as the Con stitution, and part of the Constitution? Now, remembering the provision of the Constitution which I have read, affirming that that instru- 284 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 ment 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 consideration 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 Constitution of the United States. Therefore, nothing in the constitution or laws of any State can destroy the right of property in a slave. I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming the truth of the prem ises, the conclusion, so far as I have capacity at all to understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault in it, as I think, but the fault is not in the reasoning; the falsehood, in fact, is a fault in the premises. I believe that the right 1858] Reply at Galesburg 285 of property in a slave is not distinctly and ex pressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the Su preme Court and the advocates of that decision may search in vain for the place in the Consti tution where the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed. I say, there fore, 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 pro nounced it. They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying it, the con clusion follows that the Constitution of the United States, being the supreme law, no con stitution or law can interfere with it. It being affirmed in the decision that the right of prop erty in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or constitution can de stroy that right. I then say to Judge Douglas, and to all others, that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer to show that those who have said that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed 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 intelli gent men that whoever has so said is not pre- a86 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 pared, whenever public sentiment is so far ad vanced as to justify it, to say the other. This is but an opinion, and the opinion of one very humble man ; but it is my opinion that the Dred Scott decision, as it is, never would have been made in its present form if the party that made it had not been sustained previously by the elections. My own opinion is that the new Dred Scott decision, deciding against the right of the people of the States to exclude slav ery, will never be made if that party is not sus tained 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 preparing the public mind for that new Dred Scott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the reasons for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. I have turned his atten tion to the fact that General Jackson differed with him in regard to the political obligation 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 sub mission to any department of government, re- 1858] Reply at Galesburg 287 taining 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, disregards a time-hon ored decision of the Supreme Court, in defying the power of Congress to establish a national bank. I have asked his attention to the fact that he himself was one of the most active instru ments at one time in breaking down the Su preme Court of the State of Illinois, because it had made a decision distasteful to him a strug gle 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 the Constitution; all you fellows that dare question it in any way are the enemies of the Constitution." Now in this very devoted adherence to this decision, in opposition to all the great political leaders whom he has recog nized 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 conceives a88 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory upon every one sim ply because of the source from whence it comes as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be this is another marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it in this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not investigate it, and won t inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong. So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is right or wrong. He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing prepares the pub lic 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 power fully preparing the public mind to take that de cision when it comes ; and not only so, but he is doing it in various other ways. In these gen eral 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 allowed to go everywhere" ; that "there is no inconsistency between free and slave institutions" in this he is also preparing (whether purposely or not) the way for making the institution of slavery national. I repeat 1858] Reply at Galesburg 289 again, for I wish no misunderstanding, that I do not charge that he means it so ; but I call upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best instrument you 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 answer ing an objection to the Colonization Society, that it had a tendency to the ultimate emanci pation of the slaves, said that "those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the Colonization Society they must go back to the era of our liberty and independence, and muzzle the cannon that thun ders its annual joyous return they must blot out the moral lights around us they must pene trate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love of liberty"! And I do think I repeat, though I said it on a former occasion that Judge Douglas, and whoever, like him, teaches that the negro has no share, humble though it may be, in the Declaration of Inde- 290 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 pendence, 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 who ever 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 remain ing 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 Doug las 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 pro hibited therein?" I answered as I thought, in this way, that I am not generally opposed to the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would support a proposition for the acquisition of additional territory, according as my support ing it was or was not calculated to aggravate this slavery question amongst us. I then pro- 1858] Reply at Galesburg 291 posed to Judge Douglas another interrogatory, which was correlative to that: "Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory in dis regard of how it may affect us upon the slavery question?" Judge Douglas answered that is, in his own way he answered it. I believe that, although he took a good many words to answer it, it was little more fully answered than any other. The substance of his answer was that this country would continue to expand that it would need additional territory that it was as absurd to suppose that we could continue upon our present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as it would be to hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow to man s size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was something like that. Consequently he was in favor of the acquisition of further territory, as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might affect the slavery question. I do not say this as giving his exact language, but he said so substantially, and he would leave the question of slavery where the territory was acquired, to be settled by the people of the acquired terri tory. ["That s the doctrine."] Maybe 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 ques tion. If Judge Douglas s policy upon this ques- 292 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 tion succeeds and gets fairly settled down until all opposition is crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promises additional slave-fields. And this question is to be left to the people of those countries for settlement. When we shall get Mexico, I don t know whether the judge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it settling that question for themselves and all others; because we know the judge has a great horror for mongrels, and I understand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is a pure white, and I suppose from the judge s previous declaration that when we get Mexico, or any considerable portion of it, he will be in favor of these mongrels settling the question, which would bring him- somewhat into collision with his horror of an inferior race. It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring additional territory is a power confided to the President and Senate of the United States. It is a power not under the control of the representatives of the people any further than they, the President and the Senate, can be considered the representatives of the peo- 1858] Reply at Galesburg 293 pie. Let me illustrate that by a case we have in our history. When we acquired the territory from Mexico in the Mexican war, the House of Representatives, composed of the immediate representatives of the people, all the time in sisted that the territory thus to be acquired should be brought in upon condition that slav ery should be forever prohibited therein, upon the terms and in the language that slavery had been prohibited from coming into this country. That was insisted upon constantly, and never failed to call forth an assurance that any terri tory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it, so far as the House of Representatives was concerned. But at last the President and Sen ate acquired the territory without asking the House of Representatives anything about it, and took it without that prohibition. They have the power of acquiring territory without the imme diate representatives of the people being called upon to say anything about it, thus furnishing a very apt and powerful means of bringing new territory into the Union, and, when it is once brought into the country, involving us anew in this slavery agitation. It is therefore, as I think, a very important question for the consid eration of the American people, whether the policy of bringing in additional territory, with out considering at all how it will operate upon 294 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 the safety of the Union in reference to this one great disturbing element in our national poli tics, shall be adopted as the policy of the coun try. You will bear in mind that it is to be ac quired, according to the judge s view, as fast as it is needed, and the indefinite part of this proposition is that we have only Judge Doug las and his class of men to decide how fast it is needed. We have no clear and certain way of determining or demonstrating how fast ter ritory is needed by the necessities of the coun try. Whoever wants to go out filibustering, then, thinks that more territory is needed. Whoever wants wider slave-fields feels sure that some additional territory is needed as slave ter ritory. Then it is as easy to show the necessity of additional slave territory as it is to assert any thing that is incapable of absolute demonstra tion. Whatever motive a man or a set of men may have for making annexation of property or territory, it is very easy to assert, but much less easy to disprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country. And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very grave question for the people of this Union to consider whether, in view of the fact that this slavery question has been the only one that has ever endangered our republi can institutions the only one that has ever 1858] Reply at Galesburg 295 threatened or menaced a dissolution of the Union that has ever disturbed us in such a way as to make us fear for the perpetuity of our lib erty in view of these facts, I think it is an ex ceedingly interesting and important question for this people to consider whether we shall engage in the policy of acquiring additional territory, discarding altogether from our consideration, while obtaining new territory, the question how it may affect us in regard to this the only en dangering element to our liberties and national greatness. The judge s view has been ex pressed. I, in my answer to his question, have expressed mine. I think it will become an im portant and practical question. Our views are before the public. I am willing and anxious that they should consider them fully that they should turn it about and consider the importance of the question, and arrive at a just conclusion as to whether it is or is not wise in the people of this Union, in the acquisition of new territory, to consider whether it will add to the dis turbance that is existing among us whether it will add to the one only danger that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union or our own liberties. I think it is extremely impor tant that they shall decide, and rightly decide, that question before entering upon that policy. And now, my friends, having said the little 296 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 7 I wish to say upon this head, whether I have occupied the whole of the remnant of my time or not, I believe I could not enter upon any new topic so as to treat it fully without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment think of doing. I give way to Judge Douglas. 1858] Rejoinder at Galesburg 297 Mr. Douglas s Rejoinder in the Galesburg Joint Debate. GENTLEMEN: The highest compli ment you can pay me during the brief half-hour I have to conclude is by ob serving a strict silence. I desire to be heard rather than to be applauded. The first criticism that Mr. Lincoln makes on my speech was that it was in substance what I have said everywhere else in the State where I have addressed the people. I wish I could say the same of his speech. Why, the reason I complain of him is because he makes one speech north and another south. Because he has one set of sentiments for the Abolition coun ties, and another set for the counties opposed to Abolitionism. My point of complaint against him is that I cannot induce him to hold up the same standard, to carry the same flag in all parts of the State. He does not pretend, and no other man will, that I have one set of principles for Galesburg and another for Charleston. He does not pretend that I hold to one doctrine in Chicago and an opposite one in Jonesboro. I have proved that he has a different set of prin- 298 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 ciples for each of these localities. All I asked of him was that he should deliver the speech that he has made here to-day in Coles County instead of in old Knox. It would have settled the question between us in that doubtful county. Here I understand him to reaffirm the doctrine of negro equality, and to assert that by the Declaration of Independence the negro is de clared equal to the white man. He tells you to-day that the negro was included in the De claration of Independence when it asserted that all men were created equal. ["We believe it."] Very well. Mr. Lincoln asserts to-day, as he did at Chi cago, that the negro was included in that clause of the Declaration of Independence which says that all men were created equal, and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the negro was made his equal and mine, if that equality was established by divine law, and was the negro s inalienable right, how came he to say at Charleston to the Kentuckians residing in that section of our State, that the negro was physically inferior to the white man, belonging to an inferior race, and he was for keeping him always in that in ferior condition. I wish you to bear these things in mind. At Charleston he said that the 1858] Rejoinder at Galesburg 299 negro belonged to an inferior race, and that he was for keeping him in that inferior condition. There he gave the people to understand that there was no moral question involved, because the inferiority being established, it was only a question of degree and not a question of right; here, to-day, instead of making it a question of degree, he makes it a moral question, says that it is a great crime to hold the negro in that in ferior condition. ["He s right."] Is he right now, or was he right in Charleston? ["Both."] He is right then, sir, in your estimation, not be cause he is consistent, but because he can trim his principles any way in any section, so as to secure votes. All I desire of him is that he will declare the same principles in the south that he does in the north But did you notice how he answered my posi tion that a man should hold the same doctrines throughout the length and breadth of this re public? He said, "Would Judge Douglas go to Russia and proclaim the same principles he does here?" I would remind him that Russia is not under the American Constitution. If Russia was a part of the American republic, under our Federal Constitution, and I was sworn to support the Constitution, I would maintain the same doctrine in Russia that I do in Illinois. The slaveholding States are governed by the 300 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 same Federal Constitution as ourselves, and hence a man s principles, in order to be in har mony with the Constitution, must be the same in the South as they are in the North, the same in the free States as they are in the slave States. Whenever a man advocates one set of principles in one section, and another set in another section, his opinions are in violation of the spirit of the Constitution which he has sworn to support. When Mr. Lincoln went to Congress in 1847, and, laying his hand upon the Holy Evangel ists, made a solemn vow in the presence of high Heaven that he would be faithful to the Consti tution what did he mean? the Constitution as he expounds it in Galesburg, or the Constitu tion as he expounds it in Charleston? Mr. Lincoln has devoted considerable time to the circumstance that at Ottawa I read a series of resolutions as having been adopted at Springfield, in this State, on the 4th or ^th of October, 1854, which happened not to have been adopted there. He has used hard names; has dared to talk about fraud, about forgery, and has insinuated that there was a conspiracy be tween Mr. Lanphier, Mr. Harris, and myself to perpetrate a forgery. Now, bear in mind that he does not deny that these resolutions were adopted in a majority of all the Republican counties of this State in that year; he does not 1858] Rejoinder at Galesburg 301 deny that they were declared to be the platform of this Republican party in the first congres sional district, in the second, in the third, and in many counties of the fourth, and that they thus became the platform of his party in a ma jority of the counties upon which he now relies for support; he does not deny the truthfulness of the resolutions, but takes exception to the spot on which they were adopted. He takes to him self great merit because he thinks they were not adopted on the right spot for me to use them against him, just as he was very severe in Con gress upon the government of his country, when he thought that he had discovered that the Mex ican war was not begun in the right spot, and was therefore unjust. He tries very hard to make out that there is something very extra ordinary in the place where the thing was done, and not in the thing itself. I never believed before that Abraham Lincoln would be guilty of what he has done this day in regard to those resolutions. In the first place, the moment it was intimated to me that they had been adopted at Aurora and Rockford instead of Springfield, I did not wait for him to call my attention to the fact, but led off and explained in my first meeting after the Ottawa debate, what the mis take was and how it has been made. I sup posed that for an honest man, conscious of his 302 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 own rectitude, that explanation would be suf ficient. I did not wait for him, after the mis take was made, to call my attention to it, but frankly explained it at once as an honest man would. I also gave the authority on which I had stated that these resolutions were adopted by the Springfield Republican convention; that I had seen them quoted by Major Harris in a debate in Congress, as having been adopted by the first Republican State convention in Illi nois, and that I had written to him and asked him for the authority as to the time and place of their adoption; that Major Harris being ex tremely ill, Charles H. Lanphier had written to me for him that they were adopted at Spring field, on the ^th of October, 1854, an d had sent me a copy of the Springfield paper containing them. I read them from the newspaper just as Mr. Lincoln reads the proceedings of meet ings held years ago from the newspapers. After giving that explanation, I did not think there was an honest man in the State of Illinois who doubted that I had been led into the error, if it was such, innocently, in the way I detailed ; and I will now say that I do not now believe that there is an honest man on the face of the globe who will not regard with abhorrence and dis gust Mr. Lincoln s insinuations of my com plicity in that forgery, if it was a forgery. Does 1858] Rejoinder at Galesburg 303 Mr. Lincoln wish to push these things to the point of personal difficulties here? I com menced this contest by treating him courteously and kindly; I always spoke of him in words of respect, and in return he has sought, and is now seeking, to divert public attention from the enor mity of his revolutionary principles by impeach ing men s sincerity and integrity, and inviting personal quarrels. I desire to conduct this contest with him like a gentleman, but I spurn the insinuation of com plicity and fraud made upon the simple circum stance of an editor of a newspaper having made a mistake as to the place where a thing was done, but not as to the thing itself. These resolutions were the platform of this Republican party of Mr. Lincoln s of that year. They were adopted in a majority of the Republican counties in the State ; and when I asked him at Ottawa whether they formed the platform upon which he stood, he did not answer, and I could not get an answer out of him. He then thought, as I thought, that those resolutions were adopted at the Springfield convention, but excused himself by saying that he was not there when they were adopted, but had gone to Tazewell court in order to avoid being present at the convention. He saw them published as having been adopted at Springfield, and so did I, and he knew that if there was a 304 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 mistake in regard to them, that I had nothing under heaven to do with it. Besides, you find that in all these northern counties where the Re publican candidates are running pledged to him, that the conventions which nominated them adopted that identical platform. One cardinal point in that platform which he shrinks from is this that there shall be no more slave States admitted into the Union, even if the people want them. Lovejoy stands pledged against the admission of any more slave States. ["Right; so do we."] So do you, you say. Farnsworth stands pledged against the admission of any more slave States. Washburne stands pledged the same way. The candidate for the legislature who is running on Lincoln s ticket in Henderson and Warren stands com mitted by his vote in the legislature to the same thing, and I am informed, but do not know of the fact, that your candidate here is also so pledged. ["Hurrah for him! Good!"] Now, you Republicans all hurrah for him, and for the doctrine of "no more slave States," and yet Lin coln tells you that his conscience will not per mit him to sanction that doctrine, and complains because the resolutions I read at Ottawa made him, as a member of the party, responsible for sanctioning the doctrine of no more slave States. You are one way, you confess, and he is or pre- 1858] Rejoinder at Galesburg 305 tends to be the other, and yet you are both gov erned by principle in supporting one another. If it be true, as I have shown it is, that the whole Republican party in the northern part of the State stands committed to the doctrine of no more slave States, and that this same doctrine is repudiated by the Republicans in the other part of the State, I wonder whether Mr. Lin coln and his party do not present the case which he cited from the Scriptures, of a house divided against itself which cannot stand! I desire to know what are Mr. Lincoln s prin ciples and the principles of his party. I hold, and the party with which I am identified holds, that the people of each State, old and new, have the right to decide the slavery question for them selves, and when I used the remark that I did not care whether slavery was voted up or down, I used it in the connection that I was for allowing Kansas to do just as she pleased on the slavery question. I said that I did not care whether they vote slavery up or down, because they had the right to do as they pleased on the question, and therefore my action would not be controlled by any such consideration. Why cannot Abraham Lincoln, and the party with which he acts, speak out their principles so that they may be under stood? Why do they claim to be one thing in one part of the State and another in the other 306 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 part? Whenever I allude to the Abolition doc trines, which he considers a slander to be charged with being in favor of, you all indorse them, and hurrah for them, not knowing that your candidate is ashamed to acknowledge them. I have a few words to say upon the Dred Scott decision, which has troubled the brain of Mr. Lincoln so much. He insists that that de cision would carry slavery into the free States, notwithstanding that the decision says directly the opposite; and goes into a long argument to make you believe that I am in favor of, and would sanction, the doctrine that would allow slaves to be brought here and held as slaves con trary to our constitution and laws. Mr. Lin coln knew better when he asserted this ; he knew that one newspaper, and so far as is within my knowledge but one, ever asserted that doctrine, and that I was the first man in either House of Congress that read that article in debate, and denounced it on the floor of the Senate as revo lutionary. When the Washington "Union" on the i jth of last November, published an arti cle to that effect, I branded it at once, and de nounced it, and hence the "Union" has been pur suing 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. Lin- 1858] Rejoinder at Galesburg 307 coin 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 their opinions, holds the reverse. Why this attempt, then, to bring the Supreme Court into disrepute among the people? It looks as if there was an effort being made to destroy public confidence in the highest judicial tribunal on earth. Suppose he succeeds in destroying public confidence in the court, so that the people will not respect its decisions, but will feel at liberty to disregard them, and resist the laws of the land, what will ,he have gained? He will have changed the govern ment from one of laws into that of a mob, in which the strong arm of violence will be sub stituted for the decisions of the courts of justice. He complains because I did not go into an ar gument reviewing Chief Justice Taney s opin ion, 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 de termine whether the questions of law were de cided properly. He is going to appeal from the Supreme Court of the United States to every town meeting, in the hope that he can excite a prejudice against that court, and on the wave 308 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 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 divert 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 par allel in the two cases. It is true that the Su preme 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 judi cial one for the courts to determine. Hence the court would not determine the bank unconsti tutional. Jackson respected the decision, obeyed the law, executed it, and carried it into effect during its existence; but after the charter of the 1858] Rejoinder at Galesburg 309 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 constitutional grounds as well as those of expediency." Is Congress bound to pass every act that is constitutional? Why, there are a thousand things that are constitu tional, 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 him self 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 I ? The Constitution has created that court to decide all constitutional questions in the last resort, and when such decisions have been made they become the law of the land, and you, and he, and myself, and every other good citizen are bound by them. Yet he argues that I am bound by their decisions, and he is not. He says that their decisions are binding on Demo crats, but not on Republicans. Are not Re publicans bound by the laws of the land as well as Democrats? And when the court has fixed the construction of the Constitution on 310 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 7 the validity of a given law, is not their de cision binding upon Republicans as well as upon Democrats? Is it possible that you Republi cans have the right to raise your mobs and op pose the laws of the land and the constituted authorities, and yet hold us Democrats bound to obey them? My time is within half a minute of expiring, and all I have to say is that I stand by the laws of the land. I stand by the Con stitution as 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 violence to overturn the government of laws. 1858] Speech at Quincy 311 SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY, ILLINOIS, October 13, 1858. Mr. Lincoln s Opening 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 Illinois which have since consoli dated into the Republican party assembled to gether in a State convention at Bloomington. They adopted that that time what, in political 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 adopted what is called the national platform. In June, 1858, the present year, the Republicans of Illinois reassembled at Springfield in State con vention, and adopted again their platform, as I suppose, not differing in any essential particu lar from either of the former ones, but perhaps 312 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 adding something in relation to the new devel opments 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 platforms. We are now met together on the 1 3th of October of the same year, only four months from the adoption of the last plat form, 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 anything he calls wrong in them. In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator Douglas and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these plat forms, or to any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to hold me responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the meet ing of either one of these conventions of which I have spoken. And as a ground for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he assumed that they had been passed at a State 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 1858] Speech at Quincy 313 had not been passed by any State convention anywhere, 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 taken part. The judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the point that he was endeavoring to make upon me, and he there fore 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 convention in the northern part of the State, although it was not a local convention that embraced my residence at all, nor one that reached, as I suppose, nearer than one hundred 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 meetings, and by combining the whole, although they were all antecedent to the two State conventions, and the one national con vention I have mentioned, still he insisted and now insists, as I understand, that I am in some way responsible for them. At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the judge that I was in no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this local meeting or convention in which I had taken no part, and in which I was in no way embraced; Abraham Lincoln. [Oct. 13 but I insisted to him that if he thought I was responsible for every man or every set of men everywhere, who happen to be my friends, the rule ought to work both ways, and he ought to be responsible for the acts and resolutions of all men or sets of men who were or are now his sup porters 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 desire 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 dif ferent parts of the State have done; but that he is not responsible for what his have done. At least, so I understand him. But, in addition to that, the judge, at our meeting in Galesburg 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 sub ject. As this was done in the judge s opening speech at Galesburg, I had an opportunity, as I had the 1858] Speech at Quincy 315 middle speech then, of saying something in an swer to it. He brought .forward a quotation or two from a speech of mine, delivered at Chicago, and then, to contras" with it, he brought forward an extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted that I was greatly incon sistent, and insisted that his conclusion followed that I was playing a double part, and speaking in one region one way, and in another region another way. I have not time now to dwell on this as long as I wo ild like, and wish only now to requote that portion of my speech at Charles ton, which the jud^e quoted, and then make some comments upon ! t. This he quotes from .ne 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 qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical differ ence 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, and I, as much 316 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 as any other man, am In favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. This, I believe, is the entire quotation from the Charleston speech, as Judge Douglas made it. His comments are as follows: Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white mm and negro were de clared equal, and endowed b / divine law with equal ity. And down South with the old-line Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians, and the Tennessee- ans, he tells you that there is a physical difference be tween the races, making the one superior, the other inferior, and he is in favor of maintaining the supe riority of the white race over the negro. Those are 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 the 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 a while but at 1858] Speech at Quincy 317 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 en tertained and openly expressed; in which extract I expressly declared that my own feelings would not admit of a social and political equality be tween 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 utter impossibility, or substantially that. That extract from my old speech, the reporters, by some sort of accident, passed over, and it was not reported. I lay no blame upon anybody. I suppose they thought that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while 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 nearly 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 er length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery, or the black race, and this is the whole of it; and any- 318 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 thing 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 horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to intro duce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference be tween 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 neces sity 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 is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color perhaps not in intel lectual and moral endowments ; but in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. I have chiefly introduced this for the pur pose of meeting the judge s charge that the quo- 1858] Speech at Quincy 319 tation he took from my Charleston speech was what I would say down south among the Ken- tuckians, 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 speech from which I have now read the quotation, and which is there given cor rectly, perhaps too much so for good taste, was made away up north in the Abolition district of this State par excellence in the Lovejoy dis trict in the personal 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 re gion only three days less than a month before the speech made at Charleston, the like of which Judge Douglas thinks I would not make where there was any Abolition element. I only refer to this matter to say that I am altogether uncon scious of having attempted any double-dealing anywhere; that upon one occasion I may say one thing and leave other things unsaid, and vice versa; but that I have said anything on one oc casion that is inconsistent with what 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 my time than I had intended. I wished to show but I will pass it upon this occasion that in the senti ment I have occasionally advanced upon the 320 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 Declaration of Independence, I am entirely 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 already occupied more time than I intended to do on that topic, I pass over it. At Galesburg I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, pushed to its legitimate conse quences, slavery would be established in all the States as well as in the 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 decision as a rule of political action ; and because he had not directly answered that question, but had merely contented himself with sneering as 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 Galesburg, and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether he would or would not sustain such decision if made. I give him this third chance to say yes or no. He is not obliged to do either, prob ably he will not do either, but I give him the third chance. I tried to show then that 1858] Speech at Quincy 321 this result, this conclusion, 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 sub ject, 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, notwithstand ing the decision itself says the contrary." And he adds: "Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that holds that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their opinions held the reverse." I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying that I have the Dred Scott decision here, and 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, how ever, that I have examined that decision with a good deal of care, as a lawyer examines a de cision, and so far as I have been able to do so, the court has nowhere in its opinions said that 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 322 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 can exclude slavery, nor said anything that was substantially that. The nearest approach that any one of them has made to it, so far as I can find, was by Judge Nelson, and the ap proach he made to it was exactly, in sub stance, the Nebraska bill that the States had the exclusive power over the question of slavery, so far a s they are not limited by the Con stitution of the United States. I ask the ques tion, therefore, if the non-concurring judges, McLean or Curtis, had asked to get an express declaration that the States could absolutely ex clude slavery from their limits, what reason have we to believe that it would not have been voted 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 Galesburg I said something in regard to those Springfield resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at Otta wa, 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 never would have believed that Abraham Lincoln, as he kindly called me, would have attempted such a thing as I had attempted upon that occa sion; and among other expressions which he 1858] Speech at Quincy 323 used toward me, was that I dared to say for gery 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 forgery. At Jacksonville Judge Douglas made a speech in answer to something said by Judge Trumbull, 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 concern him self with Trumbull any more, but thereafter he should hold Lincoln responsible for the slan ders 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 Judge Trumbull had used, and I asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger upon 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 for gery. So it seems that there are some things that Judge Douglas dares to do, and some that he dares not to do. [A voice: "It s the same thing with you."] Yes, sir, it s the same thing with me. 3 2 4 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 I do dare to say forgery when it s 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 forgery, 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 promised 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 investigation 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 wouldn t 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 set me to thinking. I was aware, when it was first agreed that Judge Douglas and I were to have 1858] Speech at Quincy 325 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 au diences like this, but in the face of the nation, and to some extent, by my relation to him, and not from anything in myself, in the face of the world; and I am anxious that they should be conducted with dignity and in the good temper which would be befitting the vast audience be fore which it was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and made his first speech in Chicago, the evening after ward I made some sort of a reply to it. His second speech was made at Bloomington, in which he commented upon my speech at Chica go, and said that I had used language ingenious ly contrived to conceal my intentions, or words to that effect. Now I understand that this is an imputation upon 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 corrupt in its character, upon Trumbull and myself that we had entered into a bargain, one of the terms of which was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize the old Democratic party, and I, Lincoln, was to Abolitionize the Old Whig party I pretend ing to be as good an old-line Whig as ever. Judge Douglas may not understand that he im- 326 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 plicated my truthfulness and my honor when he said I was doing one thing and pretending another; and I misunderstood him if he thought he was treating me in a dignified way, as a man of honor and truth, as he now claims he was disposed to treat me. Even after that time, at Galesburg, 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 an other set of principles at another place, I do not understand but what he impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does this, I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground for it, to keep my hands off of him. As soon as I learned that Judge Douglas was disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of my speeches that 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 ori ginated with the judge, and when he quits, I probably will. But I shall not ask any favors 1858] Speech at Quincy 327 at all. He asks me, or he asks the audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of per sonal difficulty. I tell him, No. He did not make a mistake, in one of his early speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though perhaps he did when he called me an "intelli gent" man. It really hurts me very much to suppose that I have wronged anybody 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 Gales- burg, 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 hereafter chooses to confine himself to a war upon these principles, he will probably not find me depart ing from the same course. We have in this nation the element of domes tic 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 opin ion upon it, that it is a dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in regard to it. That controversy necessarily springs from difference 328 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 of opinion, and if we can learn exactly can re duce to the lowest elements what that differ ence of opinion 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 that the differ ence of opinion, reduced to its lowest terms, is no other than the difference 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 is a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong which in its tendency, to say the least, affects 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 with 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 be some promise of an end to it. We have a due regard 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, 1858] Speech at Quincy 329 and we profess that we have no more inclina tion 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 agree to the terms of making the eman cipation gradual and compensating the unwill ing owners. Where we suppose we have the constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in ref erence 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 re strict it to its present limits. We don t suppose that in doing this we violate anything 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 cer tain way, upon which I ought perhaps to ad dress you a few words. We do not propose that when Dred Scott has been decided 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 330 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule, which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members of Con gress 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 en larging 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 sub ject. I will add this, that if there be any man 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 impa tient over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and is impatient of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, stand ing with us. He will find his place somewhere else ; for we have a due regard, so far as we are 1858] Speech at Quincy 331 capable of understanding them, for all these things. This, gentlemen, as well 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 country contrary to me a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore it goes for the policy that does not propose deal ing with it as a wrong. That policy is the Dem ocratic policy, and that sentiment is the Dem ocratic 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 Democratic party, in relation to this subject, I ask him to bear with me while I state a few things tend ing, as I think, to prove that proposition. In the first place, the leading man I think I may do my friend Judge Douglas the honor of call ing him such advocating the present Demo cratic 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 everybody 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 wrong. In the second place, I suggest to him 33 2 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 that if he will examine the policy proposed to be carried forward, he will find that he care fully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. If you will examine the argu ments that are made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in slavery. Perhaps that Democrat who says he is as much opposed to slavery as I am, will tell me that I am wrong about this. I wish him to examine his own course in regard to this matter a moment, and then see if his opinion will not be changed a little. You say it is wrong; but don t you con stantly object to anybody else saying so? Do you not constantly argue that this is not the right place to oppose it? You say it must not be op posed in the free States, because slavery is not there; it must not be opposed in the slave States, because it is there; it must not be opposed in politics, because 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 oppose it. There is no plan in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent, which you say yourself is coming. Frank Blair and Gratz Brown tried to get up a system of gradual eman cipation in Missouri, had an election in August, and got beat; and you, Mr. Democrat, threw 1858] Speech at Quincy 333 up your hat and hallooed, " Hurrah for Demo cracy!" So I say again, that in regard to the argu ments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he "don t care whether slavery is voted up or 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 anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When 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 ad mit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. When he says that slave property and horse and hog prop erty are alike to be allowed to go into the Ter ritories, 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 rightfully, 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 care- 334 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 ful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is anything wrong 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 ; and I now can say that whenever we can get the question distinctly stated, can get all these men who believe that slavery is in some of these respects wrong to stand and act with us in treating it as a wrong, then, and not till then, I think, will we in some way come to an end of this slavery agitation. 1858] Reply at Quincy 335 Mr. Douglas s Reply in the Quincy Joint De bate. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Per mit me to say that unless silence is ob served 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 applause or approba tion. I desire to be heard rather than to be ap plauded. I wish to address myself to your rea son, your judgment, your sense of justice, and not to your passions. I regret that Mr. Lincoln should have deem ed it proper for him to again indulge in gross personalities and base insinuations in regard to the Springfield resolutions. It has imposed up on 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 he has in this. I had seen the platform adopted by a Republican congressional convention held in Aurora, the second congressional district, in September, 1854, published as purporting to be 33 6 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 the platform of the Republican party. That platform declared that the Republican party was pledged never to admit another slave State into the Union, and also that it was pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, not only all that we then had, but all that we should thereafter acquire, and to repeal unconditionally the fugitive-slave law, abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and prohibit the slave-trade between the different States. These and other articles against slavery were contained in this platform, and unani mously adopted by the Republican congression al convention in that district. I had also seen that the Republican congressional conventions at Rockford, in the first district, and at Bloom- ington, in the third, had adopted the same plat form that year, nearly word for word, and had declared it to be the platform of the Republican party. I had noticed that Major Thomas L, Harris, a member of Congress from the Spring field 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 proceed ings. He being sick, Charles H. Lanphier an- 1858] Reply at Quincy 337 swered my letter by sending me the published proceedings of the convention held at Spring field 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, at Bloom- ington, and at Rockford, and by nearly all the Republican county conventions in northern Il linois where his party is in a majority; but mere ly because they were not adopted on the "spot" on which I said they were, he chooses to quib ble 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 authority. Lincoln believed at the time, as he has since admitted, that they had been adopted at Spring field, as published. Does he believe now that I did not tell the truth when I quoted those res olutions? He knows in his heart 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 338 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 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 characters for truth, for integrity, for moral character, and for ele vation of tone, as gentlemen, than Mr. Lan phier and Mr. Harris. Any man who attempts to make such charges as Mr. Lincoln has indulg ed in against them, only proclaims himself a slanderer. I will now show you that I stated with entire fairness, as soon as it was made known to me, that there was a mistake about the spot where the resolutions had been adopted, although their truthfulness, as a declaration of the principles of the Republican party, had not and could not be questioned. I did not wait for Lincoln to point out the mistake; but the moment I dis covered it, I made a speech, and published 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 1858] Reply at Quincy 339 has been mistaken. I will give you an illustra tion to show you how he acts in a similar case: In a speech at Springfield 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 introduced, by which the Dred Scott decision was to be made by the Su preme Court, in order to carry slavery every where under the Constitution. I called his at tention 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 reason 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 call ed 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 Mis souri at the time he charged that the judges of the Supreme Court entered into the conspiracy, yet that there was an understanding with the Democratic owners of Dred Scott that they 340 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 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 Lincoln s friends, and not by Democrats at all; his case was conducted in court by Abolition 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 hav ing been a party to the conspiracy. I directed his attention to the fact that th& charge could not possibly be true, for the reason that at the time specified Mr. Buchanan was not in Amer ica, but was three thousand miles off, represent ing the United States at the Court of St. James, and had been there for a year previous, and did not return till three years afterward. Yet I never could get Mr. Lincoln to take back his false charge, although I have called upon him over and over again. He refuses to do it, and 1858] Reply at Quincy 341 either remains silent or resorts to other tricks to try and palm his slander off on the country. Therein you will find the difference between Mr. Lincoln and myself. When I make a mis take, as an honest man I correct it without being asked to do so ; but when he makes a false charge he sticks to it and never corrects it. One word more in regard to these resolutions: I quoted them at Ottawa merely to ask Mr. Lincoln whether he stood on that platform. That was the purpose for which I quoted them. I did not think that I had a right to put idle questions to him, and I 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 refus ed to answer them. Subsequently one week afterward he did answer a part of them, but the others he has not answered up to this day. Now let me call your attention for a moment to the answers which Mr. Lincoln made at Free- port to the questions which I propounded to him at Ottawa, based upon the platform adopt ed by a majority of the Abolition counties of the State, which now, as then, supported him. In answer to my question whether he in dorsed the Black Republican principle of "no 342 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 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 Terri tories during the territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people shall, hav ing a fair chance and a clear field when they come to adopt the constitution, do such an ex traordinary thing as to adopt a slave constitu tion, 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 admis sion with a constitution recognizing slavery, then how would he vote? His answer at Free- port does not apply to any Territory in America. I ask you [turning to Lincoln], will you vote to admit Kansas into the Union, with just such a constitution 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 1 858] Reply at Quincy 343 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 recog nizing 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 refer ence to any Territory now in existence, but says that if Congress should prohibit 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 fer tile genius in devising language to conceal his thoughts. I ask you whether there is an in telligent man in America who does not believe that that answer was made for the purpose of concealing what he intended to do. He wished 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 Aboli- 344 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 tion allies up north explained to the Abolition ists that in taking this ground he preached good Abolition doctrine, because his proviso would not apply to any Territory in America, and therefore there was no chance of his being gov erned by it. It would have been quite easy for him to have said that he would let the people of a State do just as they pleased, if he desired to convey such an idea. Why did he not do it? He would not answer my question directly be cause, up north, the Abolition creed declares 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 ad vance 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 Ter ritory now in existence. Mr. Lincoln complains that, in my speech the other day at Galesburg, I read an extract from a speech delivered by him at Chicago, and then another from his speech at Charleston, and com pared 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 1858] Reply at Quincy 345 then quotes another extract from a speech which he made at another place, which he says is the same as the extract from his speech at Charles ton; but he does not quote the extract from his Chicago speech, upon which I convicted 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 Charles ton 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 equal ity. I had shown that it was a falsification of the Declaration of Independence to pretend that that instrument applied to and included negroes in the clause declaring that all men are 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 : 346- Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 I should like to know if, taking this old Declara tion of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man? If 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 Declaration 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 instru ment and tear out the clause which says that all men are created equal. But let me call your attention to another part of the same speech. You know that in his Charleston speech, an ex tract from which he has read, he declared that the negro belongs to an inferior race, is phys ically inferior to the white man, and should always be kept in an inferior position. I will now read to you what he said at Chicago on that point In concluding 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 1858] Reply at guincy 347 inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an in ferior 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 Chi cago Abolitionists he declared that all distinc tions 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 De claration of Independence 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 difference between the negro race and all other races, and declare them all created equal. Did old Giddings, when he came down among you four years ago, preach more radical Abolition ism than this? Did Lovejoy, or Lloyd Garrison, or Wendell Phillips, or Fred Douglass, ever take higher Abolition grounds than that? Lin coln told you that I had charged him with get ting up these personal attacks to conceal the enormity of his principles, and then com menced talking about something else, omitting 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 348 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 his negro-equality doctrines when I spoke of the enormity of his principles, yet he did not find it convenient to answer on that point. Having shown you what he said in his Chicago speech in reference to negroes being created equal to white men, and about discarding all distinctions between the two races, I will again read to you what he said at Charleston : 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 free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people. I will say, in addition, that there is a physical 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, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of the superior position being as signed to the white man. [A voice : "That s the doctrine."] Mr. Douglas: Yes, sir, that is good doctrine; but Mr. Lincoln is afraid to advocate 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 1858] Reply at Quincy 349 doctrine in the Abolition counties. I assert, on the authority of these two speeches of Mr. Lin coln, that he holds one set of principles in the Abolition counties, and a different and contra dictory set in the other counties. I do not ques tion that he said at Ottawa what he quoted, but that only convicts him further, by proving that he has twice contradicted himself instead of once. Let me ask him why he cannot avow his prin ciples the same in the north as in the south the same in every county, if he has a conviction 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 child hood, the graves of his ancestors, and carry his Abolition principles, 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 am bition, against Southern people, Southern States, and Southern institutions, and its only hope of success is by that appeal. Mr. Lincoln 350 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 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 Fremonter after the people elected him, thus belonging to one party before his election, and another afterward. What right, then, had he to expect, after having thus cheated his con stituency, that they would support him at an other 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 be lieves, and ought to be extinguished, and be cause 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 into a course of ultimate ex tinction? 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 in terfere with it in the States where it exists? In 1858] Reply at Quincy 351 his speech at Springfield before the Abolition or Republican convention, he declared his hos tility to any more slave States in this language: Under the operation of that policy the agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly aug mented. In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. " A house di vided 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 ex pect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advo cates will push it forward till 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 perman ently 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 pro pose 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 mak ing them all free; he will preserve the Union in 352 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 that way; and yet he is not going to interfere with slavery anywhere it now exists. How is he going to bring it about? Why, he will agi tate; he will induce the North to agitate until the South shall be worried 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 everywhere in the Territories. He would thus confine slavery within its present limits. When he thus gets it confined, and surrounded, so that it cannot spread, the natural laws of increase will go on until the negroes will be so plenty that they can not 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 ulti mate extinction. If he is not going to interfere with slavery in the States, but intends to inter fere and prohibit it in the Territories, and thus smother slavery out, it naturally follows that 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 1858] Reply at Quincy 353 this Union has a right to do as it pleases on the subject of slavery. In Illinois we have exer cised that sovereign right by prohibiting slav ery within our own limits. I approve of that line of policy. We have performed our whole 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 Missouri or not. Mis souri 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 al lotted 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 of action. Lincoln will not discuss these. What one ques tion has he discussed that comes within the power or calls for the action or interference of a United States senator? He is going to dis cuss the rightfulness of slavery when Congress cannot act upon it either way. He wishes to discuss the merits of the Dred Scott decision when, under the Constitution, 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 354 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 upon if he was in Congress; to two questions that are not practical, in order to conceal from your attention other questions which he might be required to vote upon should he ever become a member of Congress. He tells you that he does not like 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 re versing judicial decisions, and that is by appeal ing from the inferior to the superior court. But I have never yet learned how or where an appeal could be taken from the Supreme Court of the United States. The Dred Scott decision was pronounced by the highest tribunal on earth. From that de cision there is no appeal this side of heaven. Yet ]VIr. Lincoln says he is going to reverse that decision. By what tribunal will he re verse 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 me to argue with you the merits of each point of that decision before this political 1858] Reply at Quincy 355 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 made, whether I like it in all the points or not. When I used to practise law with Lincoln, I never knew him to be beat in a case that he did not get mad at the judge and talk about ap pealing; and when I got beat I generally thought 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, merely 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, de cided against me, I was satisfied, because it is the duty of every law-abiding man to obey the Constitution, the laws, and the constituted au thorities. He who attempts to stir up odium and re bellion in the country against the constituted authorities, is stimulating the passions of men to resort to violence and to mobs instead of to the law. Hence I tell you that I take the de cisions 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 356 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 his question as to what I would do in the event of the court making so ridiculous a decision as he imagines they would 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 prin ciples set forth in the Dred 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 ad vance 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 de cision before it passed."] Perhaps you think that the court did the same thing in reference to the Dred Scott decision. I have heard a man talk that way before. The principles 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 what every court in the land knew to be the law. 1858] Reply at Quincy 357 But I will not be drawn off into an argument upon the merits of the Dred Scott decision. It is enough for me to know that the Constitution of the United States created the Supreme Court for the purpose of deciding all disputed ques tions touching the true construction of that in strument, and when such decisions are pro nounced, 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 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 law r s 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 doctrine, I think he will find some honest Re publican some law-abiding man in that party who will repudiate such a monstrous doc trine. 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 re sist the constituted authorities of this country; 358 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 a Democrat is a law-abiding man ; a Democrat stands by the Constitution and the laws, and re lies upon liberty as protected by law, and not upon mob or political violence. I have never yet been able to make Mr. Lin coln understand, nor can I make any man who is determined to support him, right or wrong, un derstand, how it is that under the Dred Scott decision the people of a Territory, as well as a State, can have slavery or not, just as they please. I believe that I can explain that pro position to all constitution-loving, law-abiding men in a way that they cannot fail to under stand. Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, said that slaves being prop erty, the owner of them has a right to take them into a Territory the same as he would any other property; in other words, that slave property, so far as the right to enter into a Territory is concerned, stands on the same footing with other property. Suppose we grant that proposition. Then any man has a right to go to Kansas and take his property with him, but when he gets there he must rely upon the local law to pro tect his property, whatever it may be. In order to illustrate this, imagine that three of you con clude 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 1858] Reply at Quincy 359 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 regulations, and the absence of them excludes his slaves from the Territory just as effectually and as positively as a constitutional prohibition could. Such was the understanding when the Kansas and Nebraska bill was pending in Congress. Read the speech of Speaker Orr, of South Caro lina, in the House of Representatives, in 1856, on the Kansas question, and you will find that he takes the ground that while the owner of a slave has a right to go into a Territory and carry his slaves with him, that he cannot hold them one day or hour unless there is a slave code to protect him. He tells you that slavery would not exist a day in South Carolina, or any 360 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 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 Tennessee, 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, however. Down at Jonesboro, he went on to argue that if it be the law that a man has a right to take his slaves into territory of the United States under the Constitution, that then a member of Con gress 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 Con gress, he will so vote? I have a right to his answer, and I will 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 a slave-holding citizen of one of the Territories should need and demand a slave code to protect his slaves, would you vote for it?" I answered him that a fundamental article in the Democratic creed, as put forth in the Nebraska bill and the Cincinnati plat- 1858] Reply at Quincy 361 form, was non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, and hence that I would not vote in Congress for any code of laws either for or against slavery in any Ter ritory. I will leave the people perfectly free to decide that question for themselves. Mr. Lincoln and the Washington "Union" both think this a monstrous bad doctrine. Neither Mr. Lincoln nor the Washington "Union" likes 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 columns 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 lawful means, exclude slavery from a Territory be fore it comes in as a State " ; and he declared that his competitor had " heard him argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over Illinois in 1854, 1855, and 1856, and had no excuse to pretend to have any doubt upon that subject. The Washington "Union" there charges me 362 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 with the monstrous crime of now proclaiming 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 proclaiming the same doctrine that I did in 1854 m support of the Kansas and Nebraska bill. It is shocked that I should now stand where I stood 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 1856, when Mr. Buchanan was elected Presi dent. It goes on to prove, and succeeds in prov ing, from my speeches in Congress on Clay s compromise measures, that I held the same doc trines 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, be yond the possibility of cavil or dispute, that he ex pressly intended 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 words, however, delivered in his speech closing the great debate on that bill on the night of 1858] Reply at Quincy 363 March 3, 1854, to show that he meant to do in 1854 precisely what he had meant to do in 1858. The Kansas-Nebraska bill being upon its passage, he said : It then quotes my remarks upon the passage of the hill as follows: The principle which we propose to carry into ef fect 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 regu late 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 legal 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 in operative and void. Now, let me ask, will those senators who have ar raigned me, or any one of them, have the assurance to rise in his place and declare that this great prin ciple was never thought of or advocated as applicable to territorial bills in 1850; that from that session un til the present, nobody ever thought of incorporating this principle in all 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 find that on the 25th of March of that year I reported from the Committee on Territories two bills, including the following measures: the ad- 364 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 mission 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 Mexi co free to decide the slavery question for themselves, in the precise language of the Nebraska bill now un der discussion. A few weeks afterward the commit tee of thirteen took those bills and put a wafer be tween them and reported them back to the Senate as one bill, with some slight amendments. One of these amendments was that the territorial legislatures should not legislate upon the subject of African slav ery. I objected to this provision, upon the ground that it subverted the great principle of self-govern ment, 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 prin ciple as the rule of action in territorial organizations. The "Union" comments thus on my speech on that occasion : Thus it is seen that, in framing the Nebraska-Kan sas bill, Judge Douglas 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 re vive 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 effect to the Nebraska-Kansas bill on this 1858] Reply at Quincy 365 subject as had been given to those of Utah and New Mexico. The "Union" proves the following proposi tions: First, that I sustained Clay s compro mise measures on the ground that they estab lished the principle of self-government in the Territories. Secondly, that I brought in the Kansas and Nebraska bill, founded upon the same principles as Clay s compromise measures of 1850; and thirdly, that my Freeport speech 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 m ^50! Now, is not that funny? Think that the author of the Kansas and Nebraska bill was not a Dem ocrat when he introduced it! The "Union" says I was not a sound Democrat in 1850, nor in 1854, nor in 1856, nor am I in 1858, because 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 Ter ritory. 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 366 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 class of politicians. I will read from Mr. Bu chanan 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 Bu chanan, 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 Ne braska bill and the Cincinnati platform in these words : The recent legislation of Congress respecting do mestic slavery, derived as it has been from the origi nal and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free govern ment 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 slav ery shall or shall not exist within their limits. Thus you see that James Buchanan accepted the nomination at Cincinnati on the condition that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, should be left to decide for themselves whether slavery should or should not exist within their limits. I sustained James Bu chanan for the presidency on that platform as 1858] Reply at guincy 367 adopted at Cincinnati and expounded by him self. He was elected president on that plat form, and now we are told by the Washington "Union" that no man is a true Democrat who stands on the platform on which Mr. Buchanan was nominated, and which he has explained and expounded himself. We are told that a man is not a Democrat who stands by Clay, Web ster, and Cass, and the compromise measures of 1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854. Whether a man be a Democrat or not on that platform, I intend to stand there as long as I have life. I intend to cling firmly to that great principle which declares the right of each State and each Territory to settle the question of slav ery, and every other domestic question, for themselves. I hold that if they want a slave State, they have a right, under the Constitution of the United States, to make it so, and if they want a free State, it is their right to have it. But the "Union," in advocating the claims of Lincoln over me to the Senate, lays down two unpardonable heresies which it says I advocate. The first is the right of the people of a Terri tory, the same as a State, to decide for them selves the question whether slavery shall exist within their limits, in the language of Mr. Bu chanan; and the second is that a constitution shall be submitted to the people of a Territory 368 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 for its adoption or rejection before their admis sion as a State under it. It so happens that Mr. Buchanan is pledged to both these heresies, for supporting which the Washington "Union" has read me out of the Democratic church. In his annual message he said he trusted that the ex ample of the Minnesota case would be followed in all future cases requiring a submission of the constitution; and in his letter of acceptance he said that the people of a Territory, the same as a State, had the right to decide for themselves whether slavery should exist within their limits. Thus you find that this little corrupt gang who control the "Union," and wish to elect Lin coln in preference to me, because, as they say, of these two heresies which I support, de nounce President Buchanan when they de nounce me, if he stands now by the principles upon which 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 accept ing his nomination, all of which declare the right of the people of a Territory, the same as a State, to decide the slavery question for them selves? 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 1858] Reply at Quincy 369 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 when 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 Constitu tion, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Mis souri, but let them settle that matter for them selves. I hold that the people of the slave-holding 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 posterity, and not to us. It is for them to de cide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their 370 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 own limits. I assert that they had as much right under the Constitution to adopt the sys tem of policy which they have as we had to adopt ours. So it is with every 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. Lin coln will find that this republic can exist for ever divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it, and the people of each State have decided. Stand by that great principle, and we can go on as we have done, increasing in wealth, in population, in power, and in all the elements of greatness, until we shall be the ad miration and terror of the world. We can go on and enlarge as our population increases and requires more room, until we make this continent one ocean-bound republic. Un der that principle the United States can perform that great mission, that destiny, which Provi dence has marked out for us. Under that princi ple 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 im provements, and thus make this the asylum of 1858] Reply at Quincy 371 the oppressed of the whole earth. We have this great mission to perform, and it can only be per formed by adhering faithfully to that principle of self-government on which our institutions were all established. I repeat that the prin ciple 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 be come Mr. Lincoln, or anybody else, to tell the people of Kentucky that they have no con sciences, that they are living in a state of ini quity, and that they are cherishing an institu tion 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 benevolence we have amongst us, without going abroad in search of negroes, of whose con dition we know nothing. We have enough ob jects of charity at home, and it is our duty to take care of our own poor, and our own suffer ing, before we go abroad to intermeddle with 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 like to have discussed be- 372 Stephen A. Douglas [Oct. 13 fore 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 sufficient 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 kindness and the courtesy with which you have listened to me. It is something remarkable that in an au dience as vast as this, composed of men of op posite politics and views, with their passions highly excited, there should be so much cour tesy, kindness, 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 kindness with which you have treated me. 1858] Rejoinder at Quincy 373 Mr. Lincoln s Rejoinder in the Quincy Joint Debate. 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 hour and a half. I wish to return to Judge Douglas my pro found 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 contemplates that it shall last forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of this con troversy, 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, con tinue as our fathers made it forever?" 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 in stitution 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 374 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a mat ter 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 of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of re stricting 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 be placed upon the basis that our fathers placed it upon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly said, that when this government was es tablished, 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 experience 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 Douglas could 1858] Rejoinder at Quincy 375 not let it stand upon the basis where 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 eloquent and valiant against us in fight ing for their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech that I had neither the inclina tion to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of, the right to interfere with the States of Ken tucky or Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery or any other existing institution. Then what becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the rights of States, which are assailed by no living man? But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half- hour. The judge has informed me, or in formed 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. Carlin, who was on the stand:] I hope that Carlin will be elected to the State 376 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 Senate and will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] Carlin don t fall in, I per ceive, and I suppose he will not do much for me; but I am glad of all the support I can get anywhere, if I can get it without practising 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 administration 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 Wagley up here in Han cock, 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 obstinately refuses to say what he will do in that case. The judges of the Su preme Court as obstinately refused to say what they would do on this subject. Before this I reminded him that at Galesburg 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 1858] Rejoinder at Quincy 377 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 de cision. Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his political friends find a way to reverse the decision of that same court in favor of the constitutionality of the national bank? Did n t they find a way to do it so effectually that they have reversed it as com pletely as any decision ever was reversed, so far as its practical operation is concerned? And, let me ask you, did n t Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the decision of our Supreme Court, when it decided that Carlin s father old Governor Carlin had not the constitu tional power to remove a secretary of state? Did he not appeal to the "mobs," as he calls them? Did he not make speeches in the lobby to show how villainous that decision was, and how it ought to be overthrown? Did he not succeed, too, in getting an act passed by the leg islature to have it overthrown? And did n t he himself sit down on that bench as one of the five added judges who were to overslaugh the four old ones getting his name of "judge" in that way and in no other? If there is a villainy in using disrespect or making opposition to Su- 378 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 preme Court decisions, 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 how much villainy it takes to oppose 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, while 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 hesitate to repeat to-day. I have said that, as the Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and that the extension of slavery is affirmed in the National Constitution, they 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 under stands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, 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 argument 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 legisb- 1858] Rejoinder at Quincy 379 ture, and, like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to take and hold slaves there is a con stitutional right. The first thing you do is to swear you will support the Constitution and all rights guaranteed therein ; that you will, when ever your neighbor needs your legislation to support his constitutional rights, not withhold that legislation. If you withhold that necessary legislation for the support of the Constitution and constitutional rights, do you not commit perjury? 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? The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas has sung paeans to his "popular sovereignty" doc trine until his Supreme Court, cooperating with him, has squatted his squatter sovereignty out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery about squatter sovereignty. He has at last in vented this sort of do-nothing sovereignty 380 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 that the people may exclude slavery by a sort of "sovereignty" that is exercised by doing noth ing at all. Is not that running his popular sov ereignty down awfully? Has it not got down as thin as the homeopathic 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 presumption impossible in the domain of thought. It is precisely no other than the put ting 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 occasion made the same speech at Ottawa as the one he took an extract from at Charleston, says it only shows that I practised the deception twice. Now, my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to swal low that? Judge Douglas had said I had made a speech at Charleston that I would not make up north, and I turned around and answered him by showing I had made that same speech up north had made it Ottawa made it in his 1858] Rejoinder at Quincy 381 hearing made it in the Abolition district in Love joy s district in the personal presence of Lovejoy himself in the same atmosphere ex actly 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 Chicago speech. He thinks that is a terrible subject for me to handle. Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the Chicago speech I delivered two years 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 for the lack of time. I have not now the time to read it. ["Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I am obliged to use discre tion in disposing most advantageously of my brief time. The judge has taken great excep tion 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 Henry Clay used to hold. Allow me to occupy your time a moment with what he said. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indi ana, and in a way that I suppose was very insult- 382 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 ing, to liberate 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 Ken tucky? It is a general declaration in the act an nouncing to the world the independence of the thirteen American colonies, that " men are created equal." Now, as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it is desir able in the original construction of society, and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundamental principle. When I sometimes, in relation to the organi zation of new societies in new countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insist that we should keep that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I want a negro wife. He never can be brought to understand 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 mat ter, without having one for either. I maintain that you may take Judge Douglas s quotations from my Chicago speech, and from my Charles ton speech, and the Galesburg speech, in his speech of to-day, and compare them over, and 1858] Rejoinder at Quincy 383 I am willing to trust them with you upon his proposition that they show rascality or double- dealing. I deny that they do. The judge does not seem disposed to have peace, but I find he is disposed to have a per sonal warfare with me. He says that my oath would not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It is certainly not for me to vaunt my word against the 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 Galesburg that the publication of these resolutions in the Illinois "State Regis ter" could not have been the result of accident, as the proceedings of that meeting bore unmis takable evidence of being 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 r and, taking one part of the resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also that his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the "Register" at that time and now is, must have known how it was done. 384 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 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 Judge Douglas that in his Freeport speech he had promised to investigate that matter. 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 lies between him, Harris, and Lan- phier. There is little room for escape for Lan- phier. 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 investi gate it, if he did not; and if he did, why he won t tell the result. I call upon him for that. This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned about these resolutions by Harris s attempting to use them against Nor ton on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public records of the country show 1858] Rejoinder at guincy 385 that he himself attempted it upon Trumbull a month before Harris tried them on Norton that Harris 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 disposed to de tain 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 magnani mously, without my calling his attention to it, and explained it. I will tell you how he be came 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 ac knowledging 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 difference 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 386 Abraham Lincoln [Oct. 13 in the "spots." And he has taken credit for great magnanimity in coming forward and ac knowledging 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 with draw the charge in regard to a conspiracy to make slavery national, as he had 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 reasonable man shall be brought to believe that the charge is not true. I have asked Judge Douglas s attention to certain mat ters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue, because Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say that. I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never uttered it. [One of Mr. Douglas s re porters gesticulated affirmatively at Mr. Lin coln.] I don t care if your hireling does say I did. I tell you myself that I never said the 1858] Rejoinder at guincy 387 "Democratic" owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott s owners were Democrats or Aboli tionists, Free-soilers or Border Ruffians. I have said that there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a made-up case for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that that evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be a slave, the owner of him made him free, show ing that he had had the case tried, and the ques tion settled, for such use as could be made of that decision; he cared nothing about the prop erty thus declared to be his by that decision. But my time is out, and I can say no more. RETURN TO the circulation desk of any University of California Library or to the NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station University of California Richmond, CA 94804-4698 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 2-month loans may be renewed by calling (415)642-6753 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books to NRLF Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date DUE AS STAMPED BELOW IK 61991