A^WMWUIU^ 
 
 f 
 
 ui i \}f\f/s /"tvii w*u 
 
 1 
 
 JBRARY^ 
 
 isa 
 
 ANCE1& 
 

 

 
 ^AUTHORIX.ED EDITION.] 
 
 THE 
 
 LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES 
 
 HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 
 
 iifr a |0rtrait m JSM 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF 
 
 HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 
 
 BY D. W. BARTLETT, 
 
 WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT OF THE NEW-YORK INDEPENDENT AND EVENING POST, 
 AND AUTHOR OF " LIVES OF MODERN AGITATORS," LIPB OF " LADY 
 
 lts, ln&. 
 ASHER & GO. 
 
 1860.
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1830, by 
 H. DAYTON, 
 
 In the Clerk's office, of the District Court, for the Southern District of 
 New-York.
 
 CONTENTS, 
 
 PART FIRST. 
 
 EARLY HISTORY. 
 
 PAQE. 
 
 Lincoln's Birtli and Parentage 15 
 
 His Father's Family remove to Indiana 17 
 
 His Limited Opportunities of Education 18 
 
 A Flatboatman on the Mississippi 18 
 
 Removal to Illinois 19 
 
 Employed in splitting Rails 19 
 
 Enlists as a Volunteer in the Black-Hawk War, and serves through the 
 
 Campaign '. 21 
 
 Buys a Stock of Goods on Credit, and opens a Store 21 
 
 Appointed Postmaster 22 
 
 Studies Law 22 
 
 Practises Surveying 23 
 
 Elected to the Legislature 24 
 
 His Position on the Slavery Question in 1837 24 
 
 Removes to Springfield, arid opens a Law Office 24 
 
 His Labors in the Field of Politics 26 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 IN CONGRESS. 
 
 Elected to Congress in 1846 27 
 
 Statesmen in the Thirtieth Congress 27 
 
 His Votes in Favor of Harbor and River Improvements 28, 29 
 
 Slavery in the District of Columbia 28, 32, 42 
 
 His Resolutions on the Mexican War 29 
 
 Vote of Supplies for the War 33 
 
 Putnam's Resolution 34 
 
 The Ten-Regiment Bill 36 
 
 The Tariff : 36, 42 
 
 Slavery in the Territories 36 
 
 Webster's Speech on "37 
 
 Mr. Convin's Remarks on 39 
 
 Mr. Lincoln's Course on 41 
 
 New-Mexico and California 42 
 
 The Gott Resolution 48
 
 VI CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Public Landa 46 
 
 The Slave Case of Antonio Pacheco 47 
 
 Lincoln's Amendment to Gott's Resolution 57 
 
 Favors a Bill to Abolish the Franking Privilege CO 
 
 Ten Years at Home 61 
 
 A Member of the National Whig Convention of 1848 61 
 
 The Illinois Campaign of 1864 62 
 
 Debate with Douglas in 1854 62-69 
 
 Declines Election to the United States Senate, in favor of Trumbull 67 
 
 Declines a Nomination for Governor of Illinois 69 
 
 PART THIRD. 
 
 THE GREAT SENATORIAL CONTEST. 
 
 Rebellion of Douglas 70 
 
 Lincoln Nominated for United States Senator 71 
 
 The Illinois Platform 71 
 
 Lincoln and Douglas Correspondence 74, 77 
 
 * Debates between Lincoln and Douglas 79 
 
 The Philadelphia North American on 82 
 
 Mr. Greeley's Remarks on 83, 'J9 
 
 Senator Benjamin's Opinion of 84 
 
 - Extracts from Speeches of Lincoln and Douglas 85, 99 
 
 Statistics of the Illinois Election of 1858 100, 102 
 
 Lincoln's Visit to Kansas in 1859 102 
 
 Extract from his Speech at Leaven worth 103 
 
 His Personal Appearance 104, 106 
 
 His Personal Habits 105 
 
 Anecdotes of Him 107, 116 
 
 Almost a Duel 108 
 
 The Rail-Splitter 109 
 
 A Thrilling Episode in his History 110 
 
 His Opinion on Naturalization 115 
 
 PART FOURTH. 
 
 THE CONVENTION AND ITS NOMINATIONS. 
 
 Organization at the " Wigwam" 118 
 
 The Platform of the Republican Party 120 
 
 The Ballots 128 
 
 The Nomination 129 
 
 Ratification by the People 132 
 
 Unanimous Commendations of the Press 135-139 
 
 Mr. Lincoln at Home 139 
 
 Visit of the Committee to Notify him of his Nomination 139-146 
 
 Mrs. Lincoln 144 147 
 
 A Campaign Song 148
 
 CONTENTS. Vll 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 PART FIFTH. 
 
 SPEECHES. 
 
 Speech delivered at the Republican State Convention, at Springfield, Juno 
 
 17,1858 .. 153 
 
 in Reply to Mr. Douglas, at Chicago, July 10, 1858 161 
 
 at Springfield, July 17, 1858 180 
 
 at Galesburgh, October 7, 1858 198 
 
 at Quincy, October 13, 1858 217 
 
 in Reply to Mr. Douglas, at Alton, October 15, 1858 230 
 
 at Columbus, Ohio, September, 1859 253 
 
 at Cincinnati, Ohio, September, 1859 281 
 
 at the Cooper Institute, New-York, February 27, 1860 306 
 
 on the War with Mexico, in Congress, January 12, 1848 326 
 
 on Internal Improvements, in Congress, June 20, 18i8 336 
 
 Sketch of the life of Hon. HANNIBAL HAMLIN, Republican Candidate for 
 
 Vice-President 349 
 
 Letters of Acceptance 355
 
 LIFE AND SPEECHES 
 
 ABRAHAILINCOLN. 
 
 PAKT FIKST. 
 
 EARLY HISTORY. 
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN was born February 12, 1809, then 
 in Hardin, now in the recently formed county of La- 
 rue, Kentucky. His father, Thomas, and grandfather, 
 Abraham, were born in Kockingham county, Virginia, 
 whither their ancestors had come from Berks county, 
 Pennsylvania. His lineage has been traced no farther 
 back than this. The family were originally quakers, 
 though in later times they have fallen away from the 
 peculiar habits of that people. The grandfather, 
 Abraham, had four brothers ; Isaac, Jacob, John, and 
 Thomas. So far as known, the descendants of Jacob 
 and John are still in Virginia. Isaac went to a place 
 near where Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, 
 join, and his descendants are in that region. Thomas 
 came to Kentucky, and, after many years, died there, 
 whence his descendants went to Missouri.
 
 16 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Abraham, grandfather of the subject of this sketch, 
 came to Kentucky and was killed by Indians, about 
 the year 1784. He left a widow, three sons, and two 
 daughters. The eldest son, Mordecai, remained in 
 Kentucky till late in life, when he removed to Han- 
 cock county, Illinois, where, soon after, he died, and 
 where several of his descendants still reside. 
 
 The second son, Joseph, removed at an early day 
 to a place on Blue river, now within Harrison county, 
 Indiana, but no recent information of him or -his fam- 
 ily has been obtained. The eldest sister, Mary, mar- 
 ried Ealph Grume, and some of her descendants are 
 now known to be in Breckenridge county, Kentucky. 
 The second sister, Nancy, married Wm. Brumfield, 
 and her family are not known to have left Kentucky, 
 but there is no recent information from them. Thom- 
 as, the youngest son, and father of the present subject, 
 by the early death of his father, and very narrow cir- 
 cumstances of his mother, even in childhood, was a 
 wandering, laboring boy, and grew up literally without 
 education. He never did more in the way of writing, 
 than to bunglingly sign his own name. Before he was 
 grown, he passed one year as a hired hand with his 
 Uncle Isaac, on Wataga, a branch of the Holston 
 river. 
 
 Getting back into Kentucky, and having reached 
 his twenty-eighth year, he married Nancy Hanks, 
 mother of the present subject, in the year 1806. She 
 was also born in Virginia, and relatives of hers, 
 of the name of Hanks, and of other names, now reside 
 in Coles, Macon, and Adams counties, Illinois, and 
 also in Iowa.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 17 
 
 The present subject has no brother or sister of the 
 whole or half blood ; he had a sister, older than him- 
 self, who was grown and married, but died many years 
 ago, leaving no child ; also a brother, younger than 
 himself, who died in infancy. Before leaving Ken- 
 tucky, he and his sister were sent, for short periods, to 
 A-B-C schools ; the first, kept by Zachariah Einey, 
 and the second by Caleb Hazel. At this time his 
 father resided on Knob creek, on the road from Beards- 
 town, Ky., to Nashville, Tenn.,at a point three or three 
 and a half miles south or southwest of Atherton ferry, 
 on the K oiling Fork. From this place he removed to 
 what is now Spencer county, Indiana, in the autumn 
 of 1816, Abraham then being in his eighth year. This 
 removal was partly on account of slavery, but chiefly 
 on account of the difficulty in land- titles in Kentucky, 
 he settled in an unbroken forest, and the clearing 
 away of the surplus wood was the great task ahead. 
 Abraham, though very young, was large of his age, 
 and had an axe put into his hands at once, and from 
 that time till within his twenty-third year, he was almost 
 constantly handling that most useful instrument, less, 
 of course, in ploughing and harvesting seasons. At this 
 place Abraham took an early start as a hunter, which 
 was never much improved afterward. A few days be- 
 fore the completion of his eighth year, in the absence 
 of his father, a flock of wild turkeys approached the 
 log-cabin, and Abraham with a rifle-gun, standing in- 
 side, shot through a crack and killed one of them. He 
 has never since pulled a trigger on any larger game. 
 In the autumn of 1818, his mother died, and a year 
 afterward his father married Mrs. Sally Johnston, at
 
 18 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Elizabethtown, Kentucky, a widow with three children 
 of her first marriage. She proved a good and kind 
 mother to Abraham, and is still living in Coles county, 
 Illinois. There were no children of this second mar- 
 riage. His father's residence continued at the same 
 place, in Indiana, till 1830. 
 
 While here, Abraham went to A-B-0 schools, 
 
 kept successively by Andrew Crawford, 
 
 Sweeny, and Azel W. Dorsey, he does not remember 
 any other. The family of Mr. Dorsey now reside in 
 Schuyler county, Illinois. Mr. Lincoln now thinks the 
 aggregate of all his schooling did not amount to one 
 year. He was never in a college or academy as a stu- 
 dent, and never inside a college or academy till since 
 he had a law -license. What he has in the way of 
 education he has picked up. After he was twenty- 
 three, and had separated from his father, he studied 
 English grammar, imperfectly, of course, but so as to 
 speak and write as well as he now does. He studied, 
 and nearly mastered, the six books of Euclid since 
 he was a member of Congress. He regrets his limited 
 means of education, and does what he can to supply 
 the want of early opportunities. 
 
 When he was nineteen, still residing in Indiana, he 
 made his first trip upon a flatboat to New-Orleans. 
 He was a hired hand, merely, and he and a son of the 
 owner, without other assistance, made the trip. The 
 nature of part of the cargo-load, as it was called, made 
 it necessary for them to linger and trade along the 
 sugar coast, and one night they were attacked by 
 seven negroes with intent to kill and rob them. They 
 were hurt some in the melee, but succeeded in driving
 
 ABRAHAM LIN30LN. 19 
 
 the negroes from the boat, and then " weighed anchor" 
 and left. 
 
 March 1st, 1830, young Lincoln having just com- 
 pleted his 21st year, his father and family, with the fam- 
 ilies of the two daughters and sons-in-law of his step- 
 mother, left the old homestead in Indiana and came to 
 Illinois ; their mode of conveyance were wagons drawn 
 by ox teams. They reached the county of Macon, and 
 stopped there some time. Within the same month of 
 March his father and family settled a new place on the 
 north side of the Sangamon river, at the junction of 
 the timberland and prairie, about ten miles westerly 
 from Decatur ; here they built a log-cabin, into which 
 they removed, and made enough rails to fence ten acres 
 of ground, fenced and broke the ground, and raised a 
 crop of sod corn upon it the same year. These are, or 
 are supposed to be, the rails about which so much is 
 being said just now, though they are far from being 
 the first or only rails ever made by him. The sons- 
 in-law were temporarily settled at other places in 
 the county. In the autumn all hands were greatly 
 afflicted with ague and fever, to which they had not 
 been used, and by which they were greatly discouraged, 
 so much so that they determined on leaving the county. 
 They remained, however, through the succeeding win- 
 ter, which was the winter of the very celebrated " deep 
 snow" of Illinois. During that winter young Lincoln, 
 together with his step-mother's son, John D. Johnston, 
 and John Hanks, yet residing in Macon county, hired 
 themselves to one Denton Offult to take a flat-boat 
 from Beardstown, Illinois, to New-Orleans, and for 
 that purpose were to join him Offult at Springfield,
 
 20 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Illinois, as soon as the snow should go off ; when it 
 did go off, which was about the 1st of March, 1831, 
 the country was so flooded as to make travelling by 
 land impracticable ; to obviate which difficulty they 
 purchased a large canoe, and came down the Sanga- 
 rnon river in it. This is the time and manner of Lin- 
 coln's first entrance into Sangamon county. They 
 found Offult at Springfield, but learned from him that 
 he had failed in getting a boat ; this led to their hiring 
 themselves to him at $12 per month, each, and getting 
 the timber out .of the trees, and building a boat, at 
 old Sangamon town, on the Sangamon river, seven 
 miles northwest of Springfield, which boat they took 
 to New-Orleans substantially on the old contract. 
 During this boat enterprise and acquaintance with 
 Offult, who was previously an entire stranger, Offult 
 conceived a liking for Lincoln, and believing he could 
 turn him to account, he contracted with him to act as 
 clerk for him on his return from New-Orleans in charge 
 of a store and mill at New-Salem, then in Sangamon, 
 now in Menard county. Hanks had not gone to New- 
 Orleans, but having a family, and being likely to be 
 detained from home longer than at first expected, had 
 turned back from St. Louis ; he is the same John 
 Hanks who now engineers the " Kail Enterprise" at 
 Decatur, and is a first cousin to Abraham's mother. 
 Abraham's father, with his own family and others 
 mentioned, had, in pursuance of their intention, re- 
 moved from Macon to Coles county. Jno. D. John- 
 ston, the step-mother's son, went to them, and 
 Lincoln stopped indefinitely, and for the first time 
 by himself, at New-Salem, before mentioned. This
 
 ABRAHAM LING L X . 21 
 
 was in July, 1831. Here lie rapidly made acquain- 
 tances and friends. In less than a year Offult's busi- 
 ness was falling off had almost failed. When the 
 Black-Hawk war of 1832 broke out, young Lincoln 
 joined a volunteer company, and to his own surprise 
 was elected captain of it. He says he has not since 
 had any success in life which gave him so much satis- 
 faction. He went through the campaign ; served near 
 three months ; met the ordinary hardships of such an 
 expedition, but was in no battle. He now owns in 
 Iowa the iand upon which his own warrants for this 
 service were located. 
 
 Eeturning from the campaign, and encouraged by 
 his great popularity among his immediate neighbors, 
 he the same year ran for the legislature and was beaten, 
 his own precinct, however, casting its votes 277 for, 
 and 7 against him, and this, too, when he was an 
 avowed Clay man, and the precinct the autumn after- 
 ward, giving a majority of 115 for General Jackson, 
 over Mr. Clay. This was the only time Lincoln was 
 ever beaten in a direct vote of the people. He was 
 now without means and out of business, but was 
 anxious to remain with his friends, who had treated 
 him with so much generosity. It was some time before 
 he decided upon a profession first, a trade, then a 
 farmer, then the law the latter would have been his 
 choice at that time, but for his limited education. Be- 
 fore long, strangely enough, a man offered to sell, and- 
 did sell to him, and another as poor as himself, an 
 old stock of goods upon credit. They opened as mer- 
 chants, and he says that was THE store. Of course 
 they did nothing but get deeper and deeper in debt.
 
 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 He was appointed postmaster at New-Salern tlie office 
 being too insignificant to make his politics an objec- 
 tion. The store " winked out." 
 
 Nothing daunted by this turn of ill-luck, he directed 
 his attention to law, and borrowing a few books from 
 a neighbor, which he took from the office in the even- 
 ing and returned in the morning, he learned the rudi- 
 ments of the profession in which he has since become 
 so distinguished. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln was in his youth known as the swiftest 
 runner, the best jumper, and the strongest wrestler, 
 among his fellows ; and when he reached manhood, and 
 his physical frame became developed, the early settlers 
 pronounced him the stoutest man in the State. His 
 abstemious habits and his hardy physcial discipline 
 strengthened his constitution and gave vigor to his 
 mind. He improved every opportunity to cultivate his 
 intellect, often studying his law-books far into the 
 night by the reflection of the log-fire in his farm-home 
 on the prairies. He was early distinguished for a dis- 
 putational turn of mind, and many are the intellectual 
 triumphs of his in the country or village lyceum select- 
 ed by old settlers who remember, him as he then 
 appeared. His strong, natural, direct, and irresistible 
 logic marked him there as it has ever since, as an in- 
 tellectual king. 
 
 The deep snow which occurred in the winter of 
 1S30-'31, was one of the chief troubles endured by the 
 early settlers of Central and Southern Illinois. Its 
 consequences lasted through several years. The peo- 
 ple were illy prepared to meet it, as the weather had 
 been mild and pleasant unprecedentedly so up to
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 23 
 
 Christmas when a snow-storm set in, which lasted two 
 days ; something never before known even among the 
 traditions of the Indians, and never approached in the 
 weather of any winter since. The pioneers who came 
 into the State (then a territory) in 1800, some of 
 whom are still living, say the average depth of snow 
 was never, previous to 1830, more then knee deep to 
 an ordinary man, while it was breast high all that winter, 
 not in drifts but over a whole section. "For three 
 months," say the old settlers, " there was not a warm 
 sun upon the surface of the snow." It became crusted 
 over, so as (in some cases) to bear teams. Cattle and 
 horses perished, the winter wheat was killed, the mea- 
 gre stocks of provisions ran out, and the most wealthy 
 settlers came near starving, while some of the poorer 
 ones actually did. It was in the midst of such scenes 
 that young Abraham Lincoln attained his majority, and 
 commenced his career of bold and manly independence. 
 It was this discipline that was to try the soul of the 
 future President. Communication between house and 
 house was often entirely obstructed for teams, so that 
 the young and strong men had to do all the travelling 
 on foot ; carrying from one neighbor what of his store 
 he could spare to another, and bringing back some- 
 thing in return sorely needed. Men living five, ten, 
 twenty, and thirty miles apart were called " neighbors" 
 then. Young Lincoln was always ready to perform 
 these acts of humanity, and foremost in the counsels 
 of the settlers when their troubles seemed gathering 
 like a thick cloud about them. 
 
 The surveyor of Sangamon offered to depute to Lin- 
 coln that portion of his work which was in his part of
 
 24 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the county. He accepted, procured a compass and 
 chain, studied Flint and Gibson a little, and went at 
 it. This procured bread, and kept soul and body to- 
 gether. The election of 1834 came, and he was then 
 elected to the legislature by the highest vote cast for 
 any candidate. Major John F. Stuart, then in full 
 practice of the law, was also elected. When the legis- 
 lature met, the law books were dropped, but were 
 taken up again at the- end of the session. He was 
 re-elected in 1836, 1838, and 1840. In the autumn of 
 1836 he obtained a law license, and April 15, 1837, 
 he removed to Springfield and commenced the prac- 
 tice, his old friend, Stuart, taking him into partner- 
 ship. 
 
 March 3d, 1837, by a protest entered upon the Il- 
 linois house journal of that date, at pages 817, 818, 
 Lincoln, with Dan Stone, another representative of 
 Sangamon, briefly defined his position on the slavery 
 question, as follows. We quote from the State Jour- 
 nal : 
 
 " In 1836-'7, Mr. Lincoln was one of the represen- 
 tatives in the Legislature from Sangamon county, and 
 during the session, as usual, resolutions, taking an ex- 
 treme Southern view on the subject of slavery, were 
 brought forward, discussed, and finally adopted. Mr. 
 Lincoln refused to vote for them ; but took advantage 
 of the constitutional privilege allowing any two mem- 
 bers to enter their protest upon the journals of the 
 house, to give his views on the subject in the form of 
 a protest. The paper is worthy of being produced at 
 the present time, and we give it, as follows : 
 
 " MAKCH 3d, 1837. 
 
 " The following protest was presented to the house, 
 which was read and ordered to be spread on the jour- 
 nal, to wit :
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 25 
 
 " Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slaverj 
 having- passed both branches of the general assembly, 
 at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest 
 against the passage of the same. 
 
 " They believe that the institution of slavery is founded 
 on both injustice and bad policy ; but that the pro- 
 mulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to in- 
 crease than abate its evils. 
 
 " They believe that the Congress of the United States 
 has no power, under the Constitution, to interfere with 
 the institution of slavery in the different States. 
 
 " They believe that the Congress of the United 
 States has the power, under the Constitution, to abol- 
 ish slavery in the District of Columbia ; but that the 
 power ought not to be exercised unless at the request 
 of the people of said district. 
 
 " The difference between these opinions and those 
 contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for 
 entering this protest. 
 
 " DAN STONE, 
 "A. LINCOLN, 
 " Representatives from the county'of Sangamon." 
 
 Business flowed in upon him, and he rose rapidly to 
 distinction in his profession. He displayed remarkable 
 ability as an advocate in jury trials, and many of his 
 law arguments were master-pieces of logical reasoning. 
 There was no refined artificiality in his forensic efforts. 
 They all bore the stamp of masculine common sense ; 
 and he had a natural, easy mode of illustration, that 
 made the most abstruse subjects appear plain. His 
 success at the bar, however, did not withdraw his at- 
 tention from politics. For many years he was the 
 ' wheel-horse' of the Whig party of Illinois, and was 
 on the electoral ticket in several Presidential cam- 
 paigns. At such time he canvassed the State with his 
 2
 
 26 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 usual vigor and ability. He was an ardent friend of 
 Henry Clay, and exerted himself powerfully in his be- 
 half, in 1844, traversing the entire State of Illinois, and 
 addressing public meetings daily until near the close 
 of the campaign, when, becoming convinced that 
 his labors in that field would be unavailing, he 
 crossed over into Indiana, and continued his efforts up 
 to the day of election. The contest of that year 
 in Illinois was mainly on the tariff question. Mr. 
 Lincoln, on the Whig side, and John Calhoun 
 on the democratic side, were the heads of the op- 
 posing electoral tickets. Calhoun, late of Nebraska, 
 now dead, was then in the full vigor of his powers, and 
 was accounted the ablest debater of his party. They 
 stumped the State together, or nearly so, making 
 speeches usually on alternate days at each place, and 
 each addressing large audiences at great length, some- 
 times four hours together. Mr. Lincoln, in these elab- 
 orate speeches, evinced a thorough mastery of the 
 principles of political economy which underlie the tariff 
 question, and presented arguments in favor of the pro- 
 tective policy with a power and conclusiveness rarely 
 equalled, and at the same time in a manner so lucid 
 and familiar, and so well interspersed with happy il- 
 lustra:ions and apposite anecdotes, as to establish a 
 reputation which he has never since failed to maintain, 
 as the ablest leader in the Whig and Republican raak* 
 in the great West.
 
 ABRAHAM LINOOLK. 27 
 
 PAET SECOND. 
 
 IN CONGRESS. 
 
 IN 1846, Mr. Lincoln was elected to Congress from 
 the central district of Illinois. 
 
 He took his seat in Congress on the first Monday in 
 December, of the year 1847. It was the Thirtieth 
 Congress, and the House of Representatives to which 
 he was elected was presided over by Mr. Winthrop of 
 Massachusetts. The House was composed of 117 
 Whigs, 110 Democrats, and 1 Native American. Illi- 
 nois then had seven representatives, and all were Dem- 
 ocrats but Mr. Lincoln. He alone from that State held 
 up the old Whig banner. With him, from other 
 States, were associated such well-known names as the 
 following : Collamer, Marsh, Ashmun, Truman Smith, 
 Hunt, Tallmadge, Ingersoll, Botts, Goggin, Cling- 
 man, Stephens, Toombs, Gentry, and Thompson. Op- 
 posed to him in politics were men like Wilmot, Brod- 
 head, Boyd, Bocock, Rhett, Brown, Linn Boyd, Andrew 
 Johnson, etc., etc. In the Senate were Webster, Cal- 
 houn, Dayton, Davis, Dix, Dickinson, Hunter, Hale, 
 B"ll, Crittenden, and Corwin. It was a Congress full 
 of the most talented men crowded with the real states- 
 men of the country, and such a one in these and other 
 respects as the country rarely elects to make its laws. 
 It turned out to be one of the most excited, agitated, 
 and agitating ever convened.
 
 28 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 HARBOR AND RIVER BILL. 
 
 One of Mr. Lincoln's first votes was given, Decem- 
 ber 20, 1847, in favor of the subjoined resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That if, in the judgment of Congress, it be 
 necessary to improve the navigation of a river to expe- 
 dite and render secure the movements of our army, and 
 save from delay and loss our arms and munitions of 
 war, that Congress has the power to improve such 
 river. 
 
 " Resolved, That if it be necessary for the preservation 
 of the lives of our seamen, repairs, safety, or main- 
 tenance of our vessels-of-war, to improve a harbor or 
 inlet, either on our Atlantic or Lake coast, Congress 
 has the power to make such improvement." 
 
 A motion was made to lay the resolution on the ta- 
 ble, and Mr. Lincoln voted with the other Whigs then 
 in the House against the motion, and it was de- 
 feated. The resolution was laid over after this test 
 vote to another day for debate. 
 
 SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 The next day the slavery question was agitated in 
 the House. Mr. Giddings presented a memorial from 
 certain citizens of the District of Columbia, asking 
 Congress to repeal all laws upholding the slave-trade 
 in the district. Mr. Griddings moved to refer the me- 
 morial to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions 
 to inquire into the constitutionality of all laws by which 
 slaves are held as property in the District of Columbia. 
 A motion was made to lay the paper on the table. Mr. 
 Lincoln voted against the motion. The result was a
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 29 
 
 tie vote, and the Speaker voted in the negative. Mr. 
 Ho well Cobb stated that he wished to debate it, and it 
 lay over under the rules. 
 
 On the 22d of December, Mr. Wentworth of Illinois 
 moved the following resolution : 
 
 "Resolved, That the General Government has the 
 power to construct such harbors, and improve such 
 rivers as are necessary and proper for the protection of 
 our navy and commerce, and also for the defences of 
 our country." 
 
 A motion was made to lay on the table, and then 
 withdrawn. An exciting contest ensued on the de- 
 mand for the previous question. It was sustained, and 
 the House came to a direct vote on the resolution, 
 passing it by 138 ayes to 54 nays, Mr. Lincoln voting, 
 of course, with the ayes. 
 
 THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 On the same day Mr. Lincoln offered the following 
 preamble and resolutions on the Mexican War : 
 
 " Whereas, the President of the United States, in 
 his Message of May 11, 1846, has declared that ' the 
 Mexican government refused to receive him [the envoy 
 of the United States], or listen to his propositions, but, 
 after a long-continued series of menaces, have at last 
 invaded our territory, and shed the blood of our fellow- 
 citizens on our oivn soil ;' 
 
 " And again, in his Message of December 8, 1846, 
 that ' we had ample cause of war against Mexico long 
 before the breaking out of hostilities ; but even then 
 we forbore to take redress into our own hands until 
 Mexico basely became the aggressor, by invading our
 
 30 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 soil in hostile array, and shedding the blood of our 
 citizens ;' 
 
 " And yet, again, in his Message of December 7, 1847, 
 ' The Mexican government refused even to hear the 
 terms of adjustment which he (our minister of peace) 
 was authorized to propose, and finally, under wholly 
 unjustifiable pretexts, involved the two countries in 
 war, by invading the territory of the State of Texas, 
 striking the first blow, and shedding the blood of our 
 citizens on our own soil;' 
 
 " And whereas, this House is desirous to obtain a 
 full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish 
 whether the particular spot on which the blood of our 
 citizens was so shed, was or was not, at that time, our 
 own soil : Therefore, 
 
 "Resolved, by the House of Representatives, That 
 the President of the United States be respectfully re- 
 quested to inform this House 
 
 " 1st. Whether the spot on which the blood of our 
 citizens was shed, as in his memorial declared, was or 
 was not within the territory of Spain, at least after the 
 treaty of 1819, until the Mexican revolution. 
 
 " 2d. Whether that spot is or is not within the ter- 
 ritory which was wrested from Spain by the revolution- 
 ary government of Mexico. 
 
 " 3d. Whether that spot is or is not within a settle- 
 ment of people, which settlement has existed ever since 
 long before the Texas Revolution, and until its inhabi- 
 tan'.s flud before the approach of the United States 
 army. 
 
 " 4th. Whether that settlement is or is not isolated 
 from any and all other settlements of the Gulf and the
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 31 
 
 Rio Grande on the south and west, and of wide unin- 
 habited regions on the north and east. 
 
 " 5.h. Whether the people of that settlement, or a 
 majority of them, have ever submitted themselves to 
 the government or laws of Texas or of the United. 
 States, of consent or of compulsion, either of accept- 
 ing office or voting at elections, or paying taxes, or 
 serving on juries, or having process served on them, 
 or in any other way. 
 
 " 6th. Whether the people of that settlement did or 
 did not flee at the approaching of the United States 
 army, leaving unprotected their homes and their grow- 
 ing crops before the blood was shed, as in the message 
 stated ; and whether the first blood so shed was or was 
 not shed within the enclosure of one of the people who 
 had thus fleel from it. 
 
 " 7th. Whether our citizens whose blood was shed, 
 as in his message declared, were or were not, at that 
 time, armed officers and soldiers sent into that settle- 
 ment by the military order of the President, through 
 thtt Secretary of War. 
 
 "8th. Whether the military force of the United 
 States was or was not so sent into that settlement after 
 General Taylor had more than once intimated to the 
 War Department that, in his opinion, no such move- 
 ment was necessary to the defence or protection of 
 Texas." 
 
 These resolutions were laid over under the rule. We 
 have quoted them entire because one of the false charges 
 of Mr. Lincoln's political opponents is, that he voted 
 against the supplies to the army. He was a Whig, 
 anel took the position of the Whigs of his day, many
 
 32 LIFE AND SPJEBCHES OF 
 
 eminent Southern men included, which was opposition 
 to the declaration of war with Mexico, by the Presi- 
 dent, so long as that opposition would accomplish any 
 purpose, which it would not when Mr. Lincoln was in 
 Congress ; and always, as these resolutions of his prove, 
 objected to what he considered a false statement as to 
 the origin of the difficulties. No circumstances, in his 
 opinion, would justify falsehood in reference to the 
 history of that or any other war, and so he on every 
 proper occasion criticised the language of the President, 
 which repeatedly declared that the war was begun by 
 the act of Mexico. 
 
 SLAVERY AGAIN. 
 
 On the 28th of December Mr. Lincoln voted to 
 sustain the right of petition. Several citizens of 
 Indiana petitioned Congress for the abolition of slavery 
 in the District of Columbia, and Mr. C. B. Smith 
 moved to refer the petition to the Committee on the 
 District. Mr. Cabell moved to lay the memorial upon 
 the table, which motion was carried, Mr. Lincoln voting 
 against it and in favor of according to it a respectful 
 consideration. 
 
 On the 30th of December, a similar memorial against 
 the slave-trade was presented to the House, and on a 
 motion to lay upon the table Mr. Lincoln voted again 
 in the negative. 
 
 January 17, 1848, Mr. Giddings introduced a resolu- 
 tion in the House, reporting certain alleged outrages 
 against a colored man in the District, and calling upon 
 the Speaker to appoint a select comipittee to inquire 
 into the expediency of repealing such acts of Congress
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 33 
 
 as sustained or authorized the slave-trade in the Dis- 
 trict. The resolution caused considerable excitement, 
 and a motion to lay on the table was made and lost by 
 one vote. Mr. Lincoln voted against the motion. The 
 resolution was now before the House, but the previous 
 question was pending. Questions of order arose and 
 the House was in great confusion. Mr. Giddings 
 claimed the right to modify his resolution, and the 
 Speaker decided that he had that right. Mr. Ste- 
 phens, of Georgia, appealed from the decision of the 
 Chair. In answer to a question, the Chair stated that 
 if the resolution was modified, a second motion to lay 
 n the table would be in order, whereupon Mr. Stephens 
 Trithdrew his appeal. Mr. Giddings modified his reso- 
 lution, and it was again moved that it be laid on the 
 table. This time the motion was successful ayes 94, 
 nays 88 Mr. Lincoln voting no. 
 
 VOTE OF SUPPLIES FOE THE WAR. 
 
 On the 17th of February, Mr. Lincoln gave a vote 
 which effectually destroys the assertion of some of his 
 political enemies of this day, that he voted against the 
 supplies for the war in Mexico. The Committee of 
 Ways and Means reported a Loan Bill to raise the 
 sum of sixteen millions of dollars to enable the gov- 
 ernment to provide for its debts, principally incurred 
 in Mexico. This bill passed a Whig House of Kepre- 
 sentatives ; ayes 192, nays 14, Mr. Lincoln voting for 
 the bill. This vote alone disposes of the slanderous 
 cha ge that he voted against the supplies because of the 
 war with Mexico.
 
 34 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 PUTNAM'S RESOLUTION. 
 
 On the 28th. of February Mr. Putnam moved the 
 following preamble and resolution : 
 
 11 Whereas, In the settlement of the difficulties pend- 
 ing between this country and Mexico, territory may be 
 acquired in which slavery does not exist ; and whereas, 
 Congress, in the organization of a territorial govern- 
 ment, at an early period of our political history, estab- 
 lished a principle worthy of imitation in all future time, 
 forbidding the existence of slavery in free territory : 
 Therefore, 
 
 " fiesolved, That in any territory which may be ac- 
 quired from Mexico, over which shall be established 
 territorial governments, slavery or involuntary servi- 
 tude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the par- 
 ty shall have been duly convicted, should be forever pro- 
 hibited ; and that, in any act or resolution establishing 
 such governments, a fundamental provision ought to be 
 inserted to that effect." 
 
 Mr. Putnam moved the previous question. 
 
 Mr. Brodhead moved to lay the resolution on the 
 table. 
 
 The motion to lay on the table was decided by yeas 
 and nays. 
 
 After the roll was called through, Mr. C. J. Inger- 
 soll rose and asked leave to vote. Mr. I. said he was 
 not within the bar when his name was called, but came 
 in before the following name was called. Mr. I. said, 
 if allowed to vote, he would vote aye. His vote was 
 not received. 
 
 Mr. Murphy rose and said he was not within the
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 35 
 
 bar when his name was called, but he asked leave to 
 vote. It being objected to 
 
 Mr. C. J. Ingersoll moved to suspend the rules, to 
 allow Mr. Murphy and himself to vote. Disagreed to. 
 
 The result was then announced, as follows : 
 
 Ytas. Messrs. Green Adams. Atkinson, Barringer, Barrow, Bayly, 
 Bedinger, birdsall, Black, Boeock, B.wd..u, Buwliu, Boyd, Boyden, 
 Biodhend, Charles Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burt, Cabcll, Cathcart, 
 Chase, Clapp. Franklin Clark, Beverly L. Clark, Cliugmau, Howell Cobb, 
 Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cocke, Crisfield, Crozier, Daniel, Dickiuson, 
 Donuell, Garnett Duncan, Featherstou, Ficklin, French, Fulton, Gaines, 
 Gayle, Gentry, Goggin, Green, Willard P Hall, HarJson, Harris, H:is- 
 kell. Henley, Hill, Hilliard, Isaac E. Holmes, George S. Houston, Inge, 
 Ivtrson, Jackson. Jamiesou, Andrew Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Geo 
 W. Jones, John W. Jon<^ Kaufman, Kermon, Tho. Butlt-r King, La 
 Sere, Levin, Ligon, Lord, Lumpkin, \'.aclay, McClernand, McKay, 
 McLnne, Mann, Miller, More-head, Morse, Outlaw, Pendleton, Pcttit, 
 Pejton, Phelps, Pilsbury, Preston, Richardson, Richey, Robinson, 
 Roman, Sawyer, Shepperd, Simpson, Sims, Robert Smith, Stanton. Ste- 
 phens, Thibodeaux, Thomas, Tompkins. John B. Thompson, Robert 
 A Thompson, Toombs, Turner, Venable, Wick, Williams, Wiley, Wood- 
 ward 105. 
 
 flays. Messrs Abbott, Aehmun, Bingham, Brady, Butler, Canby, 
 Collamer, Collins, Conger, Cranston, Crowell, Cummins, Dickey, Dixon, 
 Dmr, Daniel Duncan, Dunn, Eckert, Edwards, Embree, Nathan Evans, 
 F.-ran, Farrelly, Fisher. Freedly. Fries Giddings, Gott, Gregory, Gnunell. 
 Hale, Nathan K Hall, Hammons. James G. Hampton, Mosi-s Hampton, 
 Henry, Elias B. Holmes. John W Houston, Hubbard, Hudson, Hunt, 
 Irvin, Jenkins, James H. Johnson. Kellogg. Daniel P, King, Lai.m, Wil- 
 liam T. Lawrence, Sidney Lawrence Leffler, LIXCOLN, McClell-md, 
 Mcllvaine, Marsh, Marvin, Morris, Mulliu, Nelson, Nes, Newell, Pal- 
 fn-y, Peaslee, Peck Pollock, Putnam, Reynold, Julius, John A.Rock- 
 well, Root, Rumsey, St. John, Schenck, Sherrill, Silvester. Slingerland, 
 Caleb B. Smith. Truman Smith, Starkweather, Andrew Stewart, Charles 
 E. Stuart, Strohm, Tallmadge. Taylor, Richard W Thompson, William 
 Thompson, Thurston, Van Dyke, Vinton, Warren, Wentworth, White, 
 W ilmot, Wilson 92, 
 
 So the resolution was laid on the table. 
 Mr. Lincoln voted with the navs.
 
 36 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 THE TEN 11EGIMENT BILL. 
 
 On April 3d Mr. Lincoln voted to suspend the rules 
 tbat the Ten Kegiment Bill might he taken up, and 
 aimin did the same on the 18th of the same month. 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 June 19, 1848, Mr. Lincoln put himself on record in 
 favor of a protective tariff'. Mr. Stewart of Penn., on 
 that day moved a suspension of the rules to enable him 
 to offer the following resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means 
 be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting 
 a bill increasing the duties on foreign luxuries of all 
 kinds and on such foreign manufactures as are now 
 coming into ruinous competition with American labor/' 
 
 Mr. Lincoln voted in the affirmative. 
 
 SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 On the 28th of July, the famous bill to establish 
 territorial governments for Oregon, California, and 
 New-Mexico, was taken from the Speaker's table as it 
 came from the Senate. The peculiar feature of the 
 bill was a provision in reference to California and New- 
 Mexico, prohibiting the territorial legislatures from 
 passing laws in favor or against slavery, but also pro- 
 viding that all the laws of the territorial legislatures 
 shall be subject to the sanction of Congress. It will be 
 remembered that it was this bill which Mr. Webster, 
 who was then in the Senate, opposed in a great speech ; 
 using the following language :
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 37 
 
 11 We stand here now at least I do, for one to say, 
 that considering that there have been already five 
 new slaveholding States formed out of newly-acquired 
 territory, and one only, at most, non-slaveholding 
 State, I do not feel that I am called on to go farther ; 
 I do not feel the obligation to yield more. But our 
 friends of the South say, ' You deprive us of all our 
 rights ; we have fought for this territory, and you 
 deny us participation in it/ Let us consider this 
 question as it really is ; and since the honorable gen- 
 tleman from Georgia proposes to leave the case to the 
 enlightened and impartial judgment of mankind, and 
 as I agree with him that it is a case proper to be 
 considered by the enlightened part of mankind, let us 
 consider how the matter in truth stands. What is 
 the consequence ? Gentlemen who advocate the case 
 which my honorable friend from Georgia, with so much 
 ability, sustains, declare that we invade their rights 
 that we deprive them of a participation in the enjoyment 
 of territories acquired by the common services and com- 
 mon exertions of all. Is this true ? How deprived ? 
 Of what do we deprive them ? Why, they say that we 
 deprive them of the privilege of carrying their slaves, 
 as slaves, into the new territories. Well, sir, what is 
 the amount of that ? They say that in this way we 
 deprive them of the opportunity of going into this 
 acquired territory with their property. Their ' prop- 
 erty !' what do they mean by that ? We certainly 
 do not deprive them of the privilege of going into 
 these newly-arquired territories with all that, in the 
 general estimate of human society, in the general, and 
 common, and universal understanding of mankind, is 
 esteemed property. Not at all. The truth is just 
 this : they have in their own States peculiar laws, 
 which create property in persons. They have a sys- 
 tem of local legislation, on which slavery rests, while 
 everybody agrees that it is against natural law, or at 
 least against the common understanding which pro-
 
 38 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 vails as to what is natural law. I am not going into 
 metaphysics, for therein I should encounter the hon- 
 orable member from South Carolina, and we should 
 wander, in ' endless mazes lost/ until after the time 
 for the adjournment of Congress. The Southern 
 States have peculiar laws, and by those laws there is 
 property in slaves. This is purely local. The real 
 meaning, then, of Southern gentlemen, in making 
 this complaint, is, that they cannot go into the terri- 
 tories of the United States, carrying with them their 
 own peculiar local law a law which creates property 
 in persons. This, according to their own statement, 
 is all the ground of complaint they have. Now, here, 
 I think, gentlemen are unjust toward us. How un- 
 just they are, others will judge generations that will 
 come after us will judge. 
 
 "It will not be contended that this sort of personal 
 slavery exists by general law. It exists only by local 
 law. I do not mean to deny the validity of that local 
 law where it is established ; but I say it is, after all, 
 nothing but local law. It is nothing more. And 
 wherever that local law does not extend, property in 
 persons does not exist. Well, sir, what is now the 
 demand on the part of our Southern friends ? They 
 say, ' We will carry our local laws with us wherever 
 we go. We insist that Congress does us injustice un- 
 less it establishes in the territory into which we wish to 
 go, our own local law/ This demand I, for one, re- 
 sist, and shall resist. * * * * * 
 
 "Let me conclude, therefore, by remarking, that 
 while I am willing to present this as presenting my 
 own judgment and position, in regard to this case and 
 I beg it to be understood that I am speaking for no 
 other than myself and while I am willing to present 
 this to the whole world as my own justification, I rest 
 on these propositions : 1st. That when this Constitu- 
 tion was adopted, nobody looked for any new acquisi- 
 tion of territory to be formed into slavehelding States
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 39 
 
 2d That the principles of the Constitution prohibited, 
 and were intended to prohibit, and should be construed 
 to prohibit, all interference of the general government 
 with slavery as it existed and still exists in the States. 
 And then, that, looking to the effect of these new ac- 
 quisitions which have in this great degree inured to 
 strengthen that interest in the South by the addition 
 of these five States, there is nothing unjust, nothing of 
 which an honest man can complain, if he is intelligent 
 and I feel there is nothing which the civilized world, 
 if they take notice of so humble a person as myself, will 
 reproach me with, when I say, as I said the other day, 
 that I had made up my mind, for one, that, under no 
 circumstances, would 1 consent to the further extensie.n 
 of the area of slavery in the United States, or to the 
 further increase of slave representation in the House of 
 Representatives." 
 
 Mr. Cor win, too, arguing in the Senate against this 
 bill, said : 
 
 " Now, if we can make any law whatever, not con- 
 trary to the express prohibitions of the Constiiution, we 
 can enact that a man with $60,000 worth of bank 
 notes of Maryland shall forfeit the whole amount if he 
 attempts to pass one of them in the territory of Califor- 
 nia. We may say, if a man carry a menagerie of wild 
 beasts there, worth $500,000, and undertakes to exhibit 
 them there, he shall forfeit them. The man comes back 
 with his menagerie, and says that the law forbade him 
 to exhibit his animals there ; it was thought that, as 
 an economical arrangement, such things should not be 
 tolerated there. That you may do. He of the lions 
 and tigers goes back, having lost his whole concern. 
 Bui now you take a slave to California, and instantly 
 your power fails ; all the power of the sovereignty of 
 this country is impotent to stop him. That is a 
 strange sort of argument to me. It has always been 
 considered that when a State forms its constitution it
 
 40 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 can exclude slavery. Why so ? Becauses it chances 
 to consider it an evil. If it be a proper subject of le- 
 gislation in a State, and we have absolute legislative 
 power, transferred to us by virtue of this bloody power 
 of conquest, as some say, or by purchase, as others 
 maintain, 1 ask Why may we not act ? Again 
 considering this an abstract question are there not du- 
 ties devolving upon us, for the performance of which 
 we may not be responsible to any earthly tribunal, but 
 for which God, who has created us all, will hold us ac- 
 countable ? What is your duty, above all others, to a 
 conquered people ? You say it is your duty to give 
 them a government may you not, then, do everything 
 for them which you are not forbidden to do by some 
 fundamental axiomatic truth at the foundation of your 
 constitution ? Show me, then, how your action is 
 precluded, and I submit. Though I believe it ought 
 to be otherwise, yet, if the constitution of my country 
 forbids me, I yield. The constitutions of many States 
 declare slavery to be an evil. Southern gentlemen 
 have said, that they would have done away with it if 
 possible, and they have apologized to the world and to 
 themselves for the existence of it in their States. 
 These honest old men of another day never could have 
 failed to strike off the chains from every negro in the 
 colonies, if it had been possible for them to do so with- 
 out upturning the foundations of society. 
 
 -;:.- & :;: * * 
 
 " My objection is a radical one to the institution 
 everywhere. I do believe, if there is any place upon 
 the globe .which we inhabit, where a white man 
 cannot work, he has no business there. If that place 
 is fit only for black men to work, let black men 
 alone work there. I do not know any better law 
 for man's good than that old one, which was an- 
 nounced to man after the first transgression, that by 
 the sweat of his brow he should earn his bread. I 
 don't know what business men have in the world, un-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 41 
 
 less it is to work. If any man has no work of head or 
 hand to do in this world, let him get out of it soon. 
 The hog is the only gentleman who has nothing to do 
 but eat and sleep. Him we dispose of as soon as he 
 is fat. Difficult as the settlement of this question 
 seems to some, it is, in my judgment, only so because 
 we will not look at it and treat it as an original propo- 
 sition, to be decided by the influence its determination 
 may have on the territories themselves. We are ever 
 running away from this, and inquiring how it will af- 
 fect the " slave States," or the " free States." The 
 only question mainly to be considered is, How will this 
 policy affect the territories for which this law is in- 
 tended ? Is slavery a good thing, or is it a bad thing, 
 fur them ? With my views of the subject, I must con- 
 sider it bad policy to plant slavery in any soil where I 
 do not find it already growing. I look upon it as an 
 exotic, that blights with its shade the soil in which you 
 plant it ; therefore, as I am satisfied of our constitu- 
 tional power to prohibit it, so I am equally certain it 
 is our duty to do so." 
 
 For these reasons, so admirably expressed by Web- 
 ster and Corwin, standing by them, and agreeing with 
 them, Mr. Lincoln voted to lay the territorial bills 
 upon the table, when they came up there for considera- 
 tion. This was on the 28th of July, and after a scene 
 of great confusion and excitement. The motion to lay 
 on the table was agreed to ayes, 114 ; nays, 96. 
 Among the ayes was Stephens, of Georgia, who made 
 the motion. Afterward, on the 2d day of August, 
 when the House bill for the organization of the Terri- 
 tory of Oregon was before the House, a motion was 
 made to strike out that part of the bill which extended 
 the ordinance of 1787 over Oregon Territory, and Mr. 
 Lincoln voted, with 113 others, to retain the ordinance,
 
 42 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 During the second session of the Thirtieth Congress, 
 December 12, Mr. Lincoln voted for the following reso- 
 lution, submitted in the House by Mr. Eckert : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and 
 Means be instructed to inquire into the expediency of 
 reporting a Tariif Bill, based upon the principles of 
 the tariff of 1842." 
 
 On the 13th, Mr. Palfrey, of Mass., asked leave to 
 introduce a bill for the repeal of all the acts of Con- 
 gress establishing slavery in the District of Columbia. 
 Mr. Lincoln, not believing in the expediency of inter- 
 vention against slavery in the District, without com- 
 pensation to the slave-owner, separated himself from 
 several of his political friends, and voted against the 
 proposition of Mr. Palfrey. 
 
 THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 Later in the day Mr. Boot offered the subjoined reso- 
 lution : 
 
 "Resolved, That the Committee on Territories be 
 instructed to report to this House, with as little de-lay 
 as practicable, a bill, or bills, providing a territorial gov- 
 ernment for each of the territories of New-Mexico and 
 California, and excluding slavery therefrom." 
 
 Of the action of the House this day on the slavery 
 question, Dr. Bailey, of the Era, who was warmly op- 
 posed to General Taylor's election, remarks : 
 
 " Mr. Palfrey asked leave to introduce a bill for the 
 repeal of all acts of Congress, or parts of acts, estab- 
 lishing or maintaining slavery or the slave-trade in the 
 District of Columbia. Mr. Holmes, of South Carolina, 
 objected, and the question being taken by yeas and
 
 ABEAHAM LINCOLN. 43 
 
 nays, the vote stood, for granting leave, 70 ; against it, 
 81. It will be observed that only 151 members out of 
 228 voted. The House was not full, and some in their 
 seats refused to vote. Had all the members voted, it is 
 doubtful what would have been the result. It will be 
 observed in our report, that very few Democrats of the 
 North and West opposed the motion for leave. A few 
 Northern and Western Whigs are recorded in the nega- 
 tive Mr. Boot brought forward a resolu- 
 tion, that the Committee on the Territories be in- 
 structed to report to this House, with as little delay as 
 practicable, a bill or bills, providing a territorial gov- 
 ernment for each of the territories of New-Mexico and 
 California, and excluding slavery therefrom. Root 
 moved the previous question. "Hall, of Missouri, moved 
 to lay on the table ; Giddings, that there be a call of 
 the House. The Clerk called the roll 187 members 
 answered to their names, and further proceedings in the 
 call were dispensed with. The motion to lay on the 
 table was lost yeas 80, nays 107. The previous 
 question was seconded, the members passing through 
 the tellers." 
 
 The motion was agreed to ayes 106, nays 80 Mr. 
 Lincoln, as usual, standing by the slavery-restriction 
 clause. 
 
 THE GOTT RESOLUTION. 
 
 On the 21st of December, Mr. G-ott offered in the 
 Iluiise the following resolution : 
 
 " Whereas, The traffic now prosecuted in this me- 
 tropolis of the Republic, in human beings, as chattels, 
 is contrary to natural justice and the fundamental 
 principles of our political system, and is notoriously a
 
 4-1 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 reproach, to our country throughout Christendom, and 
 a serious hinderance to the progress of republican lib- 
 erty among the nations of the earth : Therefore, 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee for the District of 
 Columbia be instructed to report a bill, as soon as prac- 
 ticable, prohibiting the slave trade in said District." 
 
 The resolution having been read 
 
 Mr. Haralson moved that it be laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Wentworth and Mr. G-ott demanded the yeas 
 and nays, which were ordered. 
 
 And the resolution having been again read 
 
 The question on the motion of Mr. Haralson was 
 taken, and resulted yeas 82, nays 85. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln, true to his own convictions of what was 
 best under the circumstances, voted for the Haralson 
 motion to table the resolution, wishing to accompany 
 such a bill with provisions which he considered neces- 
 sary to its success. 
 
 The question then recurring on the demand for the 
 previous question 
 
 Mr. Vinton rose to inquire of the Chair whether the 
 resolution was open to amendment. 
 
 The Speaker said it would be open to amendment 
 if the previous question should not be seconded. 
 
 The question being then taken, the demand for the 
 previous question was seconded yeas 85, nays 49. 
 
 Upon the question, " Shall the main question [upon 
 the adoption of the resolution] be now put ?" the yeas 
 and nays were demanded and ordered ; and being taken, 
 the yeas were 112, nays 64. 
 
 Mr. Houston, of Alabama, and Mr. Venable, called 
 for the yeas and nays ; which were ordered.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 45 
 
 Mr. Donnell inquired of the Chair, if it would now 
 be in order to move that there be a call of the House. 
 
 The Speaker answered in the negative. 
 
 And the main question, " Shall the resolution be 
 adopted ?" was then taken, and decided in the affirma- 
 tive yeas 98, nays 87 as follows : 
 
 YEAS Messrs. Abbott, Ashmun, Belcher, Bingham, Blackmar, 
 Blanchard, Butler, Canby, Cat heart, Collamer, Conger, Cranston, 
 Crowell, Cummins, Darling, Dickey, Dickinson, Dixon, Daniel Duncan, 
 Edward?, Embree, JXathan Evans, Faran, Farrelly, Fisher, Freedley, 
 Fries, Giddings, Gott, Greeley, Gregory, Grinnell, Hale, Nathan K. Hall, 
 James G. Hampton, Moses Hampton, Henley, Henry, Elias B. Holmes, 
 Hubbard, Hudson, Hunt. Joseph 11. Ingersoll, Irvin, James II. Johnson, 
 Kellogg, Daniel P. King, Lahm, William T. Lawrence, Sidney Lawrence, 
 Leffler, Lord. Lyude, McClelland, Mcllvaine, Job Mann, Horace Mann. 
 Marsh, Marvin, Morris, Mullin, Newell. Nicoll, Palfrey, Peaslee, Peck, 
 Pettit, Pollock, Putnam, Reynolds, Richey, Robinson, Rockhill, Julius 
 Rockwell, J. A. Rockwell, Rose, Root, Rumsey, St. John, Sherrill, Sil- 
 Tester, Slingerland, Robert Smith, Starkweather, C. E. Stuart, Strohm, 
 Tallmadge, James Thompson, William Thompson. Thurston. Tuck, 
 Turner, Van Dyke, Yinton, Warren, Wentworth, White and Wilson 98. 
 
 NAYS Messrs. Adams, Barringer, Beale, Bedinger, Bocock, Botts, 
 Bowlin, Boyd, Boydon, Bridges, William G. Brown, Charles Brown, 
 Albert G Brown, Buckner, Burt, Chapman, Chase, Franklin Clarke, 
 Beverly L. Clarke, Howell Cobb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Coke, Cris- 
 field, Crozier. Daniel, Donnell, Dunn, Alexander Evans, Featherston, 
 Ficklin, Flournoy, French, Fulton, Gaines, Gentry, Goggin, Green, Wil- 
 lard P. Hall, Hammons, Haralson, Harmanson, Harris, Hill, George S. 
 Houston, John W. Houston, Inge, Charles J. Ingersoll, Iverson, Jameson, 
 Andrew Johnson, G. "W Jones, J. \V. Jones, Kennon, Thomas Butler 
 King, La Seie, Ligon, Lincoln, Lnmpkin, McClernand, McDowell, Mc- 
 Lane, Meade, Miller, Morehead, Morse, Outlaw, Pendleton, Peyton, 
 Filsbury, Preston, Sawyer, Shepperd, Simpson. Smart. Stanton, Ste- 
 phens, Strong, Thibodeaux, Thomas, R. W. Thompson, Tompkins, 
 Toombs, Yenable, Wallace, Wil*>y, Williams, and Woodward 88. 
 
 So the resolution was adopted. 
 
 The National Era, which was not inclined to show 
 much mercy toward the supporters of Mr. Taylor's
 
 46 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Administration, gave the following explanation of cer- 
 tain votes cast against the resolution : 
 
 " Men will wonder, twenty-five years hence, how 
 eighty-seven men, in an American Congress, could 
 stand up before God, and virtually vote for the con- 
 tinuance of the trade in human beings, in the capital 
 of the foremost Republic in the world. 
 
 " We would be just, however. A few members from 
 the free States voting nay feared any movement which 
 might tend, in their opinion, to embarrass the question 
 of slavery extension. These voted in the negative on 
 the resolution, not because they were opposed to its 
 object, but because they believed this object could be 
 better attained, after the settle ment of the question of 
 slavery in the territories. While dissenting from the 
 policy of these gentlemen, this statement from us is a 
 simple act of justice to them." 
 
 PUBLIC LANDS. 
 
 On the 21st of December, Mr. McClelland in the 
 House of Representatives offered the subjoined resolu- 
 tion : 
 
 " Resolved, That the present traffic in the public 
 lands should cease, and that they should be disposed 
 of to occupants and cultivators, on proper conditions, 
 at such a price as will nearly indemnify the cost of 
 their purchase, management, and sale." 
 
 The previous question was called, and a motion was 
 made to lay the resolution on the table, which pre- 
 vailed. Mr. Lincoln voted against tabling it, because 
 he was ready to do anything which should give the 
 public lands to the people, and not to the speculators.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 47 
 
 A SLAVE CASE. 
 
 On the 6th of January the slave case that of An- 
 tonio Pacheco was reported to the House, and was 
 taken up. It was a claim for the value of a slave who 
 was hired by a United States officer ; betook himself 
 to the everglades ; fought with the Indians against the 
 whites ; was taken in arms as an enemy, and as an 
 enemy sent out of the Territory, for the purpose of 
 securing the lives of the inhabitants. 
 
 Mr. Giddings, speaking of the case, recommended 
 that 
 
 " The Committee on Military Affairs were unable to 
 unite in a report upon the case. Five slaveholders, 
 representing slave property on this floor, and consti- 
 tuting a majority of the committee, have reported a 
 bill for the payment of this amount to the claimant. 
 Four Northern members, representing freemen only, 
 have made a minority report against the bill. This 
 report, as I think, is sustained by irrefutable argu- 
 ments. 
 
 " The majority of the committee assume the position 
 that slaves are regarded by the Federal Constitution 
 as property, and that this government and the people 
 of the free States are bound to regard them as prop- 
 erty, and to pay for them as we would for so many 
 mules or oxen taken into the public service. The 
 minority deny this doctrine. They insist that the 
 Federal Constitution treats them as persons only, and 
 that this government cannot constitutionally involve 
 the people of the free States in the guilt of sustaining 
 slavery ; that we have no constitutional powers to 
 legislate upon the relation of master and slave. 
 * # * 
 
 " In 1772, Lord Mansfield boldly assailed the doc-
 
 48 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 trine laid down in this Hall to-day, and exhibited its 
 absurdity in one of the ablest opinions to be found nn 
 record. From that period this doctrine of property in 
 man has found no supporters under the government of 
 England. With all our refinement as a nation ; with 
 all our boasted adherence to liberty, on this subject we 
 arc three quarters of a century behind our mother- 
 country. 
 
 " When Sir Warren Hastings was on trial in the 
 House of Peers, in 1787, Mr. Sheridan, speaking on 
 this subject, in his own peculiar and fervid eloquence, 
 declared that ' allegiance to that Power which gives us 
 the forms of men, commands us to maintain the rights 
 of men ; and never yet was this truth dismissed from 
 the human heart never, in any time, in any age 
 never in any clime where rude man ever had any social 
 feelings never was this unextinguishable truth de- 
 stroyed from the heart of man, placed as it is in the 
 core and centre of it by his Maker, that man ivas not 
 made the property of man.' This was the language 
 of British statesmen sixty-two years since. To-day 
 we have before this branch of the American Congress 
 the report of a committee avowing that, under this 
 federal government, in the middle of the nineteenth 
 century, ' man is the property of his felloiv -mortal ' 
 
 " These sentiments of the British statesmen and ju- 
 rists inspired the hearts of our Americans patriots in 
 1776, when they declared it to be a ' SELF-EVIDENT 
 
 TRUTH THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL/ When 
 
 they framed our Constitution, they declared their ob- 
 ject was ' to establish justice, and to secure to them- 
 selves and their posterity the blessings of liberty.' 
 This subject of holding property in men did not escape 
 their attention, nor have they left us ignorant of their 
 views in regard to it. Mr. Madison, the father of the 
 Constitution, has left to us a clear and explicit account 
 of their intentions. He informs us, that on 
 
 " ' Wednesday, August 22, the Convention proceed-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 49 
 
 ed to consider the report of the Committee of Detail, 
 in relation to duties on exports, a capitation tax, and 
 a navigation act. The fourth section reported was as 
 follows : 
 
 " ' No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature 
 on articles exported from any State, nor on the migra- 
 tion nor importation of such persons as the several 
 States shall think proper to admit ; nor shall such mi- 
 gration nor importation be prohibited/ 
 
 " ' Mr. Gerry thought we had nothing to do with 
 the conduct of the States as to slavery, but we ought to 
 be careful not to give any sanction.' 
 
 " Our people think with Mr. Gerry, that ' we have 
 nothing to do with slavery in the States.' We are de- 
 termined that we will not be involved in its guilt. 
 With Mr. Gerry, we intend ' to be careful to give it no 
 sanction.' No, sir ; we will not sanction your slavery 
 by paying our money for the bodies of slaves. This is 
 the doctrine which we hold, and which we expect to 
 maintain ; yet the members of this body are now en- 
 gaged in legislating upon the price of human flesh. 
 If we pass this bill, we- shall give our most solemn 
 sanction to that institution which Gerry and his com- 
 patriots detested. Will the members from Pennsyl- 
 vania, the successors of Franklin and Wilson, lend 
 their sanction to slavery, by voting the moneys of the 
 People to pay for slaves ? 
 
 " But Mr. Madison tells us that Mr. Sherman (of 
 Connecticut) was opposed to any tax on slaves, as 
 making the matter worse, because it implied they were 
 property.' 
 
 " I understand that some gentlemen from the North 
 admit that slaves are property. Mr. Sherman and the 
 framers of the Constitution would do no act by which 
 it could be implied that they were property. 
 
 " Mr. Madison also participated in the discussion 
 "himself ; and, as he informs us, ' DECLARED THAT HE 
 
 THOUGHT IT WRONG TO ADMIT THAT THERE CODLD BE 
 
 3
 
 50 LIFE A.ND SPEECHES OF 
 
 PROPERTY IN MEN/ And the report of the Committee 
 was so amended as to exclude that idea. 
 
 " In that assemblage of illustrious statesmen, no 
 man expressed his dissent from these doctrines of 
 G- -Try, of Sherman, and of Madison. These doctrines 
 are : 1. That we ' should have nothing to do with 
 slavery, but ought to be careful not to give it any sanc- 
 tion.' 2. That ' we should do no act by which it can 
 be implied that there can be property in men.' 3. 
 That ' it would be WRONG FOR us TO ADMIT THAT 
 
 THERE CAN BE PROPERTY IN MEN.' Such were the 
 
 views of those who framed the Constitution. They 
 intended to express their views in such language as to 
 be understood. Will this House stand by them ?" 
 * # * ft ft 
 
 " With great propriety the gentleman from New- 
 Hampshire inquired, at what time the liability of gov- 
 ernment to pay for this slave commenced ? The ques- 
 tion has not been answered, nor do I think it can be 
 answered. The undertaking was hazardous in the 
 highest degree. The troops were all killed but two or 
 three, by the enemy, and those were supposed to be 
 dead. Tais man alone escaped unhurt. This danger 
 was foreseen, and the master put a price upon the ser- 
 vices to compare with the risk. Did this contract bind 
 the government to pay for the master's loss, admitting 
 the slave to have been property 1 Was it any part of 
 the compact that the government should insure the 
 property ? It strikes me that no lawyer would an- 
 swer in the affirmative. The law of bailment is surely 
 understood by every tyro in the profession. The bailee 
 for hire is bound to exercise the same degree of care 
 over the property that careful men ordinarily take of 
 their own property. If, then, the property be lost, the 
 owner sustains such loss. Now, conceding this man to 
 be property, the government would not have been lia- 
 ble, had he ran away, or been killed by accident, or 
 died of sickness. Yet, sir, when property is lost or
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 51 
 
 destroyed by the act of God or the common enemies of 
 the country, no bailee is ever holden responsible not 
 even common carriers, and that is the highest species 
 of bailment. Had this officer, acting on his own re- 
 sponsibility, agreed to take this negro through the 
 country for hire (admitting the man to have been 
 property, and governed by the same rules of law as 
 though he had been a mule or an ass), and he had been 
 captured by the enemy, no law would have held such 
 bailee liable. But, sir, an entirely different rule of law 
 prevails where the owner of a chattel lets it to a bailee 
 for wages. Had this man been a mule or an ass, and 
 the officer had hired him of the owner for wages, to ride 
 through that country, or to work in a team, or in any 
 other manner, and he had been captured by the enemy, 
 the bailee would not have been liable, upon any rule of 
 law or of justice ; nor would he have been liable if lost 
 in any other manner, except by neglect of the bailee. 
 
 " The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Burt] 
 said he would place this case upon strictly legal prin- 
 ciples. Sir, I meet the gentleman on that proposition. 
 I, too, for the sake of the argument, am willing to 
 submit it on principles of law ; and I believe that no 
 jurist, or even justice of the peace, would hesitate to 
 reject the case on those grounds. All must admit that 
 the liability of the government concerning this man 
 ceased when he was captured by the enemy ; up to 
 this point the government was not liable. I understood 
 the author of this bill [Mr. Burt]* to argue, however, 
 that we became liable under the contract of bailment. 
 That contract was ended when the man was captured 
 The claimant then failed to perform his part of it. 
 The stipulation on the part of the master was, that 
 the negro should pilot the troops from Fort Brooke to 
 Fort King, the place of their destination, at the rate 
 of twenty-five dollars per month. He was captured 
 when only half the distance was accomplished. Here 
 the master ceased to perform his compact ; it was be-
 
 52 LIFE AND SPECHES OF 
 
 yond his power to do so. The contract then ceased to 
 exist ; and from that time forth the claimant had no 
 demand on us, either in equity or in law." 
 
 This is the Antonio Pacheco case, stated at some 
 length, for it involved important principles. And here 
 we call attention to the fact that Mr. Lincoln was nev- 
 er found, while in Congress, violating any principle to 
 which he gave his adhesion, no matter how great the 
 temptation or the emergency. He did at times waive 
 the assertion of a principle when he thought it would 
 only result in irritation, but he never voted against one 
 of those principles. 
 
 The case above mentioned, came up in the House 
 Nov. .6, 1849 : 
 
 " The first business in order being the pending mo- 
 tion made by Mr. Giddings for a reconsideration of the 
 vote upon the engrossment of the bill to pay the heirs 
 of Antonio Pacheco $1,000, as the value of a slave 
 transported to the West with the ScminoTe Indians 
 
 " Mr. Giddings proceeded to address the House, hav- 
 ing first declined to give way for a motion by Mr. 
 Eockwell, of Connecticut, that the House should con- 
 sider the bill to establish a Board for the settlement of 
 private claims. 
 
 " The previous question, having been moved upon 
 the motion to reconsider, was then seconded, and the 
 main question ordered to be now put. 
 
 " Mr. Giddings, with a view to save the time of the 
 House, withdrew his motion, and the question accord- 
 ingly recurred upon the passage of the bill. 
 
 " Upon this question, Mr. Dickey demanded the
 
 ABKAHAM LINCOLN. 53 
 
 yeas and nays, which were ordered ; and the question 
 being taken 
 
 " The Speaker announced the vote yeas 90, nays 89. 
 
 " The twelfth rule of the House provided, ' that in all 
 cases of election by the House, the Speaker shall vote ; 
 in other cases he shall not vote, unless the House be 
 equally divided, or unless his vote, if given to the mi- 
 nority, will make the division equal ; and in case of 
 such equal division, the question shall be lost.' 
 
 "The Speaker, proceeding to discharge the duty thus 
 imposed upon him, said : 
 
 " ' A case has occurred in which, under the rule of 
 the House, it is the duty of the Speaker to vote. The 
 Speaker regrets that in this, as in many other cases, he 
 has been deprived of the opportunity of listening to the 
 full discussion of the question, having heard no speech 
 except that which has been made this morning, the de- 
 bate having taken place mainly in Committee of the 
 Whole on the private calendar. 
 
 " ' The Speaker also has had little opportunity, if 
 any, to turn his attention to the principles or the facts 
 involved in this case. He cannot shrink, however, 
 from giving his vote. But it is a well-admitted par- 
 liamentary principle, laid down in the books, that 
 where the Speaker has any doubt in relation to a 
 question, his vote shall be given in such a way as not 
 finally to conclude it. It shall be given in such a way 
 that the consideration of the question may be again 
 open to the House, if the House, under any circum- 
 stances, shall choose to reconsider it. 
 
 " ' The Speaker takes the opportunity to say, that 
 lie does not concur in full with either of the principles
 
 54 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 which have been maintained on both sides of the House. 
 So far as the circumstances of the case have come to 
 his knowledge, he doubts exceedingly whether the 
 question of property in slaves is involved. And it has 
 been to him a matter of great doubt, from such part of 
 the arguments as he has heard ' 
 
 " At this point of his remarks, the Speaker was in- 
 terrupted by the Clerk, who showed him a paper con- 
 taining the state of the vote. 
 
 " The Speaker said the Clerk was mistaken in the 
 vote. The vote stands ninety-one in the affirmative, 
 eighty-nine in the negative. 
 
 " So the bill was declared to be passed, Mr. Lin- 
 coln voting against the passage. 
 
 " Mr. Burt moved a reconsideration of the vote just 
 taken, and that the motion be laid upon the table ; 
 and also moved, that before the vote be taken, there 
 should be a call of the House. 
 
 " Mr. Palfrey appealed to the gentleman from South 
 Carolina to allow him the floor a moment, but Mr. 
 Burt peremptorily declined. 
 
 " Mr. Wentworth demanded the yeas and nays upon 
 the motion for a call of the House, and being ordered 
 and taken, the result was, yeas 78, nays 105. So the 
 call was refused. 
 
 " Mr. Burt, with a view, as he said, to save the time 
 of the House, withdrew his motion for reconsideration. 
 
 " Mr. Cocke renewed the motion, and moved that it 
 be laid on the table. 
 
 " Mr. Palfrey moved a call of the House, when 
 . " Mr. Cocke withdrew his motion for reconsidera- 
 tion ; and, after some conversation upon points of or-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 55 
 
 der, the whole subject was dropped, and the bill was 
 considered passed. 
 
 " Mr. Went worth rose (he said) to a privileged ques- 
 tion, and said that a mistake had been discovered at 
 the Clerk's desk, in the vote upon the passage of the 
 bill for the relief of the legal representatives of An- 
 tonio Pacheco. He asked that the journal might be 
 corrected. 
 
 " The Speaker stated that corrections of the journal 
 would be in order on Monday morning, after the read- 
 ing of the journal. 
 
 " Mr. Wentworth asked if it would not be in order 
 now to make a correction in the vote. 
 
 " The Speaker replied that it would. 
 
 " On motion of Mr. Stephens, the House adjourned." 
 
 On the following Monday, immediately after the 
 reading of the journal, the Speaker said : 
 
 " The House will remember that the vote on the 
 passage of the bill for the relief of the heirs of An- 
 tonio Pacheco, was originally made up by the Clerk, 
 yeas 90, nays 89; and this record having been handed 
 to the Speaker, and by him announced to the House, 
 the Speaker proceeded to make some remarks upon the 
 bill, preparatory to giving the vote contemplated in 
 such cases by the rules of the House. While in the 
 act of explanation, the Speaker was interrupted by the 
 Clerk, who stated that, on a more careful count, the 
 vote was found to be yeas 91, nays 89. The interven- 
 tion of the Speaker was therefore no longer allowable, 
 and the bill was declared to have passed the House. 
 
 "The Chair takes the earliest opportunity to state 
 to the House, this morning, that, upon a re-examina-
 
 56 LITE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 tion of the yeas and nays, the Clerk has ascertained 
 that an error was still made in the announcement of 
 the vote on Saturday. The vote actually stood, yeas 
 89, nays 89. The correction will now, accordingly, be 
 made in the journal ; and a case is immediately pre- 
 sented, agreeably to the 12th rule of the House, for 
 the interposition of the Speaker's vote. 
 
 " At this stage of the proceedings, the Speaker was 
 interrupted by 
 
 " Mr. Farrelly, who rose and called for a further cor- 
 rection of the journal, stating that he voted in the 
 negative on Saturday last, and his vote appeared not 
 to have been recorded. 
 
 " The Speaker decided that it was the right of the 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania to have his vote recorded, 
 if he voted on Saturday last. 
 
 " And the correction was accordingly made. 
 
 " The vote was then finally announced yeas 89, 
 nays 90. 
 
 " The Speaker stated that he came into the House 
 this morning with the full expectation of giving his 
 vote upon this bill, and prepared to give his reasons 
 for the vote. But, as the question now stood, although 
 it might be in his power to vote agreeably to the letter 
 of the 12th rule, it was, in his opinion, not within the 
 contemplation or intention of the rule that he should 
 vote. The rule contemplated that the Speaker should 
 be allowed to vote whenever he could make a difference 
 in the result wherever his vote would either pass or 
 prevent the passage of the proposition before the 
 House. Under present circumstances, the Speaker's 
 vote could not in any way affect the decision of the
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 57 
 
 House. The bill was already lost by the vote as it 
 stood. A vote against the bill would only increase the 
 majority by which it was defeated ; while a vote in 
 favor of the bill would only make a tie, and the bill 
 would still be lost. The Speaker, therefore, did not 
 consider himself called upon to give any vote on the 
 subject." 
 
 Subsequently the case came up again, on a .motion 
 to reconsider, and the bill was passed, ayes 98, nays 
 93 Mr. Lincoln voting no. 
 
 LINCOLN'S AMENDMENT TO GOTT'S RESOLUTION. 
 
 On the 16th of January, the celebrated Gott resolu- 
 tion against the slave-trade in the District of Colum- 
 bia, was again before the House, a motion to reconsider 
 having been entertained previously, and the considera- 
 tion of the motion having been postponed to this day. 
 It will be remembered that Mr. Lincoln voted to table 
 the original resolution, not liking its terms. He now, 
 by the courtesy of his colleague, Mr. Wentworth, 
 who had the floor, offered the subjoined resolution as a 
 substitute for the Gott resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee on the District of 
 Columbia be instructed to report a bill in substance as 
 follows : 
 
 " SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and Souse of 
 Representatives of the United States in Congress as- 
 sembled, That no person not now within the District of 
 Columbia, nor now owned by any person or persons now 
 resident within it, nor hereafter born within it, shall 
 ever be held in slavery within said District. 
 
 " SEC. 2. That no person now within said District 01 
 3. 

 
 58 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 now owned by any person or persons now resident with- 
 in the same, or hereafter born within it, shall ever be 
 held in slavery without the limits of said District. 
 Provided, That officers of the government of the 
 United States, being citizens of the slaveholding States, 
 coming into said District on public business, and re- 
 maining only so long as may be reasonably necessary 
 for that object, may be attended into and out of said 
 District, and while there, by the necessary servants of 
 themselves and their families, without their right to 
 hold such servants in service being thereby impaired. 
 
 " SEC. 3. That all children born of slave mothers 
 within said District, on or after the first day of January, 
 in the year of our Lord 1850, shall be free ; but shall 
 be reasonably supported and educated by the respective 
 owners of their mothers or by their heirs and represent- 
 atives until they respectively arrive at the age of 
 
 years, when they shall be entirely free. And the muni- 
 cipal authorities of Washington and Georgetown, within 
 their respective jurisdictional limits, are hereby em- 
 powered and required to make all suitable and neces- 
 sary provisions for enforcing obedience to this section, 
 on the part of both masters and apprentices. 
 
 " SEC. 4. That all persons now within said District, 
 lawfully held as slaves, or now owned by any person or 
 persons now resident within said District, shall remain 
 such at the will of their respective owners, their heirs 
 and legal representatives. Provided, That any such 
 owner, or his legal representatives, may at any time re- 
 ceive from the treasury of the United States the full 
 value of his or her slave of the class in this section 
 mentioned ; upon which such slave shall be forthwith
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 59 
 
 and for ever free. And provided further, That the 
 President of the United States, the Secretary of State, 
 and the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be a board/ 
 for determining the value of such slaves as their own-: 
 ers may desire to emancipate under this section, and 
 whose duty it shall be to hold a session for the pur- 
 pose, on the first Monday of each calendar month ; to 
 receive all applications and on satisfactory evidence in 
 each case, that the person presented for valuation is a 
 slave, and of the class in this section mentioned, and is 
 owned by the applicant, shall value such slave at his or 
 her full cash value and give to the applicant an order 
 on the treasury for the amount and also to such slave 
 a certificate of freedom. 
 
 " SEC. 5. That the municipal authorities of Washing- 
 ton and Georgetown within their respective jurisdic- 
 tional limits, are hereby empowered and required to 
 provide active and efficient means to assert and deliver 
 up to their owners all fugitive slaves escaping into said 
 District. 
 
 " SEC. 6. That the election officers within said District 
 of Columbia are hereby empowered and required to 
 open polls at all the usual places of holding elections 
 on the first Monday of April next and receive the vote 
 of every free white male citizen above the age of tw^n- 
 ty-one years, having resided within said district for tho 
 period of one year or more next preceding the time of 
 such voting for or against this act, to proceed in taking 
 said votes in all respects herein not specified, as at elec- 
 tions under the municipal Jaws, and with as little delay 
 as possible to transmit correct statements of the votes 
 so cast to the President of the United States ; and it
 
 60 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 shall be the duty of the President to canvass said votes 
 immediately and if a majority of them be found to be 
 for this act to forthwith issue his proclamation, giving 
 notice of the fact, and this act shall only be in Ml 
 force and effect on and after the day of such procla- 
 mation. 
 
 " SEC. 7. That involuntary servitude for the punish- 
 ment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly 
 convicted, shall in nowise be prohibited by this act. 
 
 " SEC. 8. That for all the purposes of this act the 
 jurisdictional limits of Washington are extended to all 
 parts of the District of Columbia not now included 
 within the present limits of Georgetown." 
 
 This bill shows us the real position of Mr. Lincoln 
 on the slavery question, in 1849. He was opposed to 
 the institution, to its extension into the territories, and 
 was in favor of its abolition in the District of Colum- 
 bia, but with compensation to the owner. He was for 
 reform, but was a cautious, conservative reformer. 
 
 On the 31st of January, Mr. Edwards, of the Com- 
 mittee on the District of Columbia, reported a bill to 
 prohibit the introduction of slaves into the District of 
 Columbia as merchandise, or for sale or hire. After it 
 was read twice a motion was made to lay it on the 
 table, which motion was lost, Mr. Lincoln again vot- 
 ing no. 
 
 On the 21st of February, a test vote was taken in the 
 House on a bill to abolish the franking privilege. The 
 motion was made to lay the bill on the table. Mr. 
 Lincoln voted with the friends of the bill, who saved 
 it from immediate defeat. 
 
 The reader will easily discover Mr. Lincoln's position
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 61 
 
 in Congress upon the more important subjects before it 
 in this record. On the slavery question he was always 
 true to his principles, ever voting against the extension 
 of slavery, and on the Mexican war occupying the 
 ground of the Whigs of that day ; refusing to justify 
 the war itself, but voting the supplies for it, that the 
 war debt might be liquidated. 
 
 He steadily and earnestly opposed the annexation of 
 Texas, and labored with all his powers in behalf of the 
 Wilmot Proviso. 
 
 TEN YEARS AT HOME. 
 
 In the National Convention of 1848, of which he was 
 a member, he advocated the nomination of General 
 Taylor, and sustained the nomination by an active can- 
 vass in Illinois and Indiana. 
 
 From 1849 to 1854 Mr. Lincoln was engaged assidu- 
 ously in the practice of his profession, and being deeply 
 immersed in business, was beginning to lose his interest 
 in politics, when the scheming ambition and grovelling 
 selfishness of an unscrupulous aspirant to the Presi- 
 dency brought about the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
 promise. That act of baseness and perfidy aroused 
 him, and he prepared for new efforts. He threw him- 
 self at once into the contest that followed, and fought 
 the battle of freedom on the ground of his former con- 
 flicts in Illinois with more than his accustomed energy 
 and zeal. Those who recollect the tremendous battle 
 fought in Illinois that year, will award to Abraham 
 Lincoln fully three fourths of the ability and unweary- 
 ing labor which resulted in the mighty victory which 
 gave Illinois her first Republican Legislature, and
 
 62 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 placed Lyman Trumbull in the Senate of the United 
 States. 
 
 The Chicago Tribune, the editor of which is a per- 
 sonal friend of Mr. Lincoln, and from whom we gather 
 many of the facts of the early life of the subject of this 
 volume, gives the 'following graphic sketches of the 
 Illinois Campaign of 1854 : 
 
 " The first and greatest debate of that year came off 
 between Lincoln and Douglas at Springfield, during the 
 progress of the State Fair, in October. We remember 
 the event as vividly as though it transpired yesterday, 
 and in view of the prominence now given to the chief 
 actor in that exciting event, it cannot fail to be in- 
 teresting to all. 
 
 " The affair came off on the fourth day of October, 
 1854. The State Fair had been in progress two days, 
 and the capital was full of all manner of men. The 
 Nebraska bill had been passed on the previous twenty- 
 second of May. Mr. Douglas had returned to Illinois 
 to meet an outraged constituency. He had made a 
 fragmentary speech in Chicago, the people filling up 
 each hiatus in a peculiar and good-humored way. He 
 called the people a mob they called him a rowdy. 
 The ' mob ' had the best of it, both then and at the 
 election which succeeded. The notoriety of all these 
 events had stirred up the politics of the State from 
 bottom to top. Hundreds of politicians had met at 
 Springfield, expecting a tournament of an unusual 
 character Douglas, Breese, Koerner, Lincoln, Trum- 
 bull, Matteson, Yates, Codding, John Calhoun (of the 
 order of the candle-box), John M. Palmer, the whole 
 house of the McConnells, Singleton (known to fame
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 63 
 
 in the Mormon war), Thomas L. Harris, and a host of 
 others. Several speeches were made before, and several 
 after, the passage between Lincoln and Douglas, but 
 that was justly held to be the event of the season. 
 
 " We do not remember whether a challenge to de- 
 bate passed between the friends of the speakers or not, 
 but there was a perfectly amicable understanding be- 
 tween Lincoln and Douglas, that the former should 
 speak two or three hours, and the latter reply in just 
 as little or as much time as he chose. Mr. Lincoln 
 took the stand at two o'clock a large crowd in atten- 
 dance, and Mr. Douglas seated on a small platform in 
 front of the desk. The first half-hour of Mr. Lincoln's 
 speech was taken up with compliments to his distin- 
 guished friend Judge Douglas, and dry allusions to the 
 political events of the past few years. His distin- 
 guished friend, Judge Douglas, had taken his seat, as 
 solemn as the Cock-Lane ghost, evidently with the de- 
 sign of not moving a muscle till it came his turn to 
 speak. The laughter provoked by Lincoln's exordium, 
 however, soon began to make him uneasy ; and when 
 Mr. L. arrived at his (Douglas') speech, pronouncing 
 the Missouri Compromise ' a sacred thing, which no 
 ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb,' 
 he opened his lips far enough to remark, ' A first-rate 
 speech!' This was the beginning of an amusing col- 
 loquy. 
 
 " ' Yes,' continued Mr. Lincoln, ' so affectionate was 
 my friend's regard for this compromise line, that when 
 Texas was admitted into the Union, and it was found 
 that a strip extended north of 36 30' he actually in-
 
 64 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 troduced a bill extending the line and prohibiting sla- 
 very in the northern edge of the new State/ 
 
 " l And you voted against the bill/ said Douglas. 
 
 " ' Precisely so/ replied Lincoln; ' I was in favor of 
 running the line a great deal farther South' 
 
 " ' About this time/ the speaker continued, ' my 
 distinguished friend introduced me to a particular 
 friend of his, one David Wilmot of Pennsylvania/ 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 " ' I thought/ said Douglas, ' you would find him 
 congenial company.' 
 
 " ' So I did/ replied Lincoln. ' I had the pleasure of 
 voting for his Proviso, in one way and another about 
 forty times. It was a Democratic measure then, I be- 
 lieve. At any rate, General Cass scolded Honest 
 John Davis, of Massachusetts, soundly, for taking 
 away the last hours of the session so that he (Cass) 
 couldn't crowd it through. Apropos of General Cass : 
 if I am not greatly mistaken, he has a prior claim to 
 my distinguished friend, to the authorship of Popular 
 Sovereignty. The old general has an infirmity for 
 writing letters. Shortly after the scolding he gave 
 John Davis, he wrote his Nicholson letter ' 
 
 " Douglas (solemnly) ' God Almighty placed man 
 on the earth, and told him to choose between good and 
 evil. That was the origin of the Nebraska bill !' 
 
 " Lincoln ' Well, the priority of invention being 
 settled, let us award all credit to Judge Douglas for 
 being the first to discover it.' 
 
 " It would be impossible, in these limits, to give an 
 idea of the strength of Mr. Lincoln's argument. We 
 deemed it by far the ablest effort of the campaign from
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 65 
 
 whatever source. The occasion was a great one, and 
 the speaker was every way equal to it. The effect pro- 
 duced on the listeners was magnetic. No one who was 
 present will ever forget the power and vehemence of 
 the following passage : 
 
 " ' My distinguished friend says it is an insult to the 
 emigrants to Kansas and Nebraska to suppose they 
 are not able to govern themselves. We must not slur 
 over an argument of this kind because it happens to 
 tickle the ear. It must be met and answered. I ad- 
 mit that the emigrant to Kansas and Nebraska is com- 
 petent to govern himself, but/ the speaker rising to his 
 full height, ' I deny his right to govern any other person 
 WITHOUT THAT PERSON'S CONSENT.' The applause 
 jrhioh* followed this triumphant refutation of a cunning 
 falsehood, was but an earnest of the victory at the 
 polls w r hich followed just one month from that day. 
 
 " When Mr. Lincoln had concluded, Mr. Douglas 
 strode hastily to the stand. As usual, he employed 
 ten minutes in telling how grossly he had been abused. 
 Recollecting himself, he added, ' though in a perfectly 
 courteous manner ' abused in a perfectly courteous 
 manner! He then devoted half an hour" to showing 
 that it was indispensably necessary to California emi- 
 grants, Sante Fe traders and others, to have organic 
 acts provided for the territories of Kansas and Ne- 
 braska that being precisely the point which nobody 
 disputed. Having established this premiss to his satis- 
 faction, Mr. Douglas launched forth into an argument 
 wholly apart from the positions taken by Mr. Lincoln. 
 He- had about half finished at six o'clock, when an ad- 
 journment to tea was effected. The speaker i
 
 66 LIFE 'AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 strenuously upon his right to resume in the evening, 
 but we believe the second part of that speech has not 
 been delivered to this day. After the Springfield pas- 
 sage, the two speakers went to Peoria, and tried it 
 again, with identically the same results. A friend, 
 who listened to the Peoria debate, informed us that 
 after Lincoln had finished, Douglas ' hadn't much to 
 say ' which we presume to have been Mr. Douglas' 
 view of the case also, for the reason that he ran away 
 from his antagonist and kept out of the way during 
 the remainder of the campaign. 
 
 " During this exciting campaign Mr. Lincoln pressed 
 the slavery issue upon the people of Central and South- 
 ern Illinois, who were largely made up of the emigra- 
 tion from Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and North 
 Carolina, with all the powers of his mind. He felt the 
 force of the moral causes that must influence the ques- 
 tion, and he never failed to appeal to the moral senti- 
 ment of the people in aid of the argument drawn from 
 political sources, and to illuminate his theme with the 
 lofty inspirations of an eloquence, pleading for the 
 lights of humanity. A revolution swept the State. 
 For the first time a majority of the Legislature of Illi- 
 nois was opposed to the Democratic administration of 
 the federal government. A United States Senator 
 was to be elected in place of General Shields who had 
 yielded to the influence of his less scrupulous colleague, 
 and, against his own better judgment, had voted for the 
 ^Kansas-Nebraska act. The election came on, and a 
 number of ballots were taken, the almost united oppo- 
 sition voting steadily for Lincoln, but the anti-Nebras- 
 ka Democrats for Trumbull. Mr. Lincoln became ap-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 67 
 
 prehensive that those men who had been elected as 
 Democrats, though opposed to Judge Douglas, would 
 f turn upon some third candidate, of less decided convic- 
 tions than Judge Trumlmll, and possibly elect a Sena- 
 tor who had little or nothing in common with the thji 
 inchoate Republican party. To prevent such a con- 
 summation, he went personally to his friends, and by 
 strong persuasion, induced them to vote for Trumbull. 
 
 " He thus secured, by an act of generous self-sacri- 
 fice, a triumph for the cause of right, and an advocate 
 of it on the floor of the Senate, not inferior, in earnest 
 zeal for the principles of Republicanism, to any mem- 
 ber of that body. 
 
 " Some of his friends on the floor of the Legislature 
 wept like children when constrained by Mr. Lincoln's 
 personal appeals to desert him and unite on Trumbull. 
 It is proper to say in this connection, that between 
 Trumbull and Lincoln the most cordial relations have 
 always existed, and that the feeling of envy or rivalry 
 is not to be found in the breast of either." 
 
 At the Peoria debate alluded to above, the arrange- 
 ment was that Douglas should speak as long as he 
 pleased, then that Lincoln should do the same, and that 
 Douglas should have an hour to close. Douglas com- 
 menced at 2 o'clock and spoke till six, wearing away 
 the time in a tedious speech, hoping that the farmers, 
 who had come in from the country, would not stay to 
 hear Mr. Lincoln's reply. As soon as Douglas had 
 concluded his speech, the vast crowd who had patiently 
 listened to him divided, the Democrats at once leaving 
 in great numbers for the country, while the Whigs and 
 Free-Soilers remained and loudly called for Lincoln.
 
 68 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Mr. L., nothing vexed by the consumption by Douglas 
 of the whole afternoon, when no one expected that he 
 would occupy more than an hour and a half or two 
 hours, proposed that the crowd adjourn for tea, which 
 they very reluctantly did. After half an hour the crowd 
 again assembled, and Mr. Lincoln took the stand, and 
 for three hours continued to entrance his hearers by ir- 
 resistible logic and strains of eloquence never before ex- 
 celled in any of his public efforts. The whole territo- 
 rial history of the country was reviewed, and the Kan- 
 sas-Nebraska bill, then recently passed, was dissected 
 in a manner such as has never been surpassed in the 
 halls of Congress. Never since, in all the discus- 
 sions, innumerable and interminable, of that subject in 
 the intervening six years, have the inconsistencies of 
 Judge Douglas been shown up as they were then, but 
 all in the utmost good nature. Since then Douglas has 
 invented new subterfuges, but before that audience, all 
 his political tricks and dodges in connection with that 
 bill were thoroughly exposed. 
 
 About half-past nine, Douglas rose to take his hour. 
 It was evident he had no heart for the undertaking. 
 He beat a most handsome retreat. He complained of 
 his voice, which he said Avould not permit of his oc- 
 cupying his hour ; he complimented the city of Peoria 
 the intelligence of its citizens, and the natural beauty 
 of its location, which, of course, brought down cheers 
 for him ; he complimented Lincoln 4 he spoke of the 
 fact that in the cemetery adjacent to the city rested 
 the remains of the lamented Governor Ford in short, 
 he devoted a quarter of an hour to putting the au- 
 dience in good humor with him, and then, without at-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 69 
 
 tempting a reply to his antagonist's crushing argu- 
 ments, bid his audience good night. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln expected to meet Mr. Douglas next at 
 Lacon, or Henry, north of Peoria, on the Illinois 
 river ; but the " Little Giant" had had enough of 
 " Old Abe" that year, and did not give the latter an- 
 other opportunity of meeting him during the season. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln was offered the nomination for Gover- 
 nor by the Anti-Nebraska (the future Republican) 
 party in 1854 ; but he told his friends, " No I am 
 not the man ; Bissell will make a better Governor 
 than I, and you can elect him on account of his Demo- 
 cratic antecedents." So, giving to Bissell the flag it 
 was universally desired that he should bear, he himself 
 took the sword, and hewed a way for the triumph of 
 that year.
 
 70 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 
 PART THIRD. 
 
 THE CHEAT SENATORIAL CONTEST. 
 
 IN the summer of 1858, the great Senatorial contest 
 of Illinois took place between Mr. Douglas on the one 
 hand, and Mr. Lincoln on the other. The rebellion of 
 Mr. Douglas in the U. S. Senate against the adminis- 
 tration his refusal to assist in the perpetration of the 
 Lecompton fraud, insured him the enmity of the ad- 
 ministration ; but in spite of this, his position gave 
 him immense strength both in and outside of Illinois. 
 Prominent Republicans in other States were disposed 
 to see him returned to the Senate as a rebuke to the 
 administration, vainly hoping that Mr. D. would aban 
 don the Democratic party. Mr. Crittenden wrote ** 
 letter advising the Americans or old Whigs of Illinois 
 to vote for Douglas, and in consequence of this outside 
 pressure there can be no doubt that Mr. Douglas was 
 stronger by ten thousand votes as a rebel, than he 
 would have been as an administration favorite. 
 
 All who know anything at all of Mr. Douglas are 
 aware that as a political debater, either on the stump 
 or on the Senate floor, he has no superior, if he has an 
 equal, in the country. It was, then, no light matter 
 to contest the State of Illinois with such a man as Mr. 
 Douglas, and especially under the circumstances, when 
 the masses of the people sympathized with Mr. D. in 
 his quarrel with the administration.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 71 
 
 A Republican State Convention met at Springfield, 
 Illinois, June 2, 1858, and put Mr. Lincoln in nomina- 
 tion as the Republican candidate for United States 
 Senator. The Convention also adopted the subjoined 
 platform : 
 
 THE ILLINOIS PLATFORM. 
 
 " We, the Republicans of Illinois, in Convention 
 assembled, in addition to our previous affirmations, 
 make the following declaration of our principles : 
 
 " 1. We reaffirm our devotion to the Constitution of 
 the country, and to the union of the States, and will 
 steadily resist all attempts for the perversion of the one 
 and the disruption of the other. We recognize the 
 cipial rights of all the States, and avow our readiness 
 arid willingness to maintain them ; and disclaim all 
 intention of attempting, either directly or indirectly, 
 to assail or abridge the rights of any of the members of 
 the confederacy guaranteed by the Constitution, or in 
 any manner to interfere with the institution of slavery 
 in the States where it exists. Nevertheless, we hold 
 that the government was instituted for freemen, and 
 that it can be perpetuated, and made to fulfil the pur- 
 poses of its organization only by devoting itself to the 
 promotion of virtue and intelligence among its citizens, 
 and the advancement of their prosperity and happiness ; 
 and to these ends, we hold it to be the duty of the gov- 
 ernment so to reform the system of disposing of the 
 public lands as to secure the soil to actual settlers, and 
 wrest it from the grasp of men. who speculate in the 
 homes of the people, and from corporations that lock ' 
 it up in dead hands for enhanced profits. 
 
 " 2. Free labor being the only true support of repub- 
 lican institutions, our government should maintain its 
 rights ; and we therefore demand the improvement of 
 our harbors and rivers which freight the commerce of 
 the West to a market, and the construction of a central
 
 72 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Highway, to connect our trade with the Pacific States, 
 as rightful encouragement to home industry ; and, in- 
 asmuch as we now compete in the inaikets of the whole 
 country against the products of unpaid labor, at depre- 
 ciating prices, it is therefore eminently unjust that the 
 National Administration should attempt, Ly coercion, 
 to extend a servile system in the territories, or, Ly pa- 
 tronage, to perpetuate slavery in the States. 
 
 " 3. The present administration has proved recreant 
 to the trusts committed to its hands, and by its extra- 
 ordinary, corrupt, unjust, and undignified, exertions, 
 to give effect to the original intention and purpose of 
 the Kansas-Nebraska bill, by forcing upon the people 
 of Kansas, against their will, and in defiance of their 
 known and earnestly-expressed wishes, a constitution 
 recognizing slavery as one of theif "domestic institutions, 
 it has forfeited all claim to the support of the friends 
 of free men, free labor, and equal rights. 
 
 " 4. It 'is the duty of the government faithfully and 
 diligently to execute all our treaty stipulations, and to 
 enforce all our laws for the suppression of the siave- 
 trade. 
 
 " 5. While we deprecate all interference on the 
 part of political organizations with the action of the 
 Judiciary, if such action is limited to its appropriate 
 sphere, yet we cannot refrain from expressing our con- 
 demnation of the principles and tendencies of the extra 
 judicial opinions of a majority of the Judges of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, in the matter of 
 Dred Scott, wherein the political heresy is put forth, 
 that the Federal Constitution extends slavery into all 
 the territories of the Republic, and so maintains it thai 
 neither Congress nor people, through their territorial 
 legislature, can by law abolish it. We hold that Con- 
 gress possesses sovereign power over the territories 
 while they remain in a territorial condition ; and that 
 it is the duty of the general government to protect the 
 territories from the curse of slavery, and to preserve '
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 73 
 
 the public domain for the occupation of free men and 
 free labor. And we declare that no power on earth can 
 carry and maintain slavery in the States against the 
 will of the people and the provisions of their constitu- 
 tions and laws ; and we fully endorse the recent decis- 
 ion of the Supreme Court of our own State, which 
 declares, " that property in persons is repugnant to the 
 constitution and laws of Illinois, and that all persons 
 within its jurisdiction are supposed to be free ; and 
 that slavery, where it exists, is a municipal regulation, 
 without any extra-territorial operation. 
 
 " 6. The policy of this government should be, to live 
 on terms of peace and amity with all the nations of the 
 earth, so far as it can be done consistently with our 
 national honor and interest, and to enter into entang- 
 ling alliances with none. Our intercourse with other 
 nations should be conducted upon principles of exact 
 and exalted justice ; and while firmly maintaining our 
 own rights, we should carefully avoid any invasion of 
 the rights of others, and especially those of weaker na- 
 tions. Our commerce ought to be protected from wan- 
 ton interruption, and our commercial marine from 
 invasion and search ; and while we would deplore the 
 necessity of war with any of the nations of the earth, 
 we will still firmly, zealously, and patriotically, sustain 
 the government in any just measures which it may so 
 adopt, to obtain redress for indignities which may here- 
 tofore have been inflicted upon our citizens navigating 
 the seas, or which may be necessary to secure them 
 against a repetition of like injuries in the future. 
 
 " 7. We view, with regret and alarm, the rapidly- 
 increasing expenditures of the general government, 
 which now, in a state of profound peace, threaten the 
 country with national bankruptcy ; and we pledge our- 
 selves, so far as we speak for the Republicans of Illinois, 
 to a thorough and radical reform in the administration 
 of the government finances, in the event that the Repub- 
 licans are intrusted with the care of national affairs."
 
 74 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Mr. Lincoln delivered an able speech to the Conven- 
 tion, which might be said to open the campaign. 
 
 On the 24th of July, Mr. Lincoln initiated the cor- 
 respondence which follows, by sending the letter which 
 is the first of the series : 
 
 DOUGLAS AND LINCOLN CORRESPONDENCE. 
 Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas. 
 
 CHICAGO, ILL., July 24, 1858. 
 Hon. S. A. DOUGLAS : 
 
 My Dear Sir Will it be agreeable to you to make 
 an arrangement for you and myself to divide time, and 
 address the same audiences the present canvass ? Mr. 
 Judd, who will hand you this, is authorized to receive 
 your answer ; and, if agreeable to you, to enter into 
 the terms of such arrangement. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 A. LINCOLN. 
 
 Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. 
 
 CHICAGO, July 24, 1858. 
 Hon. A. LINCOLN : 
 
 Dear Sir Your note of this date, in which you in- 
 quire if it would be agreeable to me to make an 
 arrangement to divide the time and address the same 
 audiences during the present canvass, was handed me 
 by Mr. Judd. Recent events have interposed difficul- 
 ties in the way of such an arrangement . 
 
 I went to Springfield last week for the purpose of 
 conferring with the Democratic State Central Com- 
 mittee upon the mode of conducting the canvass, and 
 with them, and under their advice, made a list of ap- 
 pointments covering the entire period until late in Oc- 
 tober. The people of the several localities have been 
 notified of the times and places of the meetings. These
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 75 
 
 appointments have all been made for Democratic meet- 
 ings, and arrangements have been made by which the 
 Democratic candidates for Congress, for the Legisla- 
 ture, and other offices, will be present and address the 
 people. It is evident, therefore, that these various 
 candidates, in connection with myself, will occupy the 
 whole time of the day and evening, and leave no oppor- 
 tunity for other speeches. 
 
 Besides, there is another consideration which should 
 be kept in mind. It has been suggested, recently, that 
 an arrangement had been made to bring out a third 
 candidate for the United States Senate, who, with 
 yourself, should canvass the State in opposition to me, 
 with no other purpose than to insure my defeat, by di- 
 viding the Democratic party for your benefit. If I 
 should make this arrangement with you, it is more 
 than probable that this other candidate, who has a 
 common object with you, would desire to become a 
 party to it, and claim the right to speak from the same 
 stand ; so that he and you, in concert, might be able 
 to take the opening and closing speech in every case. 
 
 I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise, if it 
 was your original intention to invite such an arrange- 
 ment, that you should have waited until after I had 
 made my appointments, inasmuch as we were both here 
 in Chicago together for several days after my arrival, 
 and again at Bloomington, Atlanta, Lincoln, and 
 Springfield, where it was well known I went for the 
 purpose of consulting with the State Central Com- 
 mittee, and agreeing upon the plan of the campaign. 
 
 While, under these circumstances, I do not feel at 
 liberty to make any arrangements which would deprive 
 the Democratic candidates for Congress, State officers, 
 and the Legislature, from participating in the discus- 
 sion at the various meetings designated by the Demo- 
 cratic State Central Committee, I will, in order to ac- 
 commodate you, as far as it is in my power to do so, 
 take the responsibility of making an arrangement with
 
 76 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 you for a discussion between us at one prominent point 
 in each Congressional District in the State, except the 
 second and sixth districts, where we have both spoken, 
 and in each of which cases you had the concluding 
 speech. If agreeable to you, I will indicate the fol- 
 lowing places as those most suitable in the several Con- 
 gressional Districts, at which we should speak, to wit : 
 Freeport, Ottawa, Galesburgh, Quincy, Alton, Jones- 
 boro', and Charleston. I will confer with you at the 
 earliest convenient opportunity in regard to the mode 
 of conducting the debate, the times of meeting at the 
 several places, subject to the condition, that where ap- 
 pointments have already been made by the Democratic 
 State Central Committee at any of those places, I must 
 insist upon your meeting me at the time specified. 
 Very respectfully. 
 
 Your most obedient servant, 
 S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas. 
 
 SPKINGFIELD, July 29, 1858. 
 Hon. S. A. DOUGLAS : 
 
 Dear Sir Yours of the 24th, in relation to an 
 arrangement to divide time, and address the same au- 
 diences, is received ; and, in apology for not sooner re- 
 plying, allow me to say, that when I sat by you at 
 dinner yesterday, I was not aware that you had an- 
 swered my note, nor, certainly, that my own note had 
 been presented to you. An hour after, I saw a copy of 
 your answer in the Chicago Times, and, reaching home, 
 I found the original awaiting me. Protesting that 
 your insinuations of attempted unfairness on my part 
 are unjust, and with the hope that you did not very 
 considerately make them, I proceed to reply. To your 
 statement that " It has been suggested, recently, that an 
 arrangement had been made to bring out a third candi- 
 date for the U. S. Senate, who, with yourself, should
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 77 
 
 canvass the State in opposition to me," etc., I can only 
 say, that slich suggestion must have been made by 
 yourself, for certainly none such has been made by or 
 to me, or otherwise, to my knowledge. Surely you did 
 not deliberately conclude, as you insinuate, that I was 
 expecting to draw you into an arrangement of terms, 
 to be agreed on by yourself, by which a third candidate 
 and myself, " in concert, might be able to take the open- 
 ing and closing speech in. every case." 
 
 As to your surprise that I did not sooner make the 
 proposal to divide time with you, I can only say, I made 
 it as soon as I resolved to make it. I did not know but 
 that such proposal would come from you ; I waited, 
 respectfully, to see. It may have been well known to 
 you that you went to Springfield for the purpose of 
 agreeing on the plan of campaign ; but it was not so 
 known to me. When your appointments were an- 
 nounced in the papers, extending only to the 21st of 
 August, I, for the first time, considered it certain that 
 you would make no proposal to me, and then resolved 
 that, if my friends concurred, I would make one to 
 you. As soon thereafter as I could see and consult 
 with friends satisfactorily, I did make the proposal. It 
 did not occur to me that the proposed arrangement 
 could derange your plans after the latest of your ap- 
 pointments already made. After that, there was, before 
 the election, largely over two months of clear time. 
 
 For you to say that we have already spoken at Chi- 
 cago and Springfield, and that on both occasions I had 
 the concluding speech, is hardly a fair statement. The 
 truth rather is this : At Chicago, July 9th, you made 
 a carefully-prepared conclusion on my speech of June 
 16th. Twenty-four hours after, I made a hasty conclu- 
 sion on yours of the 9th. You had six days to pre- 
 pare, and concluded on me again at Bloomington on 
 the 16th. Twenty-four hours after I concluded again 
 on you at Springfield. In the meantime, you had 
 made another conclusion on me at Springfield, which I
 
 78 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 did not hear, and of the contents of which I knew 
 nothing when I spoke ; so that your speech made in 
 daylight, and mine at night, on the 17th, at Spring- 
 field, were both made in perfect independence of each 
 other. The dates of making all these speeches will 
 show, I think, that in the matter of time for prepara- 
 tion, the advantage has been all on your side ; and that 
 none of the external circumstances has stood to my 
 advantage. 
 
 I agree to an arrangement for us to speak at the 
 seven places you have named, and at your own times, 
 provided you name the times at once, so that I, as well 
 as you, can have to myself the time not covered by the 
 arrangement. As to the other details, I wish perfect 
 reciprocity, and no more. I wish as much time as 
 you, and that conclusions shall alternate. That is all. 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 A. LINCOLN. 
 
 P. S. As matters now stand, I shall be at no more 
 of your exclusive meetings ; and for about a week from 
 to-day a letter from you will reach me at Springfield. 
 
 A. L. 
 
 Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. 
 
 BEMENT, PIATT Co., ILL., July 30, 1858. 
 
 Dear Sir Your letter, dated yesterday, accepting 
 my proposition for a joint discussion at one prominent 
 point in each Congressional District, as stated in my 
 previous letter, was received this morning. 
 
 The times and places designated are as follows : 
 
 Ottawa, La Salle county August 21st. 1858. 
 
 Fret-port, Stephenson county " 27r.h, l< 
 
 Jotiesboro, Union connty September 15th, " 
 
 Charleston, Col<-s county ' 18th, " 
 
 Galesburgh, Knox county October 7th, " 
 
 Qnincy, Adams county " 13th, " 
 
 Alton, Madison county " 15th, "
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 79 
 
 I agree to your suggestion that we shall alternately 
 open and close the discussion. I will speak at Ottawa 
 one hour, you can reply, occnpying an hour and a half, 
 and I will then follow for half an hour. At Freeport, 
 you shall open the discussion and speak one hour, I 
 will follow for an hour and a half, and you can then 
 reply for half an hour. We will alternate in like man- 
 ner at each successive place. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant. 
 
 S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 Hon. A. LINCOLN, Springfield, 111. 
 
 [Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas.] 
 
 SPRINGFIELD, July 31, 1858. 
 
 Hon. S. A. DOUGLAS : Dear Sir Yours of yester- 
 day, naming places, times, and terms, for joint discus- 
 sions between us, was received this morning. Although, 
 by the terms, as you propose, you take four openings 
 and closes, to my three, I accede, and thus close the 
 arrangement. I direct this to you at Hillsboro, and 
 shall try to have both your letter and this appear in 
 the Journal and Register of Monday morning. 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 A. LINCOLN. 
 
 Of the joint debates which followed this correspond- 
 ence the press of the entire country has spoken, and it 
 is the highest praise of Mr. Lincoln to say, as the press 
 everywhere said, that he held his ground in every en- 
 counter with Mr. Douglas, as a debater and as an 
 orator. He had truth on his side to be sure, which is 
 always a great advantage, but neither in- repartee nor in 
 argument did Mr. Douglas for once confuse or confute 
 his opponent. An Illinois correspondent of a Boston 
 journal, said to be the President of an Illinois College,
 
 80 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 wrote, after witnessing the joint debate at Galesburgh, 
 as follows : 
 
 " The men are entirely dissimilar. Mr. Douglas is a 
 thick-set, finely-built, courageous man, and has an air 
 of self-confidence that does not a little to inspire his 
 supporters with hope. Mr. Lincoln is a tall, lank man, 
 awkward, apparently diffident, and when not speaking 
 has neither firmness in his countenance nor fire in his 
 eye. * * * * 
 
 " Mr. Lincoln has a rich, silvery voice, enunciates 
 with great distinctness, and has a fine command of 
 language. He commenced by a review of the points 
 Mr. Douglas had made. In this he showed great tact, 
 and his retorts, though gentlemanly, were sharp, and 
 reached to the core the subject in dispute. While he 
 gave but little time to the work of review, we did not 
 feel that anything was omitted which deserved atten- 
 tion. 
 
 " He then proceeded to defend the Eepublican party. 
 Here he charged Mr. Douglas with doing nothing for 
 freedom ; with disregarding the rights and interests of 
 the colored man ; and for about forty minutes he spoke 
 with a power that we have seldom heard equalled. 
 There was a grandeur in his thoughts, a comprehen- 
 siveness in his arguments, and a binding force in his 
 conclusions, which were perfectly irresistible. The 
 vast throng were silent as death ; every eye was fixed 
 upon the speaker, and all gave him serious attention. 
 He was the tall man eloquent ; his countenance glowed 
 with animation, and his eye glistened with an intelli- 
 gence that made it lustrous. He was no longer 
 awkward and ungainly ; but graceful, bold, command- 
 ing. 
 
 " Mr. Douglas had been -quietly smoking up to this 
 time ; but here he forgot Jiis cigar and listened with 
 anxious attention. When he rose to reply he appeared 
 excited, disturbed, and his second effort seemed to us 
 vastly inferior to his first. Mr. Lincoln had given him
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 81 
 
 a great task, and Mr. Douglas had not time to answer 
 him, even if he had the ability." 
 
 THE DEBATES. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln, on the evening before the Freeport 
 debate, upon informing a few of his friends of the 
 queries he was going to put to Mr. Douglas (including 
 that, in reference to the power of the territorial legisla- 
 ture, notwithstanding the Dred Scott decision, to ex- 
 clude slavery), was told by his friends that if he cornered 
 Douglas on that question, the latter would surely 
 " take the bull by the horns," and, making a virtue of 
 necessity, assert his Squatter Sovereignty in defiance 
 of the Dred Scott decision ; " and that," remarked Mr. 
 L.'s friends, " will make him Senator." " That may 
 be," said Lincoln, and his large gray eye twinkled ; 
 " but if he takes that shoot, HE never can be President." 
 All that has transpired since has but justified Mr. L/s 
 prediction. The Kepublicans, after the Supreme Court 
 had made their decision, and Douglas had unreservedly 
 endorsed it, saw the advantage they had over the 
 Democrats in the canvass, for they could quote Dred 
 Scott as a knock-down argument against Popular 
 Sovereignty. Mr. Douglas, too, saw thia, and said 
 very little in his first speeches about popular sover- 
 eignty, but assumed the offensive, and attacked the 
 Republican party, charging it with negro equality, &c. 
 If he could have got through with that canvass with- 
 out expressing his opinion as to the power of a territo- 
 rial legislature over the subject of slavery which 
 opinion he had sedulously avoided expressing during 
 all the Lecompton controversy in the Senate he un- 
 4*
 
 82 L II E AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 doubtedly could now have been able to reconcile all 
 other differences of opinion between himself and the 
 Southern Democracy. But Mr. Lincoln's logical mind 
 was more eager to probe this gigantic sophistry, with 
 which the American public were being cheated, than to 
 be Senator. So, while Douglas was making ad captan- 
 dum appeals to the prejudices of the people, Lincoln 
 was weaving around him, slowly but surely, the web in 
 which, at Freeport, he became entangled, and from 
 which he has ever since been vainly endeavoring to ex- 
 tricate himself. 
 
 Of this great contest the Philadelphia North Amer- 
 ican, always conservative and cautious, remarks : 
 
 " Stephen A. Douglas had ten times his education. 
 Mr. Lincoln was mostly engaged in his profession, mas- 
 tered amidst great discouragements, but practised with 
 ominent success. He had some experience, however, 
 as a general politician, besides serving for a while in 
 the Illinois Legislature, and for two years in Congress. 
 Mr. Douglas, on the other hand, a man of great native 
 force, and possessing ten times the scholastic training 
 of his rival, had been for full fifteen years in the very 
 heart of national politics. Indeed, he is the strongest 
 among the representatives of democracy under its 
 northern phase, and we doubt if Toombs, Stephens, 
 Benjamin, or Davis, bright luminaries of its southern 
 hemisphere, can rank at all before him. 
 
 " With all these differences in political and other 
 education, in a State that has been democratic ever 
 since its admission into the ' happy family/ and in op- 
 position to a popular dogma, Lincoln stumped Illinois 
 against Douglas, and carried it. The speeches on both 
 sides were many and able. 
 
 " Lincoln was, on several occasions, partly foiled or, 
 at least, badly bothered. In most cases it seemed to
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 83 
 
 be, so far as regarded strength and skill, a drawn bat- 
 tle. In more than one instance he floored the ' little 
 giant ' flatly and fairly. We consider it, on the whole, 
 an equal fight. Lincoln showed as much knowledge, 
 and as much logic, with more wit, good humor, and 
 courtesy. Douglas, while more rough and overbearing, 
 was also much superior in a certain force, directness 
 and determination. But it was about an equal match 
 in ability. As for the result, Douglas carried the legis- 
 lature, and Lincoln took the popular vote, as he can 
 do again. Such is the man whom democracy will now 
 endeavor to decry the man who matched, and fully 
 matched, their foremost champion. Both of them are 
 self-made men ; both of them are very able ; loth. 
 sprang from obscurity to distinction ; both belong to 
 the common people ; and both will be found to be 
 strong with the masses. We would advise democracy, 
 not for its own sake, but for ours, to go on ridiculing 
 Abraham Lincoln for having once mauled logs, and de- 
 scribing him as a third-rate man. These little pop- 
 guns will soon be silenced by the roar of the popular 
 Paixhans." 
 
 Mr. Greeley says wm 
 
 " I tell you, the man who stumps a State with Ste- 
 phen A. Douglas, and meets, him, day after day, before 
 the people, has got to be no fool. Many a man will 
 make a better first speech than Douglas, but, giving 
 and taking, back and forward, he is very sharp. Now, 
 the man who went through the State, speaking against 
 Stephen A. Douglas, and was not beaten, as no man 
 says he was, is not a common man ; for no common 
 man will answer for that work ; and at the end of that 
 cumpaign Mr. Lincoln came out with 4,000 majority 
 on the popular vote, although Mr. Buchanan had beaten 
 Fremont 9,000, and the general feeling outside of the 
 State was that Douglas had better be elected. Mr. 
 Crittenden wrote a letter which elected Douglas ; he
 
 84 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 said that it was better that Douglas should be elected, 
 and there were 30,000 Americans there ; I don't be- 
 lieve we have got another man living who would have 
 fought through that campaign so effectively and at the 
 same time so good-naturedly as he did. Mr. Trumbull 
 would have begun a little ranker, but one or the other 
 would soon have been knocked off the platform. Mr. 
 Lincoln went through with perfect good nature and en- 
 tire suavity, and beat Stephen A. Douglas, it being 
 the first time any man on our side ever carried that 
 State." 
 
 In a recent debate in the Senate of the United 
 States, Senator Benjamin, one of the ablest men in the 
 Senate and the finest orator, took up the debates be- 
 tween Mr. Douglas and Mr. Lincoln for examination, 
 and though the vehement enemy of Republicans and 
 Republicanism, he complimented Mr. Lincoln very 
 highly. Said Mr. Benjamin : 
 
 " Here, Mr. President, let me come back to an ex- 
 planation of that fact which I spoke of before, and to 
 which I asked the attention of the Senate and the 
 country. There stands the explanation of the sudden 
 change that has been wrought in the relations of the 
 Senator from Illinois with the rest of the Democratic 
 party. It was when, in the year 1858, the year follow- 
 ing this decision, pressed by a canvass at home, eager 
 to return to the Senate, he joined in canvassing the 
 Stats of Illinois with the gentleman who is now the 
 candidate of the Black Republican party for the Pres- 
 idency. Pressed in different portions of the State 
 with this very argument, that he had agreed to leave 
 the question to- the .court, that the court had decided it 
 in favor of the South, and that, therefore, under the 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, slavery was fixed in all the ter- 
 ritories of the United States finding himself going 
 down in Illinois, in that canvass, he backed out from
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 85 
 
 his promise, and directly told the people of his State 
 that, whether it had been decided or not, and no mat- 
 ter what the court might decide, the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill had fixed the power in the people of the North to 
 make every territory in the Union free. 
 
 "In that contest the two candidates for the Senate 
 of the United States, in the State of Illinois, went be- 
 fore their people. They agreed to discuss the issues ; 
 they put questions to each other for answer ; and I must 
 say here, tor I must be just to all, that I have, been sur- 
 prised in the examination that I made again within the 
 last few days of tbis discussion between Mr. Lincoln and 
 Mr. Douglas, to find that Mr. Lincoln is a far more con- 
 servative man, unless he has since changed his opinions, 
 than I had supposed him to be. There was no dodging 
 on his part. Mr. Douglas started with his questions. 
 Here they are, with Mr. Lincoln's answers : 
 
 " Question 1. ' I desire to know whether Lincoln to- 
 day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the uncondi- 
 tional repeal of the fugitive slave law ?' 
 
 "Answer. 'I do not now, nor ever did, stand in 
 favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave 
 law.' 
 
 " Question 2. 1 1 desire him to answer whether he 
 stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the 
 admission of any more slave States into the Union, 
 even if the people want them ?' 
 
 " Answer. ' I do not now, nor ever did, stand pledg- 
 ed against the admission of any more slave States into 
 the Union/ 
 
 " Question 3. ' I want to know whether he stands 
 pledged against the admission of a new State into the 
 Union with such a constitution as the people of that 
 State may see fit to make ?' 
 
 " Answer. ' I do not stand pledged against the 
 admission of a new State into the Union with such a 
 constitution as the people of that State may see fit to 
 make ?'
 
 86 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 " Question 4. ( I want to know whether he stands 
 to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia ?' 
 
 " Answer, ' I do not stand to-day pledged to the 
 abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia/ 
 
 " Question 5. 1 1 desire him to answer whether he 
 stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade be- 
 tween the different States ?' 
 
 " Answer. ' I do not stand pledged to the prohibition 
 of the slave trade between the different States/ 
 
 " Question 6. ' I desire to know whether he stands 
 pledged to prohibit slavery in all theterritories of the 
 United States, north as well as south of the Missouri 
 Compromise line ?' 
 
 " Answer. ' I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged 
 to a belief in the right and duty of Congress to prohibit 
 slavery in all the United States territories/ 
 
 " Question 7. ' I desire him to answer whether he is 
 opposed' to the acquisition of any new territory unless 
 slavery is first prohibited therein ?' 
 
 " Answer. ' I am not generally opposed to honest 
 acquisition of territory ; and, in any given case, I 
 would or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly 
 as I might think such acquisition would or would not 
 aggravate the slavery question among ourselves/ 
 
 " It is impossible, Mr. President, however we may 
 differ in opinion with the man, not to admire the per- 
 fect candor and frankness with which these answers 
 were given ; no equivocation no evasion. The Sena- 
 tor from Illinois had his questions put to him in his 
 turn. All I propose to do now is to read his answer to 
 the second question : 
 
 " ' The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lin- 
 coln is, ' Can the people of a territory, in any lawful way, 
 against the wishes of any citizen of the United State s, 
 exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation 
 of a State constitution ?' I answer emphatically, as
 
 ABKAHAM LINCOLN. 87 
 
 Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times 
 from every stump in Illinois, that, in my opinion, the 
 people of a territory can, by lawful means, exclude 
 slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a 
 State constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had an- 
 swered that question over and over again. He heard 
 me argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over 
 the State in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no 
 excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position 
 on that question.' 
 
 " All that was true ; but see the art ; the decision 
 had not come yet ; now the decision has come ; now 
 what ? 
 
 " ''It matters not what way the Supreme Court may 
 hereafter decide as to the abstract question, whether 
 slavery may or may not go into a territory under the 
 Constitution, the people have the lawful means to 
 introduce or exclude it as they please, for the reason 
 that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere 
 unless it is supported by local police regulations. 
 Those police regulations can only be established by 
 the local legislature ; and if the people are opposed to 
 slavery, they will elect representatives to that body 
 who will, by unfriendly legislation, effectually prevent 
 the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the con- 
 trary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its 
 extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the 
 Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still 
 the right of the people to make a slave territory or a 
 free territory is perfect and complete under the Nebras- 
 ka bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satis- 
 factory on that point/ 
 
 " Well, sir, what occurred further in that contro- 
 versy ? His competitor was shocked at the profli- 
 gacy of the Senator. His competitor said to him 
 and here is the argument c Everybody knows that the 
 Dred Scott decision has determined the principle that 
 a citizen of the South has a right to go into the terri-
 
 X 
 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 tory, and there, under the Constitution, his property 
 is protected, and yet you are telling the people here 
 that their legislators, when they swear to support the 
 Constitution, can violate that constitutional provision/ 
 Mr. Lincoln held up his hands in horror at the propo- 
 sition. He was bold in the assertion of his own prin- 
 ciples ; but he told the Senator from Illinois in that 
 discussion, that what he was saying was a gross out- 
 rage on propriety, and was breaking the bargain he 
 had made. But again, sir, he told the Senator from 
 Illinois that he did not believe in the Dred Scott de- 
 cision, because, said he, if the Dred Scott decision be 
 true, and slavery exists in the territories under the 
 Constitution of the United States, then it also exists 
 in the States it exists in Pennsylvania as well as in 
 Kansas. 
 
 " The contest ended. On the popular vote, the 
 Senator from Illinois was beaten ; but according to 
 the division of the representative and senatorial dis- 
 tricts of the State, he was re-elected. The popular 
 vote upon the election of members of the Senate and 
 Legislature was one hundred and twenty-one thousand 
 in his favor, one hundred and twenty-five thousand in 
 favor of the Republican candidate, and five thousand 
 votes in favor of what he called the Danites. All the 
 State Republican officers were elected ; but there was 
 a majority of the Legislature of Illinois elected in favor 
 the Senator from Illinois, and he came back here in 
 triumph. 
 
 " Last spring I was forced to leave my country from 
 an attack of a disease in the eyes, which required at- 
 tention abroad. I went to get the attention of emi- 
 nent oculists abroad. For six or eight months I was 
 debarred from reading or writing. I came back just 
 before the opening of this Congress ; and I found that 
 during my absence the honorable Senator from Illinois 
 had been engaged in a controversy in the public jour- 
 nals and magazines of the country in relation to the
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 89 
 
 principles that governed the territories of the United 
 States, and that he had copied into those articles the 
 very arguments that his Republican opponent in Illi- 
 nois had used against him, and was then using against 
 the Democratic party. [Laughter.] I have got them 
 here. First, that it may not be said that I originated 
 this charge, after these magazine articles were printed, 
 and after the Senator's opponent, Mr. Lincoln, had 
 taxed him with want of good faith under the Constitu- 
 tion for alleging the power of the local legislature to 
 go through with this unfriendly legislation, in a subse- 
 quent speech, delivered at Columbus, Ohio, in Septem- 
 ber, 1859, Mr. Lincoln said to the people : 
 
 " Judge Douglas says, if the Constitution carries 
 slavery into the territories, beyond the power of the 
 people of the territories to control it as other property, 
 then it follows logically that every one who swears to 
 support the Constitution of the United States must 
 give that support to that property which it needs. And 
 if the Constitution carries slavery into the territories, 
 beyond the power of the people to control it as other 
 property, then it also carries it into the States, because 
 the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Now, 
 gentlemen, if it were not for my excessive modesty, I 
 would say that I told that very thing to Judge Doug- 
 las quite a year ago. This argument is here in print, 
 and if it were not for my modesty, as I said, I might 
 call your attention to it. If you read it, you will find 
 that I not only made that argument, but made it better 
 than he has made it since." (Laughter.) 
 
 The first debate took place at Ottawa, and Mr. 
 Douglas made the opening speech, in the course of 
 which he made a singular charge against Mr. Lincoln, 
 which was as follows : 
 
 " In 1854, Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull 
 entered into an arrangement, one with the other, and
 
 90 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 each with his respective friends, to dissolve the old 
 Whig party on the one hand, and to dissolve the old 
 Democratic party on the other, and to connect the mem- 
 bers of both into ^n Abolition party, under the name 
 and disguise of a Republican party. The terms of 
 that arrangement between Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trum- 
 bull have been published to the world by Mr. Lincoln's 
 special friend, ' James H. Matheny, Esq., and they 
 were, that Lincoln should have Shields' place in theU. S. 
 Senate, which was then about to become vacant, and 
 that Trumbull should have my seat when my term ex- 
 pired. Lincoln went to work to abolitionize the old 
 Whig party all over the State, pretending that he was 
 then as good a Whig as ever ; and Trumbull went to 
 work in his part of the State preaching abolitionism 
 in its milder and lighter form, and trying to abolition- 
 ize the Democratic party, and bring old Democrats, 
 handcuffed and bound hand and foot, into the Abolition 
 camp. In pursuance of the arrangement, the parties 
 met in Springfield in October, 1854, and proclaimed 
 their new platform. Lincoln was to bring into the 
 Abolition camp the old line Whigs, and transfer them 
 over to Giddings, Chase, Fred. Douglas, and Parson 
 Lovejoy, who were ready to receive them, and christen 
 them in their new faith. They laid down, on that oc- 
 casion, a platform for their new Eepublican party, 
 which was to be thus constructed." 
 
 To this eharge, Mr. Lincoln replied : 
 
 " When a man hears himself somewhat misrepre- 
 sented, it provokes him at least, I find it so with 
 myself ; but when misrepresentation becomes very gross 
 and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him. The first 
 thing I see fit to notice, is the fact that Judge Doug- 
 las alleges, after running through the' history of the 
 old Democratic and the old Whig parties, that Judge 
 Trumbull and myself made an arrangement in 1854, 
 by which I was to have the place of General Shields
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 91 
 
 in the United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull was 
 to have the place of Judge Douglas. Now, all I have 
 to say upon that subject is, that I think no man not 
 even Judge Douglas can prove it, because it is not 
 true. I have no doubt he is ' conscientious ' in saying 
 it. As to those resolutions that he took such a length 
 of time to read, as being the platform of the Republi- 
 can party in 1854, I say that I never had anything to 
 do with them, and I think Trumbull never had. Judge 
 Douglas cannot show that either of us ever did have 
 anything to do with them. I believe this is true about 
 those resolutions : There was a call for a convention 
 to form a Republican party at Springfield, and I think 
 that my friend, Mr. Lovejoy, who is here upon this 
 stand, had a hand in it. I think this is true, and I 
 think if he will remember accurately, he will be able 
 to recollect that he tried to get me into it, and I would 
 not go in. I believe it is also true that I went away 
 from Springfield when the convention was in session, 
 to attend court in Tazewell county. It is true they 
 did place my name, though without authority, upon 
 the committee, and afterward wrote me to attend the 
 meeting of the committee, but I refused to do so, and 
 I never had anything to do with that organization. 
 This is the plain truth about all that matter of the 
 resolutions." 
 
 In the reply, Mr. Lincoln uttered the subjoined 
 forcible and eloquent paragraph, upon negro equality : 
 
 " Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any 
 greater length, but this is the true complexion of all 
 I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery 
 and the black race. This is the whole of it, and any- 
 thing that argues me into his idea of perfect social and 
 political equality with the negro, is but a specious and 
 fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can 
 prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut-horse. I will 
 say here, while upon this subject, that I have no pur-
 
 92 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 pose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the insti- 
 tution of slavery in the States where it now exists. I 
 believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no 
 inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce 
 political and social equality between the white and the 
 black races. There is a physical difference between the 
 two, whick, in my judgment, will probably forever 
 forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect 
 equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that 
 there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Doug- 
 las, am in favor of the race to which I belong having 
 the superior position. I have never said anything to 
 the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, 
 there is no reason in the world why the negro is not 
 entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the 
 Declaration of Independence the right to life, liberty, 
 and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as 
 much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with 
 Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects 
 certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellec- 
 tual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, 
 without the leave of any one else, which his own hand 
 earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge Doug- 
 las, and the equal of every living man." 
 
 Mr. Douglas also undertook to give a little sketch of 
 his opponent's personal history in his speech, and after 
 the following fashion : 
 
 "In the remarks I have made on this platform, and 
 the position of Mr. Lincoln upon it, I mean nothing 
 personally disrespectful or unkind to that gentleman. 
 I have known him for nearly twenty-five years. There 
 were many points of sympathy between us when we 
 first got acquainted. We were both comparatively 
 boys, and both struggling with poverty in a strange 
 land. I was a school-teacher in the town of Winches- 
 ter, and he a flourishing grocery-keeper in the town of 
 Salem. He was more successful in his occupation than
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 93 
 
 I was in mine, and hence more fortunate in this world's 
 goods. Lincoln is one of those peculiar men who per- 
 form with admirable skill everything which they under- 
 take. I made as good a school-teacher as I could, and 
 when a cabinet-maker I made a good bedstead and ta- 
 bles, although my old boss said I succeeded better with 
 bureaus and secretaries than with anything else ; but I 
 believe that Lincoln was always more successful in bus- 
 iness than I, for his business- enabled him to get into 
 the Legislature. I met him there, however, and had a 
 sympathy with him, because of the up-hill struggle we 
 both had in life. He was then just as good at telling 
 an anecdote as now. He could beat any of the boys 
 Avrestling, or running a foot-race, in pitching quoits or 
 tossing a copper ; could ruin more liquor than all the 
 boys of the town together, and the dignity and impar- 
 tiality with which he presided at a horse-race or fist- 
 fight, excited the admiration and won the praise of ev- 
 erybody that was present and participated. I sympa- 
 thized with him, because he was struggling with diffi- 
 culties, and so was I. Mr. Lincoln served \vith me in 
 the Legislature in 1836, when we both retired, and he 
 subsided, or became submerged, and he was lost sight 
 of as a public man for some years. In 1846, when 
 Wilmot introduced the celebrated proviso, and the Ab- 
 olition tornado swept over the country, Lincoln again 
 turned up as a member of Congress from the Sanga- 
 mon district. I was then in the Senate of the United 
 States, and was glad to welcome my old friend and 
 companion. While in Congress, he distinguished him- 
 self by his opposition to the Mexican war, taking the 
 side of the common enemy against his own country ; 
 and when he returned home he found that the indigna- 
 tion of the people followed him everywhere, and he 
 was again submerged or obliged to retire into private 
 life, forgotten by his former friends." 
 
 . To which Mr. Lincoln replied :
 
 94 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 " The Judge is wofully at fault about his early friend 
 Lincoln being a ' grocery-keeper.' I don't know as it 
 would be a great sin if I had been ; but he is mista- 
 ken. Lincoln never kept a grocery anywhere in the 
 world. It is true that Lincoln did work the latter part 
 of one winter in a little still-house up at the head of a 
 hollow. And so I think my friend, the Judge, is 
 equally at fault when he charges me at the time when 
 I was in Congress of having opposed our soldiers who 
 were fighting in the Mexican war. The Judge did not 
 make his charge very distinctly, but I can tell you 
 what he can prove by referring to the record. You re- 
 member I was an old Whig, and whenever the Demo- 
 cratic party tried to get me to vote that the war had 
 been righteously begun by the President, I would not 
 do it. But whenever they asked for any money, or 
 land-warrants, or anything to pay the soldiers there, 
 during all that time, I gave the same vote that Judge 
 Douglas did. You can think as you please as to whether 
 that was consistent. Such is the truth ; and the Judge 
 has a right to make all he can out of it. But when he, 
 by a general charge, conveys the idea that I withheld 
 supplies from the soldiers who were fighting in the 
 Mexican war, or did anything else to hinder the sol- 
 diers, he is, to say the least, grossly and altogether mis- 
 taken, as a consultation of the records will prove to 
 him." 
 
 Mr. Lincoln, before he was through, made the follow- 
 ing amusing point on Mr. Douglas, in reply to his con- 
 tinual talk about the Supreme Court and reverence for 
 its decisions : 
 
 " This man sticks to a decision which forbids the peo- 
 ple of a territory from excluding slavery, and he does so 
 not because he says it is right in itself he does not give 
 any opinion on that but because it has been decided by 
 the court, and being decided by the court, he is, and
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 95 
 
 you are bound to take it in your political action as 
 law not that he judges at all of its merits, but because 
 a decision of the court is to him a " Thus saith the 
 Lord." He places it on that ground alone, and you 
 will bear in mind that, thus committing himself unre- 
 servedly to this decision, commits him to the next one 
 just as firmly as to this. He did not commit himself 
 on account of the merit or demerit of the decision, but 
 it is a Thus saith the Lord. The next decision, as 
 much as this, will be a Thus saith the Lord. There is 
 nothing that can divert or turn him away from this de- 
 cision. It is nothing that I point out to* him that his 
 great prototype, Gen. Jackson, did not believe in the 
 binding force of decisions. It is nothing to him that 
 Jefferson did not so believe. I have said that I have 
 often heard him approve of Jackson's course in disre- 
 garding the decision, of the Supreme Court pronouncing 
 a National Bank constitutional. He says, I did not 
 hear him say so. He denies the accuracy of my recol- 
 lection. I say he ought to know better than I, but I 
 will make no question about this thing, though it still 
 seems to me that I heard him say it twenty times. I 
 will tell him though, that he now claims to stand on 
 the Cincinnati platform, which affirms that Congress 
 cannot charter a National Bank, in the teeth of that 
 old standing decision that Congress can charter a bank. 
 And I remind him of another piece of history on the 
 question of respect for judicial decisions, and it is a 
 piece of Illinois history, belonging to a time when the 
 large party to which Judge Douglas belonged, were dis- 
 pleased with a decision of the Supreme Court of Illi- 
 nois, because they had decided that a Governor could 
 not remove a Secretary of State. You will find the 
 whole story in Ford's History+of Illinois, and I know 
 that Judge Douglas will not deny that he was then in 
 favor of overslaughing that decision by the mode of 
 adding five new Judges, so as to vote down the four old 
 ones. Not only so, but it ended in the Judge's sitting
 
 96 LIFE AND SPEECHESOF 
 
 down on that very bench as one of the five new Judges 
 to break down the four old ones. It was in this way 
 precisely that he got his title of Judge. Now, when 
 .the Judge tells me that men appointed conditionally to 
 sit as members of a court, will have to be catechised 
 beforehand on some subject, I say, 'You know, Judge ; 
 you have tried it." When he says a court of this kind 
 will lose the confidence of all men, will be prostituted 
 and disgraced by such a proceeding, I say, ' You know 
 best, Judge ; you have been through the mill." But 
 I cannot shake Judge Douglas's teeth loose from the 
 Dred Scott decision. Like some obstinate animal (I 
 mean no disrespect), that will hang on when he has 
 once got his teeth fixed ; you may cut off a leg, or you 
 may tear away an arm, still he will not relax his held. 
 And so I may point out to the Judge, and say that le 
 is bespattered all over, from the beginning of his polit- 
 ical life to the present time, with attacks upon judicial 
 decisions / may cut off limb after limb of his public 
 record, and strive to wrench him from a single dictum 
 of the court yet I cannot divert him from it. He 
 hangs, to the last, to the Dred -Scott decision. These 
 things show there is a purpose strong as death and 
 eternity for which he adheres to this decision, and for 
 which he will adhere to all other decisions of the same 
 court." 
 
 We may safely challenge the annals of stump-speak- 
 ing in the West or at the South for a more overwhelm- 
 ing rejoinder than this. 
 
 In the third debate, at Jonesboro, Mr. Lincoln said : 
 
 " 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 Republican 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 ques-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 97 
 
 tions. At last I said frankly, " I wish you to answer 
 them, because when I get them up here where the color 
 of. your principles are a little darker than in Egypt, I 
 intend to trot you down to Jonesboro." The very no- 
 tice that I was going to take him down to Egypt made 
 him tremble in the knees so that he had to be carried 
 from the platform. He laid up seven days, and in the 
 meantime held a consultation with his political physi- 
 cians ; 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 up to Freeport last Friday/ 
 " Now that statement altogether furnishes a subject 
 for philosophical contemplation. I have been treating 
 it in that way, and I have really come to the conclu- 
 sion that I can explain it in no other way than by be- 
 lieving the Judge is crazy. If he was in his right 
 mind, I cannot conceive how, he would have risked dis- 
 gusting the four or five thousand of his own friends 
 who stood there, and knew, as to my having been 
 carried from the platform, that there was not a word of 
 truth in it." 
 
 JUDGE DOUGLAS "Didn't they carry you off?" 
 MB. 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 Douglas, why 
 didn't you tell the truth / I 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 peo- 
 ple of the country to read as a serious document, I 
 think if he had been in his sober senses he would not 
 have risked that barefacedness in the presence of thou- 
 sands of his own friends, who knew that I made
 
 98 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 speeches within six of the seven days at Henry, Mar- 
 shall county, Augusta, Hancock county, and Macomb, 
 McDonough county, including all the necessary travel 
 to meet him again at Freeport at the end of the six 
 days. Now, I say, there is no charitable way to look 
 at that statement, except to conclude that he is ac- 
 tually crazy. There is another thing in that state- 
 ment 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, giantlike, had hauled me down 
 here. That statement he makes, too, in the teeth of 
 the knowledge that I had made the stipulation to come 
 down here, and that he himself had 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 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 scare me to death ? Why, I 
 know this people better than he does. I was raised 
 just a little east of here. I am a part of this people. 
 But the Judge was raised further north, and, perhaps, 
 he has some horrid idea of what this people might be
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 99 
 
 induced to do. But really I have talked about this 
 matter perhaps longer than I ought, for it is no great 
 thing, and yet the smallest are often the most difficult 
 things to deal with. The Judge has set about seriously 
 trying to make the impression that when we meet at 
 different places I am literally in his clutches that I 
 am a poor, helpless, decrepit mouse, and that I can do 
 nothing at all. This is one of the ways he has taken 
 to create that impression. I don't know any other way 
 to meet it, except this. I don't wan't 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 trem- 
 bling again, if he can/' 
 
 Mr. Greeley, in the Tribune, speaks of this great 
 Senatorial contest, and its result, as follows : 
 
 " In 1858, the Republican State Convention unani- 
 mously designated him as their representative man to 
 stump the State against Stephen A. Douglas. They 
 knew that the struggle would be a desperate one that 
 they must put their very best foot foremost. If they 
 had had a champion whom they supposed abler and 
 worthier than Mr. Lincoln, they would have chosen 
 that champion for this arduous service. They had 
 nearly all heard Lincoln and their other speakers, 
 and ought to have known by this time who was their 
 best man ; yet they choose Abraham Lincoln. If they 
 don't know who is their best man, should not mission- 
 aries be sent out to teach them ? 
 
 "Mr. Lincoln went into this canvass under most dis- 
 couraging auspices. Many leading Republicans out of 
 the State thought the opposition to Mr. Douglas im- 
 politic and mistaken. We certainly thought so ; und, 
 though we said little on the point, our very silence was
 
 100 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 damaging in a State where more people read this paper 
 than any other. It has been a hundred times asserted 
 that The Tribune i defeated Lincoln.' But there were 
 other outside influences, as adverse and at least equally 
 potent. In 1856, the State polled 37,444 American or 
 Whig votes for Fillmore. Many of these were cast by 
 natives of Kentucky ; all by men who love and con- 
 fide in John J. Crittenden. In the thickest of the fray, 
 a letter from Mr. Crittenden was published, advising 
 them to favor Mr. Douglas's reelection. Undoubtedly, 
 this had an overruling influence with thousands. Yet, 
 after Messrs. Lincoln and Douglas had thoroughly can- 
 vassed the State, the .people voted with the following 
 result : 
 
 FREMONT. FILLMORE. BUCHANAX. 
 Total vote in 1856 96,189 .. 37,444 .. 105,348 
 
 LINCOLN. LECOMPTON. DOUGLAS. 
 Total vote in 1858 125,275 .. 5,071 .. 121,190 
 
 Linco n's gain on 1856 29,086 
 
 Douglas' " 15,742 
 
 Lincoln's net gain 14,345 
 
 Or, give Douglas the entire Lecompton vote in addition 
 to his own, and Lincoln still gains on him 9,273. 
 
 " Bear in mind that this was a contest in which the 
 sympathies of men indifferent to party were almost 
 wholly with Douglas, wherein many Republicans sup- 
 ported him throughout, wherein Crittenden summoned 
 the Americans to his aid, and wherein he stood boldly 
 on the ground of Popular Sovereignty, with the pres- 
 tige of having just before defeated the infamous Le- 
 compton bill. All things considered, we recall nothing 
 in the histoiy of political campaigning more creditable 
 to a canvasser than this vote is to Lincoln. 
 
 " We have thus dwelt throughout on facts of public 
 record or of universal notoriety. The speeches made 
 to the same audiences in that canvass, by Messrs. Lin- 
 coln and Douglas, were collected and printed by the 
 Republicans of Ohio, for cheap and general dissemina-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 101 
 
 tion, long before they dreamed that Mr. Lincoln would 
 be the Republican candidate for President. We had 
 sold hundreds of them at our counter, as we had thou- 
 sands of Mr. Lincoln's speech in this city, before the 
 meeting of the Chicago Convention ; we expect to sell 
 thousands of the former and tens of thousands of the 
 latter forthwith. Every reader can herein see just what 
 manner of man Mr. Lincoln is, and how he bears him- 
 self when confronted with one of the very best and most 
 effective popular canvassers in the democratic ranks. 
 If Mr. Lincoln is weak, or ill-informed, or anywise de- 
 ficient, this protracted discussion with Douglas must 
 show it." 
 
 The Chicago Tribune, shortly after the election took 
 place, made the subjoined statement : 
 
 " The majorities for members of Congress are as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 First district, E. B. Washburne, Rep 9,414 
 
 Second district, J F. Farnsworth, Rep ' 8,639 
 
 Third district, Owen Lovejoy, Rep 7.443 
 
 Fourth district, William Kdlogg, Rep 2,711 
 
 Fifth district, Isaac N. Morris, Dem 1,961 
 
 Sixth district, Thomas L. Harris, Dem 4,447 
 
 Seventh district, J. C. Robinson, Dem 1,759 
 
 Eighth district, Philip B. Foulke, Dem 2,939 
 
 Ninth district, John A. Logan. Dem 12,847 
 
 " The aggregate votes on the Congressional tickets 
 were : Republican, 126,084 ; Douglas Democratic, 
 121,940 ; Buchanan Democratic, 5,091. 
 
 " The vote on State Treasurer stands : James Miller, 
 Republican, 125,828 ; W. B. Fondey, Douglas Demo- 
 crat, 121,803 ; John Dougherty, Buchanan Democrat, 
 5,091. 
 
 " These returns show, that taking the vote on Con- 
 gressmen as the test, the Republican majority over both 
 the Buchanan and Douglas parties is 97. The entire 
 Buchanan vote is 5,091. The Republicans retained 
 every county that went for Fremont or Bissell in 1856.
 
 102 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 They lost not one which they carried at the Presiden- 
 tial election, and they have redeemed from the Demo- 
 crats seven counties which went for Buchanan two 
 years ago, viz. : De Witt, Logan, Coles, Edgar, Platt, 
 Edwards, and Bond, all of which went against Gover- 
 nor Bissell, except Edwards. Peoria can almost be 
 added to the column of the redeemed counties. 
 
 " Despite the unfair apportionment, by which Mr. 
 Douglas has secured both branches of the Legislature, 
 the Republicans of Illinois have abundant reason to be 
 satisfied with the result of the contest through which 
 they have just passed. Taking Fremont's vote as a 
 standard of comparison, they have gained nearly 30,000 
 since 1856. The entire vote of the State is 252,722, 
 against 238,981 two years ago a difference of 13,741." 
 
 Mr. Lincoln and his fellow Republicans of Illinois, 
 far from being discouraged by the result of the cam- 
 paign, were greatly encouraged, well knowing that 
 with such gains, such a steady increase, by the Repub- 
 lican party in Illinois, its day of complete triumph 
 could not be far off. 
 
 During the past autumn and winter Mr. Lincoln 
 visited various parts of the country, delivering' lectures 
 upon the political condition of the country, and creat- 
 ing unbounded enthusiaism wherever he went. The 
 Leavenworth Register speaks as follows of his visit to 
 Kansas : 
 
 " Hon. Abraham Lincoln arrived this afternoon, 
 about two o'clock. Notwithstanding the inclemency of 
 the weather, he was met on Sixth street by a large con- 
 course of our people, which augmented as it nearecl 
 Turner's Hall, and when it reached Delaware street it 
 contained seven or eight hundred persons. The proces- 
 sion moved down Delaware street and turned up Maine
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 103 
 
 to Shawnee, and up Shawnee to the Mansion House. 
 Along the sidewalks a dense crowd moved with the 
 procession. All the doors, windows, balconies, and 
 porticoes, were filled with men and women, all anxious 
 to get a sight of ' Honest Old Abe/ On arriving 
 at the Mansion House the concourse halted, and three 
 long and loud cheers were given for Lincoln. 
 
 "The crowd by this time had swelled to an immense 
 audience, filled with admiration for the man of the 
 people and the veteran warrior of freedom. The mar- 
 shals of the day, Capt. Dickison and Capt. Hays of the 
 Turner Association, assisted by Mr. Ketner and others, 
 deserve credit for the manner in which the reception 
 was conducted. 
 
 " Never did man receive such honors at the hands of 
 our people, and never did our people pay honors to a 
 better man, or one who has been a truer friend to 
 Kansas. The name of ' Abe Lincoln' is a household 
 word in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Let it be so in 
 Kansas, for we owe much to him for his early efforts in 
 behalf of freedom in Kansas." 
 
 The subjoined paragraph is from his speech at Lear- 
 jmworib-i and is upon the subject of the dissolution of the 
 Union. Said he : 
 
 " But you, Democrats, are for the Union ; and you 
 greatly fear the success of the Republicans would de- 
 stroy the Union. Why ? Do the Republicans declare 
 against the Union ? Nothing like it. Your own 
 statement of it is, that if the Black Republicans elect 
 a President, you won't stand it ! You will break up 
 the Union. That will be your act, not ours. To jus- 
 tify it, you must show that our policy gives you just' 
 cause for such desperate action. Can you do that ? 
 When you attempt it, you will find that our policy is 
 exactly the policy of the men who made the Union. 
 Nothing more and nothing less. Do you really think
 
 104 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 you are justified to break the government rather than 
 have it administered as it was by Washington, and 
 other great and good men who made it, and first 
 administered it ? If you do, you are very unreason- 
 able, and more reasonable men cannot and will not 
 submit to you. While you elect Presidents we submit, 
 neither breaking nor attempting to break up the 
 Union. If we shall constitutionally elect a President, 
 it will be our duty to see that you also submit. Old 
 John Brown has been executed for treason against a 
 State. We cannot object, even though he agreed with 
 us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse 
 violence, bloodshed, and treason. It could avail him 
 nothing that he might think himself right. So, if 
 constitutionally we elect a President, and, therefore, 
 you undertake to destroy the Union, it will be our 
 duty to deal with you as old John Brown has been 
 dealt with. We shall try to do our duty. We hope 
 and believe that in no section will a majority so act as 
 to render such extreme measures necessary." 
 
 Mr. Lincoln is described by one who is familiar with 
 his appearance and manners, as follows : 
 
 " Mr. Lincoln stands six feet and four inches high in 
 his stockings. His frame is not muscular, but gaunt 
 and wiry ; his arms are long, but not unreasonably so 
 for a person of his height ; his lower limbs are not dis- 
 proportioned to his body. In walking, his gait, though 
 firm, is never brisk. He steps jslowly and deliberately, 
 almost always with his head inclined forward, and his 
 hands clasped behind his back. In matters of dress 
 he is by no means precise. Always clean, he is never 
 fashionable ; he is careless, but not slovenly. In man- 
 ner he is remarkably cordial, and, at the same time, 
 simple. His politeness is always sincere, but never 
 elaborate and oppressive. A warm shake of the hand, 
 and a warmer smile of recognition, are his methods of 
 greeting his friends. At rest, his features, though
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 105 
 
 those of a man of mark, arc not such as belong to a 
 handsome man ; but when his fine dark gray eyes are 
 lighted up by any emotion, and his features begin their 
 play, he would be chosen from among a crowd as one 
 who had in him not only the kindly sentiments which 
 women love, but the heavier metal of which full-grown 
 men and Presidents are made. His hair is black, and 
 though thin is wiry. His head sits well on his shoulders, 
 but beyond that it defies description. It nearer resem- 
 bles that of Clay than that of Webster ; but it is 
 unlike either. It is very large, and, phrenologically, 
 well proportioned, betokening power in all its develop- 
 ments. A slightly Roman nose, a wide-cut mouth, 
 and a dark complexion, with the appearance of having 
 been weather-beaten, complete the description. 
 
 " In his personal habits, Mr. Lincoln is as simple as 
 a child. He loves a good dinner, and eats with the ap- 
 petite which goes with a great brain ; but his food is 
 plain and nutritious. He never drinks intoxicating 
 liquors of any sort, not even a glass of wine. He is 
 not addicted to tobacco in any of its shapes. He never 
 was accused of a licentious act in all his life. He 
 never uses profane language. 
 
 " A friend says that once, when in a towering rage, 
 in consequence of the efforts of certain- parties to per- 
 petrate a fraud on the State, he was heard to say : 
 ' They sha'n't do it, d n 'em !' but beyond an expres- 
 sion of that kind, his bitterest feelings never carry him. 
 He never gambles ; we doubt if he ever indulges in 
 any games of chance.* He is particularly cautious 
 about incurring pecuniary obligations for any purpose 
 whatever, and in debt, he is never content until the 
 score is discharged. We presume he owes no man a 
 dollar. He never speculates. The rage for the sudden 
 acquisition of wealth never took hold of him. His 
 gains from his profession have been moderate, but suffi- 
 cient for his purposes. While others have dreamed of 
 gold, he has been in pursuit of knowledge. In all his 
 5*
 
 106 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 dealings he has the reputation of being generous but 
 exact, and, above all, religiously honest. He would be 
 a bold man who would say that Abraham Lincoln ever 
 wronged any one out of a cent, or ever spent a dollar 
 that he had not honestly earned. His struggles in early 
 life have made him careful of money ; but his gener- 
 osity with his own is proverbial. He is a regular 
 attendant upon religious worship, and though not a 
 communicant, is a pew-holder and liberal supporter of 
 the Presbyterian Church, in Springfield, to which Mrs. 
 Lincoln belongs. He is a scrupulous teller of the 
 truth too exact in his notions to suit the atmosphere 
 of Washington, as it now is. His enemies may say 
 that he tells Black Republican lies ; but no man ever 
 charged that, in a professional capacity, or as a citizen 
 dealing with his neighbors, he would depart from the 
 Scriptural command. At home, he lives like a gentle- 
 man of modest means and simple tastes. A good-sized 
 house of wood, simply but tastefully furnished, sur- 
 rounded by trees and flowers, is his own, and there he 
 lives, at peace with himself, the idol of his family, and 
 for his honesty, ability, and patriotism, the admiration 
 of his countrymen." 
 
 Another person gives the subjoined sketch of him : 
 
 " In personal appearance, Mr. Lincoln, or, as he is 
 more familiarly termed among those who know him 
 best, ' Old Uncle Abe/ is long, lean, and wiry. In 
 motion he has a great deal of the elasticity and awk- 
 wardness which indicate the rough training of his early 
 life, and his conversation savors strongly of Western 
 idioms and pronunciation. His height is six feet four 
 inches. His complexion is about that of an octoroon ; 
 his face, without being by any means beautiful, is ge- 
 nial looking, and good liumor seems to lurk in every 
 corner of its innumerable angles. He has dark hair 
 tinged with gray, a good forehead, small eyes, a long 
 penetrating nose, with nostrils such as Napoleon al-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 107 
 
 ways liked to find in his best generals, because they 
 indicated a long head and clear thoughts ; and a 
 mouth, which, aside from being of magnificent propor- 
 tions, is probably the most expressive feature of his 
 face. 
 
 " As a speaker he is ready, precise, and fluent. His 
 manner before a popular assembly is as he pleases to 
 make it, being either superlatively ludicrous, or very 
 impressive. He employs but little gesticulation, but 
 when he desires to make a point, produces a shrug of 
 his shoulders, an elevation of his eyebrows, a depres- 
 sion of his mouth, and a general malformation of coun- 
 tenance so comically awkward that it never fails to 
 ' bring down the house.' His enunciation is slow and 
 emphatic, and his voice, though sharp and powerful, 
 at times has a frequent tendency to dwindle into a 
 shrill and unpleasant sound ; but as before stated, the 
 peculiar characteristic of his delivery is the remarkable 
 mobility of his features, the frequent contortions of 
 which excite a merriment his words could not pro- 
 duce." 
 
 A good story is told of Mr. Lincoln in connection 
 with the Harper's Ferry affair and by the way it is 
 but one of a thousand which might be told of him, for 
 he is a rare story-teller it is said that when he first 
 heard of the Harper's Ferry invasion, he remarked, 
 that it was " a shocking and lameritable occurrence ;" 
 but foreseeing the capital which the democracy would 
 make out of it, he added, " I do not think the democ- 
 racy can cross the river of their difficulties at Harper's 
 Ferry." 
 
 We subjoin another amusing one from a Chicago 
 journal : 
 
 "A great deal of fun wag had by the jokers in 
 Springfield, about an affair in which, long time ago,
 
 108 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 our good friend Lincoln, the candidate for the Presi- 
 dency, was engaged. A young lady of that city, now 
 the wife of a distinguished statesman, wrote a para- 
 graph in a burlesque vein, for the Sangamon Journal, 
 in which Gen. Shields was good humoredly ridiculed 
 for his connection with some public measure. The 
 General was greatly incensed, and demanded of the 
 editor the name of the offending party. ' Old Sim' put 
 him off with a request for twenty-four hours to con- 
 sider the matter, and, shortly afterward meeting Lin- 
 coln, told him his perplexity. ' ' Tell him I wrote it/ 
 said Lincoln ; and tell him he did. After a deal of 
 diplomacy to get a retraction of the offensive parts of 
 the paragraph in question, Shields sent a challenge, 
 which Lincoln accepted, named broadswords as the 
 weapons, and an unfrequented, well-wooded island in 
 the Mississippi, just below Alton, as the place. ' Old 
 Abe' was first on the ground, and when Shields arrived 
 he found his antagonist, his sword in one hand and a 
 hatchet in the other, with his coat off, clearing away 
 the underbrush ! Before the preliminary arrange- 
 ments were completed, John J. Hardin, who, somehow, 
 had got wind of what was afloat, appeared on the 
 scene, called them both d d fools, and by his argu- 
 ments, addressed to their common sense, and by his 
 ridicule of the figure that they, two well-grown, beard- 
 ed men, were making there, each with a frog-sticker in 
 his hand, broke up the fight. We do not know how 
 Gen. Shields feels, but we have heard of Lincoln's say- 
 ing, that the acceptance of the challenge was the mean- 
 est thing he ever did in his life. Hardin than whom 
 a braver man never stood never came out of that ter- 
 rible charge a' Buena Vista, to which he led the Second 
 Regiment of Illinois Volunteers. If the events of his 
 life passed in quick review before his mind, as he lay 
 wounded and dying in fhat fatal ravine, we doubt not 
 this act of his, by which he prevented two really brave 
 men from engaging in fatal strife, was not the least of 
 the consolations of that bitter hour."
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 109 
 
 " While the late Illinois State Republican Conven- 
 tion was in session, the Hon. Abraham Lincoln stepped 
 in to witness the proceedings. His appearance was 
 greeted with the utmost enthusiasm. He had hardly 
 taken his seat when Mr. Oglesby of Decatur announced 
 to the delegates that an old Democrat of Macon coun- 
 ty, who had grown gray in the service of that party 
 desired to make a contribution to the Convention, and 
 the offer being accepted, forthwith two old-time fence 
 rails, decorated with flags and streamers, were borne 
 through the crowd into the Convention, bearing the in- 
 scription : 
 
 ft ' 
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 
 
 The Rail Candidate 
 FOR PRESIDENT IN 1860. 
 
 Two rails from a lot of 3,000 made in 1830, 
 by Thos. Hanks and Abe Lincoln whose 
 father was the first pioneer of Macon County. 
 
 "The effect was electrical. One "spontaneous burst 
 of applause went up from all parts of the ' wigwam/ 
 which grew more and more deafening as it was pro- 
 longed, and which did not wholly subside for ten or fif- 
 teen minutes after. The cheers upon cheers which 
 rent the air could have been heard all over the adjacent 
 country. Of course ( Old Abe' was called out, and 
 made an explanation of the matter. He stated that, 
 some thirty years ago, then just emigrating to the 
 State, he stopped with his mother's family, for one 
 season, in what is now Macon county ; that he built a 
 cabin, split rails, and cultivated a small farm down on 
 the Sangamon river, some six or eight miles from
 
 110 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Decatur. These, he was informed, were taken from 
 that fence ; but, whether they were or not, he had 
 mauled many and many better ones since he had grown 
 to manhood. The cheers were renewed with the same 
 vigor when he concluded his remarks." 
 
 A Western Republican relates the following thrilling 
 episode in the life of Mr. Lincoln : " Mr. Lincoln, or 
 ' Old Abe/ as his friends familiarly call him, is a self- 
 made man. A Kentuckian by birth, he emigrated to 
 Illinois in his boyhood, where he earned his living at 
 the anvil, devoting his leisure hours to study. Having 
 chosen the law as his future calling, he devoted himself 
 assiduously to its mastery, contending at every step 
 with adverse fortune. During this period of study, he 
 for some time found a home under the hospitable roof 
 of one Armstrong, a farmer, who lived in a log-house 
 some eight miles from the village of Petersburg, Me- 
 nard county. Here, clad in homespun, with elbows 
 out, and knees covered with patches, young Lincoln 
 would master his lessons by the firelight of the cabin, 
 and then walk to town for the purpose of recitation. 
 This man Armstrong was himself poor, but he saw the 
 genius struggling in the young student, and opened to 
 him his rude home, and bid him welcome to his coarse 
 fare. How Lincoln graduated with promise, how he 
 has more than fulfilled that promise, how honorably he 
 acquitted himself alike on the battle-field, in defending 
 our border settlements against the ravages of the savage 
 foes, and in the halls of our national legislature, are 
 matters of history, and need no repetition here. But 
 one little incident of a more private nature, standing 
 as it does as a sort of sequel to some things already
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. Ill 
 
 alluded to, I deem worthy of record. Some few years 
 since the oldest son of Mr. Lincoln's old friend Arm- 
 strong, the chief support of his widowed mother the 
 good old man having some time previously passed from 
 earth was arrested on the charge of murder. A young 
 man had been killed during a riotous melee, in the 
 night-time, at a camp-meeting, and one of his asso- 
 ciates stated that the death-wound was inflicted by 
 young Armstrong. A preliminary examination was 
 gone into, at which the accuser testified so positively 
 that there seemed no doubt of the guilt of the prisoner, 
 and, therefore, he was held for trial. As is too often 
 the case, the bloody act caused an undue degree of ex- 
 citement in the public mind. Every improper incident 
 in the life of the prisoner each act which bore the 
 least semblance to rowdyism each school-boy quarrel 
 was suddenly remembered and magnified, until they 
 pictured him as a fiend of the most horrid hue. As 
 these rumors spread abroad, they were received as 
 gospel truth, and a feverish desire for vengeance seized 
 upon the infatuated populace, while only prison-bars 
 prevented a horrible death at the hands of a mob. 
 The events were heralded in the county papers, painted 
 in the highest colors, accompanied by rejoicings over 
 the certainty of punishment being meted out to the 
 guilty party. The prisoner, overwhelmed by the 
 circumstances under which he found himself placed, 
 fell into a melancholy condition, bordering upon de- 
 spair ; and the widowed mother, looking through her 
 tears, saw no cause for hope from earthly aid. 
 
 " At this juncture, the widow received a letter from 
 Mr. Lincoln, volunteering his services in an rdfort to
 
 112 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 save the youth from the impending stroke. Gladly was 
 his aid accepted, although it seemed impossible for 
 even his sagacity to prevail in such a desperate case ; 
 but the heart of the attorney was in his work, and he 
 set about it with a will that knew no such word as fail. 
 Feeling that the poisoned condition of the public mind 
 was such as to preclude the possibility of impanelling 
 an impartial jury in the court having jurisdiction, he 
 procured a change of venue, and a postponement of the 
 trial. He then went studiously to' work unravelling the 
 history of the case, and satisfied himself that his client 
 was the victim of malice, and that the statement of 
 the accuser was a tissue of falsehoods. - 
 
 " When the trial was called on, the prisoner, pale and 
 emaciated, with hopelessness written on every feature, 
 and accompanied by his half-hoping, half-despairing 
 mother whose only hope was a mother's belief of her 
 son's innocence, in the justice of the G-od she worship- 
 ped, and in the noble counsel, who, without hope of fee 
 or reward upon earth, had undertaken the cause took 
 his seat in the prisoner's box, and with a ' stony firm- 
 ness' listened to the reading of the indictment. Lin- 
 coln sat quietly by, while the large auditory looked on 
 him as though wondering what he could say in defence 
 of one whose guilt they regarded as certain. The ex- 
 amination of witnesses for the State was begun, and a 
 well-arranged mass of evidence, circumstantial and pos- 
 itive, was introduced, which seemed to impale the pris- 
 oner beyond the possibility of extrication. The coun- 
 sel for the defence propounded but few questions, and 
 those of a character which excited no uneasiness on the 
 part of the prosecutor merely, in most cases, requir-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 113 
 
 ing the main witness to be definite as to time and place. 
 When the evidence of the prosecution was ended, Lin- 
 coln introduced a few witnesses to remove some errone- 
 ous impressions in regard to the previous character of 
 his client, who, though somewhat rowdyish, had never 
 been known to commit a vicious act ; and to show that 
 a greater degree of ill-feeling existed between the accu- 
 ser and accused than the accused and the deceased. 
 The prosecutor felt that the case was a clear one, and 
 his opening speech was brief and formal. Lincoln 
 arose, while a deathly silence pervaded the vast audi- 
 ence, and in a clear but moderate tone began his argu- 
 ment. Slowly and carefully he reviewed the testimony, 
 pointing out the hitherto unobserved decrepancies in 
 the statements of the principal witness. That which 
 had seemed plain and plausible, he made to appear 
 crooked as a serpent's path. The witness had stated 
 that the affair took place at a certain hour in the even- 
 ing, and that, by the aid of the brightly shining moon, 
 he saw the prisoner inflict tho death blow with a slung- 
 shot. Mr. Lincoln showed that at the hour referred to, 
 the moon had not yet appeared above the horizon, and 
 consequently the whole tale was a fabrication. An al- 
 most instantaneous change seemed to have been wrought 
 in the minds of his auditors, and the verdict of ' not 
 guilty' was at the end of every tongue. But the advo- 
 cate was not content with this intellectual achievement. 
 His whole being had for months been bound up in this 
 work of gratitude and mercy, and, as the lava of the 
 overcharged crater bursts from its imprisonment, so 
 great thoughts and burning words leaped forth from 
 the soul of the eloquent Lincoln. He drew a picture
 
 114 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 of tfie perjurer so horrid and ghastly that the accuser 
 could sit under it no longer, but reeled and staggered 
 from the court-room, while the audience fancied they 
 could see the brand upon his brow. Then in words of 
 thrilling pathos, Lincoln appealed to the jurors as fa- 
 thers of sons who might become fatherless, and as hus- 
 bands of wives who might be widowed, to yield to no 
 previous impressions, no ill-founded prejudice, but to 
 do his client justice ; and as he alluded to the debt of 
 gratitude which he owed to the boy's sire, tears were 
 seen to fall from many eyes unused to weep. It was 
 near night when he concluded by saying that, if justice 
 were done a& he believed it would be- before the sun 
 should set, it would shine upon his client a free man. 
 The jury retired, and the court adjourned for the day. 
 Half an hour had not elapsed, when, as the officers of 
 the court and the volunteer attorney sat at the tea-ta- 
 ble of their hotel, a messenger announced that the jury 
 had returned to their seats. All repaired immediately 
 to the court-house, and while the prisoner was being 
 brought from the jail, the court-room was filled to 
 overflowing with citizens of the town. When the pris- 
 oner and his mother entered, silence reigned as com- 
 pletely as though the house was empty. The foreman 
 of the jury, in answer to the usual inquiry of the 
 court, delivered the verdict of ' Not Guilty !' The 
 widow dropped into the arms of her son, who lifted her 
 up, and told her to look upon him as before free and 
 innocent. Then, with the words, ' Where is Mr. Lin- 
 coln ?' he rushed across the room and grasped the hand 
 of his deliverer, while his heart was too full for utter- 
 ance. Lincoln turned his eyes toward the West, where
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 115 
 
 the sun still lingered in view, and then, turning to the 
 youth, said, ' It is not yet sundown, and you are free/ 
 I confess that my cheeks were not wholly unwet by 
 tears, and I turned from the affecting scene. As I cast 
 a glance behind, I saw Abraham Lincoln obeying the 
 divine injunction by comforting the widowed and the 
 fatherless." 
 
 In May, 1859, Mr. Lincoln wrote the subjoined let- 
 ter to a German citizen of Illinois. The letter speaks 
 for itself, and needs no comment : 
 
 " SPRINGFIELD, May 17, 1859. 
 
 " Dear Sir Your letter, in which you inquire, on 
 your own account and in behalf of certain other Ger- 
 man citizens, whether I approve or oppose the consti- 
 tutional provision in relation to naturalized citizens 
 which was lately enacted in Massachusetts, and whether 
 I favor or oppose a fusion of the Kepublicans with the 
 other Opposition elements in the campaign of 1860, 
 has been received. 
 
 " Massachusetts is a sovereign and independent State, 
 and I have no right to advise her in her policy. Yet, 
 if any one is desirous to draw a conclusion as to what 
 I would do from what she has done, I may speak with- 
 out impropriety. I say, then, that so far as I understand 
 the Massachusetts provision, I am against its adoption, 
 not only in Illinois, but in every other place in which 
 I have the right to oppose it. As I understand the 
 spirit of our institutions, it is designed to promote the 
 elevation of men. I am, therefore, hostile to anything 
 that tends to their debasement. It is well known that 
 I deplore the oppressed condition of the blacks, and it 
 would, therefore, be very inconsistent for me to look 
 with approval upon any measure that infringes upon 
 the inalienable rights of white men, whether or not they 
 are born in another land or speak a different language 
 from our own.
 
 116 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 " In respect to a fusion, I am in favor of it whenevei 
 it can be effected on Kepublican principles, but upon 
 no other 'condition. A fusion upon any other platform 
 would be as insane as unprincipled. It would thereby 
 
 se the whole North, while the common enemy would 
 still have the support of the entire South. The ques- 
 tion in relation to men is different. There are good 
 and patriotic men and able statesmen in the South 
 whom I w,ould willingly support if they would place 
 themselves on Republican ground ; but I shall oppose 
 the lowering of the Republican standard even by a 
 hair's -breadth. 
 
 " I have written in haste, but I believe I have an- 
 swered your questions substantially. 
 
 " Respectfully, yours, 
 
 " ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 
 
 "Da. THEODOB CANISIUS." 
 
 " We have heard," says the The Evansvitte (Ind.) 
 Journal, " the following anecdote related of the people's 
 candidate for the Presidency, which shows the love of 
 knowledge, the industry, the conscientiousness, and the 
 integrity of the subject of this sketch : 
 
 " It is well known that he lived in Spencer county, 
 above here in Indiana, in his young days. He was a 
 hard-working lad, and very eager in his thirst for 
 knowledge. A man, named Crawford, owned a copy 
 of Weems's Life of Washington the only one in the 
 whole neighborhood. Young Lincoln borrowed that 
 interesting book (not having money to spare to buy 
 one), and while reading it, by a slight negligence, left 
 it in a window, when a rain-storm came up and wet the 
 book so as to ruin it. Young Lincoln felt badly, but, 
 like an honest boy, he went to Mr. Crawford with the 
 ruined book, acknowledged his accountability for its 
 destruction, and his willingness to make due compensa- 
 tion. He said he had no money, but would work out 
 the value of the book.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 117 
 
 J 
 
 " The owner of the book, said to him, 'Well, Abe, / 
 being as it's you, I won't be hard on you. If you will / 
 come over and pull fodder for two days, I'll let you 
 off.' 
 
 "Abe went over accordingly, and pulled fodder the 
 requisite time ; and so tall and handy a lad was he, 
 that Crawford required him to pull the fodder off of 
 the tallest stalks, while he took the shortest ones him- 
 self."
 
 118 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 PART FOURTH. 
 
 THE CONVENTION AND ITS NOMINATIONS. 
 
 ON the sixteenth day of May the Republican Na- 
 tional Convention met at Chicago in a large building 
 put up for the purpose arid called the " Wigwam." 
 
 The doors were opened at 11 o'clock. 
 
 Long before that hour the concourse of people as- 
 sembled around the doors numbered many thousands 
 more than could gain admittance to the building. As 
 soon as the doors were opened the entire body of the 
 Wigwam was solidly packed with men. The seats in 
 the galleries were equally closely packed with ladies. 
 The interior of the hall was handsomely decorated with 
 evergreen, statuary, and flowers, and presented a strik- 
 ing appearance. There were not less than ten thousand 
 persons in the building, while the open doors displayed 
 to view crowds in the streets unable to obtain more 
 than a glimpse inside of the hall. 
 
 At 12 o'clock the Convention was called to order by 
 Gov. Morgan of New- York, Chairman of the National 
 Committee, who named the honorable DAVID WILMOT 
 of Pennsylvania for temporary President. 
 
 The Chair named Judge Marshall of Md., and Gov. 
 Cleveland of Conn., to conduct Mr. Wilmofc to his seat. 
 Judge Marshall introduced Mr. Wilmot as the man 
 who dared to do right regardless of consequences. 
 With such a man, he said, there is no such word as.fail.
 
 ABRAHAM -LINCOLN. 11$ 
 
 Mr. WILMOT addressed the Convention briefly, re- 
 turning thanks for the high and undeserved honor. 
 He would carry the remembrance of it with him to the 
 day of his death. It was unnecessary for him to re.- 
 mind the Convention of the high duty devolved upon 
 them. A great sectional interest had for years domi- 
 nated with a high hand over the aifairs of the country. 
 It had bent all its energy to the extension and natural- 
 ization of slavery. It is the mission of the Republican 
 party to oppose this policy, and restore to the govern- 
 ment the policy of the Revolutionary fathers ; to resist 
 the dogma that slavery exists wherever the Constitu- 
 tion extends ; to read the Constitution as our fathers 
 read it. That Constitution was not ordained to em- 
 brace slavery within all the limits of the country. 
 They lived and died in the faith that slavery was a blot, 
 and would soon be washed out. Had they deemed that 
 the Revolution was to establish a great slave empire, 
 not one would have drawn the sword in such a cause. 
 The battle was fought to establish freedom. Slavery 
 is sectional freedom is national. [Applause.] He 
 deemed it unnecessary to remind the delegates of the 
 outrages and usurpations of the Democratic party. 
 
 Those outrages will not be confined to the limits of 
 the slave States if the South have the power, and the 
 safety of the free States requires the Republicans 
 should take the government, and administer it as it 
 has been administered by Washington, Jefferson, and 
 Jackson even down to Van Buren and Polk before 
 these new dogmas were engrafted in the Democratic 
 policy. He assumed his duties, exhorting a spirit of 
 harmony to control the action of the delegates.
 
 J20 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Committees on business and credentials were ap- 
 pointed. In the afternoon session, the Committee on 
 Organization reported the name of George Ashmun, 
 of Massachusetts, for President, and Vice-Presidents 
 and Secretaries from every State represented in the 
 Convention. The subjoined Committee on Resolutions 
 was appointed : 
 
 Maine George Talbot. Iowa -John A. Kasson. 
 
 New-Hampshire. . . . Amos Tuck. Minnesota Stephen Miller. 
 
 Vermont E. M. Briggs. Delaware N. D. Smithera. 
 
 Massachusetts... G. S. Boutwell. Maryland F. P. Blair. 
 
 Rhode Island B. T. Earner. Virginia Alfred Caldwell. 
 
 Connecticut S. W. Kellogg. Kentucky George T. Blakely. 
 
 New-York Henry K. Selden. Michigan Austin Blair. 
 
 New-Jersey . .Thomas S. Dudley. Missouri Charles M. Bernais. 
 
 Pennsylvania. . . .William Jessup. California F. P. Tracy. 
 
 Ohio J. II. Barrett. Texas J. Strauss. 
 
 Indiana William T. Otto. D istrict of Columbia . .G. A. Hall. 
 
 Illinois Gustavus Koeler. Nebraska A. S. Bradlock. 
 
 Wisconsin Carl Schurz. Kansas J. F. Hatterscheidt 
 
 On Thursday morning the Convention met at ten 
 o'clock. The greatest enthusiasm was manifested, both 
 inside and outside of the " Wigwam." The entire day 
 was consumed .in the consideration of the proper rules 
 to be adopted for the government of the Convention, 
 and in discussing the resolutions reported from the 
 Committee. It was agreed that a majority should nom- 
 inate the candidates. The following resolutions were 
 adopted by the Convention as 
 
 THE PLATFORM OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 
 
 "Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives 
 of the Republican electors of the United States, in 
 Convention assembled, in the discharge of the duty we
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 121 
 
 owe to our constituents and our country, unite in the 
 following declarations : 
 
 " First : That the history of the nation during the 
 last four years has fully established the propriety and 
 necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the 
 Eepablican party, and that the causes which called it 
 into existence are permanent in their nature, arid now, 
 more than ever before, demand its peaceful and consti- 
 tutional triumph. 
 
 " Second : That the maintenance of the principles 
 promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and 
 embodied in the Federal Constitution, is essential to 
 the preservation of our republican institutions ; that 
 the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and 
 the Union of the States, must and shall be preserved ; 
 and that we reassert ' these truths to be self-evident, 
 that all men are created equal ; that they are endowed 
 by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ; that 
 among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- 
 ness. That to secure these rights, governments are 
 instituted among men, deriving their just powers from 
 the consent of the governed.' 
 
 "Third: That to the Union of the States this 
 nation owes its unprecedented increase in population ; 
 its surprising development of material resources ; its 
 rapid augmentation of wealth ; its happiness at home, 
 and its honor abroad ; and we hold in abhorrence all 
 schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they 
 may ; and we congratulate the country that no Repub- 
 lican member of Congress has uttered or countenanced 
 a threat of disunion, so often made by Democratic 
 members of Congress without rebuke, and with ap- 
 plause from their political associates ; and we denounce 
 those threats of disunion, in case of a popular over- 
 throw of their ascendency, as denying the vital princi- 
 ples of a free government, and as an avowal of con- 
 templated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an 
 indignant people strongly to rebuke and forever silence. 
 6
 
 122 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Fourth : That the maintenance inviolate of the 
 rights of the States, and especially the right of each 
 State to order and control its own domestic institu- 
 tions, according to its own judgment exclusively, is 
 essential to that balance of power on which the perfec- 
 tion and endurance of our political faith depends, and 
 we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of any 
 State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as 
 among the gravest of crimes. 
 
 "Fifth: That the present Democratic administra- 
 tion has far exceeded our worst apprehensions in its 
 measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional 
 interest, as is especially evident in its desperate exer- 
 tions to force the infamous Lecompton Constitution 
 upon the protesting people of Kansas in construing 
 the personal relation between master and servant to 
 involve an unqualified property in persons in its at- 
 tempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, 
 through the intervention of Congress and the Federal 
 Courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local 
 interest, and in its general and unvarying abuse of the 
 power intrusted to it by a confiding people. 
 
 "Sixth : That the people justly view with alarm the 
 reckless extravagance which pervades every department 
 of the federal government ; that a return to rigid 
 economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest 
 the system of plunder of the public treasury by favored 
 partisans ; while the recent startling developments of 
 fraud and corruption at the federal metropolis, show 
 that an entire change of administration is imperatively 
 demanded. 
 
 " Seventh : That the new dogma that the Constitu- 
 tion, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all the 
 territories of the United States, is a dangerous political 
 heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that 
 instrument itself, with cotemporaneous expositions, and 
 with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary 
 in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and har- 
 mony of the country.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 123 
 
 "Eighth : That the normal condition of all the terri- 
 tory of the United States is that of freedom ; that as 
 our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery 
 in all our national territory, ordained that no person 
 should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without 
 the process of law, it becomes our duty, by legislation, 
 whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this 
 provision of the Constitution against all attempts to 
 violate it ; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a 
 territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give 
 legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United 
 States. 
 
 "Ninth : That we brand the recent re-opening of the 
 African slave-trade, under the cover of our national 
 flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime 
 against humanity, a burning shame to our country and 
 age ; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and 
 efficient measures for the total and final suppression of 
 that execrable traffic. 
 
 " Tenth : That in the recent vetoes by their federal 
 governors, of the acts of the legislatures of Kansas and 
 Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we 
 find a practical illustration of the boasted democratic 
 principle of non-intervention and Popular Sovereignty, 
 embodied in the Kansas and Nebraska bill, and a de- 
 nunciation of the deception and fraud involved therein. 
 
 " Eleventh : That Kansas should of right be immedi- 
 ately admitted as a State, under the constitution re- 
 cently formed and adopted by her people, and accepted 
 by the House of Representatives. 
 
 " Tivelfth : That while providing revenue for the sup- 
 port of the general government by duties upon imposts, 
 sound policy requires such an adjustment of these im- 
 posts as to encourage the development of the industrial 
 interest of the whole country, and we commend that 
 policy of national exchanges which secures to the work- 
 ing man liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating 
 prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate
 
 124 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the 
 nation commercial prosperity and independence. 
 
 "Thirteenth: That we protest against any sale or 
 alienation to others of the public lands held by actual 
 settlers, and against any view of the free homestead 
 policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppli- 
 cants for public bounty ; and we demand the passage 
 by Congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead 
 measure which has already passed the House. 
 
 "Fourteenth : That the ^Republican party is opposed 
 to any change in our naturalization laws, or any State 
 legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto 
 accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be 
 abridged or' impaired ; and in favor of giving a full and 
 efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, 
 whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad. 
 
 "Fifteenth : That appropriations by Congress for 
 river and harbor improvements, of a national character, 
 required for the accommodation and security of an ex- 
 isting commerce, are authorized by the Constitution 
 and justified by an obligation of the government to pro- 
 tect the lives and property of its citizens. 
 
 " Sixteenth : That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean is 
 imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole 
 country ; that the federal government ought to render 
 immediate and efficient aid in its construction, and 
 that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail 
 should be promptly established. 
 
 " Seventeenth : Finally, having thus set forth our 
 distinctive principles and views, we invite the co-oper- 
 ation of all citizens, however differing on other ques- 
 tions, who substantially agree with us in their affirm- 
 ance and support." 
 
 A scene of the wildest excitement followed the adop- 
 tion of the platform, the immense multitude rising 
 and giving round after round of applause ; ten thou- 
 sand voices swelled into a roar so deafening that, for
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 125 
 
 several minutes, every attempt to restore order was 
 hopelessly vain. The multitude outside took up and 
 re-echoed the cheers, making the scene of enthusiasm 
 and excitement unparalleled in any similar gathering. 
 
 On Friday morning the wigwam was closely packed 
 for a full hour before the Convention assembled. The 
 interest in the proceedings appeared on the increase as 
 the time for balloting approached. A crowd, numbered 
 by thousands, had been outside the building since nine 
 o'clock, anxiously awaiting intelligence from the inside. 
 Arrangements had been made for passing the result of 
 the ballots up from the platform to the roof of the 
 building, and through the skylight, men being station- 
 ed above to convey speedily the intelligence to the mul- 
 titude in the streets. 
 
 A large procession was formed by the various delega- 
 tions, to march to the hall, preceded by bands of 
 music. 
 
 As the delegates entered on the platform the several 
 distinguished men were greeted with rounds of applause 
 by the audience. 
 
 The Convention then voted to proceed to ballot for 
 a candidate for President of the United States. 
 
 Wm. M. Evarts, of New-York, did not rise for the 
 purpose of making a speech, but only to ask if at this 
 time it is in order to put candidates in nomination. 
 
 The President : The Chair considers it in order to 
 name candidates without debate. 
 
 Wm. M. Evarts rose and said I beg leave to offer 
 the name of Wm. H. Seward as a candidate before this 
 Convention, for the nomination of President of the 
 United States.
 
 12G LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 This nomination was received with loud and long- 
 continued applause. 
 
 Mr. Judd, of Illinois, rose and said : Mr. President, 
 I beg leave to offer, as a candidate before this Conven- 
 tion for President of the United States, the name of 
 Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois. 
 
 The crowded audience greeted this nomination with 
 perfectly deafening applause, the shouts swelling into 
 a perfect roar, and being continued for several minutes, 
 the wildest excitement and enthusiasm prevailing. 
 
 Mr. Dudley, of New-Jersey, presented the name of 
 Wm. L. Dayton. 
 
 Gov. Keeder, of Pennsylvania : The State of Penn- 
 sylvania desires to present, as her candidate, the name 
 of Simon Cameron. 
 
 Mr. Carter, of Ohio, put forward the name of Salmon 
 P. Chase, of Ohio. 
 
 Mr. Smith of Maryland I am instructed by the 
 State of Indiana to second the nomination of Abra- 
 ham Lincoln. [Another outburst of enthusiastic ap- 
 plause from the body of the Hall, mingled with some 
 hisses.] 
 
 Francis P. Blair of Missouri nominated Edward 
 Bates of Missouri. 
 
 Mr. Blair of Michigan said, on the part of Michigan, 
 I desire to say that the Kepublicans of that State 
 second the nomination of William H. Seward for the 
 Presidency. 
 
 Tremendous applause followed this speech, thou- 
 sands of those present rising and waving their hats and 
 handkerchiefs, and swelling the applause to a thunder- 
 ing roar through several minutes.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 127 
 
 Tom Corwin of Ohio nominated John McLean of 
 Ohio for the Presidency. [Loud applause.] 
 
 Carl Schurz of Wisconsin, on the part of his State, 
 here rose and seconded the nomination of William H. 
 Seward. 
 
 Upon this another scene of the greatest enthusiasm 
 and tumultuous excitement ensued. 
 
 Mr. North of Minnesota also seconded, on the part 
 of Minnesota, the nomination of Mr. Seward. [Tre- 
 mendous applause.] 
 
 Mr. Wilson of Kansas The delegates and people of 
 Kansas second the nomination. [Kenewed cheers.] 
 
 Mr. Delano of Ohio, on the part of a large number 
 of people of Ohio I desire to second the nomination 
 of the man who can split rails and maul Democrats, 
 Abraham Lincoln. [Rounds of applause by Lincoln 
 men.] 
 
 A delegate from Iowa also seconded the nomination 
 of Mr. Lincoln, on the part of that State, amidst re- 
 newed applause and excitement. 
 
 A Voice Abe Lincoln has it by the sound now. 
 Let us ballot. 
 
 Judge Logan of Illinois Mr. President, in order or 
 oiit of order, I propose this Convention and audience 
 give three cheers for the man who is evidently their 
 nominee. 
 
 The President If the Convention will get over this 
 irrepressible excitement, the roll will be called. 
 
 After some further excitement the calling of the 
 roll commenced, the applause at the different announce- 
 ments being with difficulty checked. 
 
 When Maryland was called, the Chairman of the
 
 128 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 delegation cast the vote of the State for Bates, two 
 delegates claiming their right to individual votes. 
 
 After some discussion the Convention rejected the 
 votes as cast by the Chairman, and received the votes 
 of the delegates separately. 
 
 On the first ballot Mr. Seward received 173^ votes ; 
 Mr. Lincoln, 102 ; and Mr. Bates, 48. The balance 
 were divided between Messrs. Cameron, Chase, McLean, 
 Wade, etc., etc. The States voting for Mr. Lincoln, 
 were Illinois, Indiana, and, in part, Maine, "New- 
 Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, 
 Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and Iowa. 
 
 The second ballot was then taken. 
 
 Mr. Cameron's name was withdrawn. 
 
 For Mr. Lincoln. 
 New-Hampshire .......... 9 Delaware .............. 6 
 
 Vermont ................ 10 Kentucky .............. 9 
 
 Rhode Island ............. 3 Ohio ................... 14 
 
 Pennsylvania ............. 48 Io\va .................. 5 
 
 The whole vote for Lincoln was 181. 
 
 For Mr. Seward. 
 
 Massachusetts ............ 22 Kentucky .............. 7 
 
 New-Jersey ............ 4 Texas ................. 6 
 
 Pennsylvania ............. 2fc Nebraska .............. 3 
 
 The whole vote for Mr. Seward was 
 
 Bates ....... ............ 35 Cameron .............. 2 
 
 McLean ................ 8 Dayton ................ 10 
 
 Chase ................. 42J C. M. Clay ............ 2 
 
 The third, ballot was taken amid excitement, and 
 cries for " the ballot." Intense feeling existed during 
 the ballot, each vote being awarded in breathless si- 
 lence and expectancy.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 129 
 
 For Mr. Lincoln. 
 
 Massachusetts 8 Maryland 9 
 
 Rhode Island 5 Kentucky 13 
 
 New-Jersey 8 Ohio (applause) 29 
 
 Pennsylvania 52 Oregon 14 
 
 This gave Lincoln 230^ votes, or within 1 of a 
 nomination. 
 
 Mr. Andrew of Massachusetts then rose and correct- 
 ed the vote of Massachusetts, by changing four votes, 
 and giving them to Lincoln, thus nominating him by 
 2i majority. 
 
 The Convention immediately became wildly excited. 
 
 A large portion of the delegates, who had kept tally, 
 at once said the struggle was decided, and half the 
 Convention rose, cheering, shouting, and waving hats. 
 
 The audience took up the cheers, and the confusion 
 became deafening. 
 
 State after State rose, striving to change their votes 
 to the winning candidate, but the noise and enthusi- 
 asm rendered it impossible for the delegates to make 
 themselves heard. 
 
 Mr. McCrillis of Maine, making himself heard, said 
 that the young giant of the West is now of age. 
 Maine now casts for him her 16 votes. 
 
 Mr. Andrew of Massachusetts changed the vote of 
 that State, giving 18 to Mr. Lincoln and 8 to Mr. 
 Seward. 
 
 Intelligence of the nomination was now conveyed 
 to the men on the roof of the building, who imme- 
 diately made the outside multitude aware of the result. 
 The first roar of the cannon soon mingled itself with 
 the cheers of the people, and the same moment a man
 
 130 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 appeared in the hall bringing a large painting of Mr. 
 Lincoln. The scene at the time beggars description ; 
 11,000 people inside, and 20,000 or 25,000 outside, 
 were yelling and shouting at once. Two cannon sent 
 forth roar after roar in quick succession. Delegates 
 bore up the sticks and boards bearing the names of the 
 several States, and waved them aloft over their heads, 
 and the vast multitude before the platform were waving 
 hats and handkerchiefs. The whole scene was one of 
 the wildest enthusiasm. 
 
 Mr. Brown, of Mo., desired to change 18 votes of 
 Missouri for the gallant son of the West, Abraham 
 Lincoln ; Iowa, Connecticut, Kentucky, and Minne- 
 sota, also changed their votes. The result of the third 
 ballot was announced : 
 
 Whole number of votes cast , 466 
 
 Necessary to a choice 234 
 
 Mr. Abraham Lincoln received 354, and was declared 
 duly nominated. 
 
 The States still voting for SeAvard were Massachu- 
 setts, 8 ; New- York, 70 ; New-Jersey, 5 ; Pennsylva- 
 nia, i ; Maryland, 2 ; Michigan, 12 ; Wisconsin, 10 ; 
 California, 3 total, 110 1. 
 
 Mr. Dayton received one vote from New-Jersey, and 
 Mr. McLean half a vote from Pennsylvania. 
 
 The result was received with renewed applause. 
 
 When silence was restored, Wm. M. Evarts came 
 forward on the Secretary's table, and spoke as follows : 
 
 " Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen of the National Con- 
 vention : The State of New-York, by a full delega- 
 tion, with complete unanimity in purpose at home, 
 came to the Convention and presented its choice, one
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 131 
 
 of its citizens, who had served the State from boyhood 
 up, and labored for and loved it. We came here, a 
 great State, with, as we thought, a great statesman 
 (applause), and our love of the great Republic, from 
 which we are all delegates. The great Republic of the 
 American Union, and our love for the great Republi- 
 can party of the Union, and our love for our states- 
 man and candidate, made us think we did our duty to 
 the country, and the whole country, in expressing our 
 preference and love for him. (Applause.) But, gen- 
 tlemen, it was from Governor Seward that most of us 
 learned to love Republican principles and the Republi- 
 can party. (Cheers.) His fidelity to the country, the 
 Constitution, and the laws his fidelity to the party 
 and the principle that majorities govern his interest 
 in the advancement of our party to its victory, that 
 our country may rise to its true glory, induces me to 
 declare that I speak his sentiments, as I do the united 
 opinion of our delegation, when I move, sir, as I do 
 now, that the nomination of Abraham Lincoln, of Il- 
 linois, as the Republican candidate for the suffrages of 
 the whole country for the office of Chief Magistrate 
 of the American Union, be made unanimous." (Ap- 
 plause, and three cheers for New- York.) 
 
 The life-size portrait of Abraham Lincoln was here 
 exhibited from the platform, amid renewed cheers. 
 
 Mr. Andrews, of Massachusetts, on the part of the 
 united delegation of that State, seconded the motion 
 of the gentleman of New-York, that the nomination 
 be made unanimous. 
 
 Eloquent speeches, endorsing the nominee, were also 
 made by Carl Schurz, F. P. Blair, of Missouri, and
 
 132 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Mr. Browning, of Illinois, all of which breathed a 
 spirit of confidence and enthusiasm. 
 
 At the close, three hearty cheers were given for 
 New-York, and the nomination of Mr. Lincoln made 
 unanimous. 
 
 With loud cheers for Lincoln, the Convention ad- 
 journed till five o'clock. 
 
 On the first ballot, in the evening session, Mr. Ham- 
 lin, of Maine, received 194 votes for the Vice-Presi- 
 dency, and was nominated with enthusiasm. 
 
 THE RATIFICATION BY THE PEOPLE. 
 
 Everywhere, throughout the land, in New- York as 
 well as Illinois, in Pennsylvania as well as Indiana, 
 everywhere, the voice of the people has gone up in 
 shouts of joy over the nomination of Lincoln and 
 Hamlin. Even from Albany, where the friends of Mr. 
 Seward were so strong, comes a despatch like the fol- 
 lowing, dated the night of the day on which the nom- 
 inations w r ere made : 
 
 "Nine o'clock, p. m. The Kepublicans of this city 
 are now fairly waked up, and the wildest excitement 
 prevails in regard to the nomination of Lincoln. State 
 street is a perfect sea of fire from burning tar barrels. 
 The whole heavens are illuminated with a red glare, 
 cannon is firing, music is playing, and the people are 
 shouting on State street and Broadway. Both streets 
 are literally jammed with men of all parties, who are 
 earnestly discussing the action of the Convention. 
 
 " The Kepublicans of the city are now more reconciled 
 to the nomination, and unite in hearty approval of it. 
 They consider that while Lincoln may not be as strong 
 in the State as Seward, he will be less objectionable 
 throughout the Union.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 133 
 
 " Since the reception of the successful laying of the 
 Atlantic cable, no more animated scene has ever been 
 witnessed in this city than has been seen this evening. 
 
 " In New- York two six-pounders were brought to the 
 Park, and fired each a hundred times one of them by 
 order of the Republican General Committee, and the 
 other under the patronage of private citizens. Besides 
 these the Central Committee ordered one hundred guns 
 to be fired in Madison and Hamilton squares respective- 
 ly. In Mount Morris square, also, the big gun was 
 brought out, and a hundred rounds announced to the 
 citizens the nomination of Lincoln and Hamlin. Great 
 numbers of enthusiastic Republicans gathered in the 
 square, and the excitement was intense." 
 
 In Philadelphia : " The Republicans opened their 
 campaign by an immense mass meeting in Independence 
 Square. JOHN B. MYEES, Esq. presided at the main 
 stand, and three other meetings were organized two 
 at opposite angles of the square and one within the 
 State-House. The meeting having been called to rati- 
 fy the nominations made by the Chicago Convention, 
 this was done in a series of resolutions highly eulogistic 
 of the candidates and approving and adopting the plat- 
 form on which they have been placed. Speeches were 
 delivered by Mr. Senator TRUMBULL, of Illinois ; 
 CHARLES R. TRAIN, of Massachusetts ; Wm. M. 
 DUNN, of Indiana ; ORRIS S. FERRY, of Connecticut ; 
 JAMES H. CAMPBELL, of Pennsylvania ; JOHN SHER- 
 MAN, of Ohio ; G. A. GROW, of Pennsylvania ; JUSTIN 
 S. MORRIL, of Vermont ; M. S. WILKINSON, of Min- 
 nesota ; and other distinguished gentlemen. The as- 
 semblage, in the display of numbers and enthusiasm, 
 has rarely if ever been surpassed. Ward processions 
 marched to the square with bands of music, fireworks,
 
 134 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 transparencies, rails, etc, ; and when the series of meet- 
 ings concluded, at about half-past ten o'clock, the 
 multitude then proceeded to the Continental hotel in 
 compliment to the distinguished speakers. 
 
 In a speech at a Republican ratification meeting at 
 Harrisburg, Senator Cameron, while declaring that he 
 had hoped for the nomination of Mr. Seward, described 
 Mr. Lincoln as " a candidateless known in public life, 
 perhaps, but who, on all occasions, when demands have 
 been made upon his zeal and patriotism, has borne him- 
 self bravely and honorably. In regard to the great 
 interests of Pennsylvania, the subject of protection to 
 labor, his record is clear, emphatic, and beyond suspi- 
 cion. He will require no endorsement to convince the 
 people of Pennsylvania that their interests will be per- 
 fectly secure in his hands. Himself a laborer in early 
 life, he has struggled with adversity until he has reach- 
 ed the proud position he now occupies, by the single 
 aid of a strong purpose, seconded by an unyielding 
 will ; and it is not in the hearts of Pennsylvanians to 
 doubt such a man. The laboring men of this State 
 ever control the ballot-box when they arise in the maj- 
 esty of their strength. Let them go to the election 
 next autumn, and, while they are securing their own 
 interests, let them elevate to the highest place in their 
 election gift, Abraham Lincoln, a w'orkmgman like 
 themselves." 
 
 At Washington, D. C., an enthusiastic ratification 
 meeting was held the first time such a meeting has 
 been held in that city. 
 
 The public press was never before so unanimous in 
 its commendation of a candidate.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 135 
 
 The N. Y. Tribune says : 
 
 " While Mr. Lincoln's position as a Republican ren- 
 ders him satisfactory to the most zealous member of 
 the party, the moderation of his character, and the 
 conservative tendencies of his mind, long improved and 
 well known of all men in public life, commend him to 
 every section of the opposition. There is no good 
 reason why Americans and Whigs, and in short all 
 who are inspired rather by patriotism than by party 
 feeling, should riot rally to his support. Republicans 
 and conservatives, those who dread the extension of 
 Slavery, and those who dread the progress of adminis- 
 trative and legislative corruption, may be assured that 
 in him both these evils will find a stern and immovable 
 antagonist and an impassable barrier. At the same 
 time, as a man of the people, raised by his own genius 
 and integrity from the humblest to the highest position, 
 having made for himself an honored name as a lawyer, 
 an advocate, a popular orator, a statesman, and a man, 
 the industrious and intelligent masses of the country 
 may well hail his nomination with a swelling tide of 
 enthusiasm, of which the wild and prolonged outbursts 
 at Chicago yesterday are the fitting prelude and be- 
 ginning. 
 
 We need hardly say that the election of Mr. Lincoln, 
 though it cannot be accomplished without arduous and 
 persistent efforts, is eminently a thing that can be done. 
 The disruption of the Democratic Party, now perhaps 
 less likely to be repaired than before his nomination, 
 the fact that he was put forward by one of the doubt- 
 ful States, Illinois, and nominated in great measure by 
 votes from two others, namely Pennsylvania and New- 
 Jersey, the universal desire of the country to settle the 
 vexatious Slavery question in accordance with the 
 views of the fathers all these are powerful in behalf 
 of the Chicago ticket." 
 
 The Springfield, Mass., Republican :
 
 136 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 " In ways, which it is useless to mention now, we 
 are, of course, disappointed ; in ways, which we shall 
 have frequent occasion to mention between this date 
 and November, we are glad and grateful. The nomi- 
 nee is a positive man a live man- and in these re- 
 spects matches well with the platform, which is bold, 
 manly, and comprehensive. The many friends of Mr. 
 Seward, particularly, will feel aggrieved by this result, 
 but it could not have been otherwise. The States 
 which must be carried to secure a Republican triumph 
 did not dare to assume Mr. Seward, and the forcing up- 
 on them of a name that would weaken them, and de- 
 velop opposition organized and consolidated would 
 have been neither wise nor fair. We predict for the 
 ticket a popularity that will grow, as the campaign ad- 
 vances, into a furor of enthusiasm. We predict, fur- 
 thermore, that it will be elected." 
 
 The Boston Atlas : 
 
 " As in 1840 and 1848, the Whig party passed by 
 the prominent names before the Conventions at the out- 
 set, and as in 1844 and in 1852 the Democratic party 
 did the same thing, and elected men who were not the 
 most prominently before the people, the Republicans 
 have in this instance taken up men fresh from the peo- 
 ple, of broad and statesmanlike qualities, of unques- 
 tioned abilities, and of tried patriotism, in what is to 
 be to them a great, and, as we confidently believe, a 
 triumphantly successful campaign. In a nomination 
 of this nature, there must have been 1 necessarily many 
 preferences from people of different sections, some of 
 which were to be set aside. Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase, 
 Mr. Cameron, Mr. Banks, Mr. Bates, and Mr. McLean, all 
 have friends presented their names for the first or sec- 
 ond place on the ticket. For ourselves, we might have 
 had personal preferences equally strong with others. 
 But at a time like this, personal preferences are to be 
 subordinated to the will of the majority, as expressed
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 137 
 
 in the Convention, as to the success of the ticket as in- 
 dicated by the judgment of that body." 
 
 The N. Y. Evening Post : 
 
 " Our country is not, however, distinguished alone for 
 its stupendous physical progress, for those grand tri- 
 umphs over nature which have sprinkled the whole con- 
 tinent with cities, and connected its remotest parts by 
 railroads and telegraphs. It has also worked out for it- 
 self a peculiar social and political constitution. Pla- 
 cing, for the first time in the history of mankind, the 
 controlling- power of government in the hands of the 
 whole people, it has constructed a vast fabric of socie- 
 ty on that new basis. It has said to all ranks and or- 
 ders of men, here you are free ; here you are equal in 
 rights to each other ; here the careers of life are open 
 to every comer ; men are thrown upon their own 
 intrinsic manhood for their reliance, and it belongs to 
 each one to become the architect of his own fortunes. 
 This unlimited freedom of action, though it has pro- 
 duced some social evils, has produced much greater 
 good, and we do not believe that there is a nation on 
 the globe in which the masses of the people are so 
 prosperous, so intelligent, and so contented as they are 
 in this nation. What more striking illustration of its 
 effects could we have, than the rise of Mr. Lincoln to 
 his present importance in the eyes of the world ? Is 
 he not pre-eminently the child of our free institutions ? 
 A poor orphan, without education or friends, by the 
 labor of his hands, by the energy of his will, by the 
 manliness and probity of his character, he raises him- 
 self to fortune and fame ; a powerful party, which 
 contains, to say the least, as much virtue and intelli- 
 gence as any other, assigns him, without intrigues or 
 efforts of his own, the first place in its regards, making 
 him the bearer of its standard in a momentous politi- 
 cal conflict ; and in a few months more we may see the 
 once friendless boy the occupant of the Presidential
 
 138 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 chair. Thus the spirit of our institutions is strikingly 
 embodied in his career, which is itself an admirable 
 commentary on their excellence." 
 
 And the conservative Philadelphia North Ameri- 
 can : 
 
 " The people of Pennsylvania are eminently practi- 
 cal in all their views and actions. We are not hasty 
 nor inconsiderate. We take time to reflect and gener- 
 ally act intelligently. It has been so in this case. 
 Our State entered into the canvass at Chicago with 
 a spirit, a determination, and an indomitable energy 
 which completely surprised the gentlemen from the ex- 
 treme North, and served us a rallying point for all the 
 moderates. The Pennsylvania delegation was gener- 
 ally accredited with the selfish purpose of going to Chi- 
 cago to secure the nomination of one of our own sons. 
 Such was far from the truth. When the ground was 
 surveyed, it was found that from the Atlantic seacoast 
 of Jersey to the Mississippi river, in the whole belt of 
 States south of New- York and Michigan, there was a 
 settled determination not to take Mr. Seward, nor, in- 
 deed, any extreme man. Yet ths councils of these 
 States were divided, and no chance of concentration - 
 seemed to present itself. At length Pennsylvania, by 
 the force of her numbers' and courage, solved the prob- 
 lem. She sacrificed her own canditate, and rushed 
 over to the side of the Illinois favorite, Lincoln. 
 
 " This nomination was made by Pennsylvania, and it 
 could not have been accomplished without her. She 
 brought together, for the first time, this noble phalanx 
 of central free States, and gave them a community of 
 feeling and purpose. From the first moment that this 
 movement was begun victory was no longer doubtful. 
 Pennsylvania demanded a protectionist, and so did all 
 the States of this combination. Her demand could 
 not be refused, and in Mr. Lincoln we have one whose 
 devotion to American interests has been lifelong.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 139 
 
 Sprung, too, from good old Pennsylvania stock, he 
 was peculiarly entitled to her support. 
 
 " Under these circumstances it is clear that our gal- 
 lant State has gained a signal triumph at Chicago, and 
 one, too, the effects of which are likely to prove lasting. 
 In the demonstration of joy with which the nomination 
 has been hailed at Easton, Westchester, and other 
 points throughout the interior, we read the indications 
 of the popular feeling. The belief is general that this 
 is a Pennsylvania ticket, and must receive the vote of 
 the State. In fact, the people of this commonwealth 
 are determined not to permit the election of another 
 Democratic President, no matter with how much 
 clamor any particular section of the country may de- 
 mand it. The interests of the whole country must be 
 attended to first, and those of sections afterward. We 
 must purge the government of the corruptions which 
 befoul every department at Washington. We must 
 substitute honest, and patriotic, and sensible men for 
 reckless, and intriguing, and plunder-seeking faction- 
 ists, to whom the interests of humanity, the progress 
 of civilization and enlightenment, and the rights and 
 privileges of citizenship, are too small for serious con- 
 sideration." 
 
 And so we might go on, quoting hundreds of pages 
 of similar remarks from the American Press. 
 
 MR. LINCOLN AT HOME. 
 
 The Committee appointed by the National Convention 
 to wait upon Mr. Lincoln, and inform him of his nomi- 
 nation, immediately performed their duty. A corre- 
 spondent of the Chicago Journal gives the subjoined 
 graphic account of the visit of the Committee : 
 
 " The excursion train bearing the Committee appoint- 
 ed by the National Convention at Chicago to wait on
 
 140 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Mr. Lincoln and notify him of his nomination, consist- 
 ing of the President of the Convention, the Hon. Geo. 
 Ashmun of Mass., and the chairmen of the different 
 State delegations, arrived at Springfield, Friday even- 
 ing at seven o'clock. 
 
 " Agreat crowd was awaiting them at the depot, and 
 greeted their coming with enthusiastic shouts. From 
 the depot they marched to the hotel, accompanied by 
 the crowd, and two or three hands discoursing stirring 
 music. The appearance and names of the more distin- 
 guished delegates were received with vociferous ap- 
 plause, especially the venerable and famous Francis P. 
 Blair of Maryland, the Hon. E. D. Morgan, Governor 
 of New-York, and Governor Boutwell of Massachu- 
 setts. 
 
 " When they arrived at 'the hotel the crowd, still 
 increasing, deployed off to the State-House square, to 
 give vent to their enthusiasm in almost continual 
 cheers, and listen to fervent speeches. 
 
 " Having partaken of a bountiful supper, the delegates 
 proceeded quietly, by such streets as would escape the 
 crowd, to the residence of Mr. Lincoln. Quite a num- 
 ber of outsiders were along, among whom were half a 
 dozen editors, including the Hon. Henry J. Kaymond of 
 The New- York Times. 
 
 "Among the delegates composing the Committee, were 
 many of the most distinguished men in that great Con- 
 vention, such as Mr. Evarts of New- York, the accom- 
 plished and eloquent spokesman of the delegation from 
 the Empire State, and friend of Mr. Seward ; Judge 
 Kelly of Pennsylvania, whose tall form and sonorous 
 eloquence excited so much attention ; Mr. Andrew of 
 Massachusetts, the round-faced, handsome man, who 
 made such a beautiful and telling speech on behalf of 
 the old Bay State, in seconding the motion to make 
 Lincoln's nomination unanimous ; Mr. Simmons, the 
 gray-headed United States Senator from Ehode Island; 
 Mr. Ashmun, the President of the Convention, so long
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 141 
 
 the bosom friend and ardent admirer of Daniel Web- 
 ster, and the leader of the Massachusetts Whigs ; the 
 veteran Blair, and his gallant sons, Frank P. and 
 Montgomery ; brave old Blakie of Kentucky ; Galla- 
 gher, the literary man of Ohio ; burly, loud-voiced 
 Cartter of Ohio, who announced the four votes that 
 gave Lincoln the nomination, and others that I have 
 not time to mention. 
 
 " In a few minutes (it now being about 8 p. M.), they 
 were at Lincoln's house an elegant two-story dwell- 
 ing, fronting west, of pleasing exterior, with a neat 
 and roomy appearance, situated in the quiet part of the 
 town, surrounded with shrubbery. As they were pass- 
 ing in at the gate and up the steps, two handsome lads 
 of eight or ten years met them with a courteous ' Good 
 evening, gentlemen/ 
 
 " 'Are you Mr. Lincoln's son ? ' said Mr. Evarts of 
 New- York. ' Yes, sir/ said the boy. < Then let's 
 shake hands ;' and they began greeting him so warmly 
 as to excite the younger one's attention, who had stood 
 silently by the opposite gatepost, and he sang out, 
 ' I'm a Lincoln, too ;' whereupon several delegates, 
 amid much laughter, saluted the young Lincoln. 
 
 Having all collected in the large north parlor, Mr. 
 Ashmun addressed Mr. Lincoln, who stood at the east 
 end of the room, as follows : 
 
 "'*! have, sir, the honor, in behalf of the gentlemen 
 who are present, a Committee appointed by the Repub- 
 lican Convention, recently assembled at Chicago, to 
 discharge a most pleasant duty. We have come, sir, 
 under a vote of instructions to that Committee, to 
 notify you that you have been selected by the Conven- 
 tion of the' Republicans at Chicago, for President of the 
 United States. They instruct us, sir, to notify you of 
 that selection, and that Committee deem it not only 
 respectful to yourself, but appropriate to the important 
 matter which they have in hand, that they should 
 come in person, and present to you the authentic evi-
 
 142 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 dence of the action of that Convention ; and, sir, with- 
 out any phrase which shall either be considered person- 
 ally plauditory to yourself, or which shall have any 
 reference to the principles involved in the questions 
 which are connected with your nomination, I desire to 
 present to you the letter which has been prepared, and 
 which informs you of the nomination, and with it the 
 platform, resolutions, and sentiments, which the Con- 
 vention adopted. Sir, at your convenience, we shall 
 be glad to receive from you such a response as it may 
 lie your pleasure to give us/ 
 
 " Mr. Lincoln listened with a countenance grave and 
 earnest, almost to sternness, regarding Mr. Ashmun 
 with the profoundest attention, and at the conclusion of 
 that gentleman's remarks, after an impressive pause, 
 he replied in a clear but subdued voice, with that per- 
 fect enunciation, which always marks his utterance, 
 and a dignified sincerity of manner suited to the man 
 and the occasion, in the following words : 
 
 a 'ME. CHAIRMAN, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COM- 
 MITTEE : I tender to you, and through you to the Re- 
 publican National Convention, and all the people 
 represented in it, my profoundest thanks for the high 
 honor done me, which you now formally announce. 
 Deeply, and even painfully sensible of the great respon- 
 sibility which is inseparable from this high honor a 
 responsibility which I could almost wish had fallen 
 upon some one of the far more eminent men and ex- 
 perienced statesmen whose distinguished names wei v 
 before the Convention, I shall, by your leave, considt- 
 more fully the resolutions of the Convention, denomi- 
 nated the platform, and without unnecessary or un- 
 reasonable delay, respond to you, Mr. Chairman, in 
 writing, not doubting that the platform will be found 
 satisfactory, and the nomination gratefully accepted. 
 
 " ' And now I will not -longer defer the pleasure of 
 taking you, and each of you, by the hand.'
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 143 
 
 " Mr. Ashmun then introduced the delegates person- 
 ally to Mr. Lincoln, who shook them heartily by the 
 h-md. Gov. Morgan, Mr. Blair, Senator Simmons, Mr. 
 Welles, and Mr. Fogg, of Connecticut, were first in- 
 troduced ; then came hearty old Mr. Blakie, of Ken- 
 tiuky, Lincoln's native State, and, of course, they had 
 to compare notes, inquire up old neighbors, and, if the 
 time had allowed, they would soon have started to 
 tracing out the old pioneer families. Major Ben. 
 Eggleston, of Cincinnati, was next, and his greeting 
 and reception were equally hearty. Tall Judge Kelly, 
 of Pennsylvania, was then presented by Mr. Ashmun 
 to Mr. Lincoln. As they shook hands, each eyed the 
 other's ample proportions, with genuine admiration 
 Lincoln, for once, standing erect as an Indian during 
 this evening, and showing his tall form in its full 
 dignity. 
 
 " ' What's your height ?' inquired Lincoln. 
 
 " ' Six feet three ; what is yours, Mr. Lincoln !' 
 said Judge Kelly, in his round, deliberate tone. 
 
 11 ' Six feet four,' replied Lincoln. 
 "'Then/ said Judge Kelly, 'Pennsylvania bows 
 to Illinois. My dear man, for years my heart has been 
 aching for a President that I could look up to, and I've 
 found him at last in the land where we thought there 
 were none but little giants/ 
 
 "Mr. Evarts, of New-York, expressed very gracefully 
 his gratification at meeting Mr. Lincoln, whom he had 
 heard at Cooper Institute, but where, on account of 
 the pressure and crowd, he had to go. away without an 
 introduction. 
 
 " Mr. Andrews, of Massachusetts, said, ' We claim 
 you, Mr. Lincoln, as coming from Massachusetts, be- 
 cause all the old Lincoln name are from Plymouth Col- 
 ony.' 
 
 " ' We'll consider it so this evening,' said Lincoln. 
 
 " Various others were presented, when Mr. Ashmun 
 asked them to come up and introduce themselves.
 
 144 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 ' Come up, gentlemen/ said Mr. Judd, l it's nobody but 
 Old Abe Lincoln/ The greatest good feeling pre- 
 vailed. As the delegates fell back, each congratulated 
 the other that they had got just the sort of man. A 
 neatly-dressed New-Englander remarked to us, ' I was 
 afraid I should meet a gigantic rail-splitter, with the 
 manners of a flatboatrnan, and the ugliest face in 
 creation ; and he's a complete gentleman.' 
 
 "Mrs. Lincoln received the delegates in the south 
 parlor, where they were severally conducted after their 
 official duty was performed. It will, no doubt, be a 
 gratification to those who have not seen this amiable 
 and accomplished lady to know that she adorns a draw- 
 ing-room, presides over a table, does the honors on an 
 occasion, like the present, or will do the honors at the 
 White-House, with appropriate grace. She is a daugh- 
 ter of Dr. Todd, formerly of Kentucky, and long one 
 of the prominent citizens of Springfield. She is one 
 of three sisters noted for their beauty and accomplish- 
 ments. One of them is now the wife of Ninian W. 
 Edwards, Esq., son of old Gov. Edwards. Mrs. Lin- 
 coln is now apparently about 35 years of age, is a very 
 handsome woman, with a vivacious and graceful man- 
 ner ; is an interesting and often sparkling talker. 
 Standing by her almost gigantic husband, she appears 
 petite, but is really about the average height of ladies. 
 They have three sons, two of them already mentioned, 
 and an older one a young man of 16 or 18 years, now 
 at Harvard College, Mass. 
 
 " Mr. Lincoln bore himself during the evening with 
 dignity and ease. His kindly and sincere manner, frank 
 and honest expression, unaffected, pleasant conversa- 
 tion, soon made every one feel at ease, and rendered 
 the hour and a half which they spent with him one of 
 great pleasure to the delegates. He was dressed with 
 perfect neatness, almost elegance though, as all Illi- 
 noians know, he usually is as plain in his attire as he 
 is modest and unassuming in deportment. He stood
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 145 
 
 erect, displaying to excellent advantage his tall and 
 manly figure. 
 
 " Perhaps some reader will be curious to know how 
 1 Honest Old Abe' received the news of his nomination. 
 He had been up in the telegraph office during the first 
 and second ballots on Friday morning. As the vote of 
 each State was announced on the platform at Chicago, 
 it was telegraphed to Springfield, and those who were 
 gathered there figured up the vote, and hung over the 
 result with the same breathless anxiety as the crowd at 
 the Wigwam. As soon as the second ballot was taken, 
 and before it had been counted and announced by the 
 secretaries, Mr. Lincoln walked over to the State Jour- 
 nal office. He was sitting there conversing while the 
 third ballot was being taken. When Cartter, of Ohio, 
 announced the change of four votes, giving Lincoln a 
 majority, and before the great tumult of applause in 
 the Wigwam had fairly begun, it was telegraphed to 
 Springfield. Mr. Wilson, telegraph superintendent, who 
 was in the office, instantly wrote on a scrap of paper, 
 ' Mr. Lincoln, you are nominated on the third ballot/ 
 and gave it to a boy, who ran with it to Mr. Lincoln. 
 He took the paper in his hand, and looked at it long 
 and silently, not heeding the noisy exultation of all 
 around, and then rising and putting the note in his vest 
 pocket, he quietly remarked, ( There's a little woman 
 down at our house would like to hear this. I'll go 
 down and tell her/ 
 
 "It is needless to say that the people of Springfield 
 were delirious with joy and enthusiasm both that even- 
 ing and since. As the delegates returned to the hotel 
 the sky blazing with rockets, cannon roaring at in- 
 tervals, bonfires blazing at the street corners, long rows 
 of buildings brilliantly illuminated, the State-House 
 overflowing with shouting people, speakers awakening 
 new enthusiasm one of the New-England delegates 
 remarked that there were more enthusiasm and sky- 
 rockets than he ever saw in a town of that size before.
 
 146 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 " The Ohio delegates brought back with them a rail, 
 one of the original three thousand split by Lincoln in 
 1830 ; and though it bears the marks of years, is still 
 tough enough for service. It is for Tom Corwin, who 
 intends taking it with him as he stumps the Buckeye 
 State for honest old Abe." 
 
 A correspondent of the New- York Evening Post de- 
 scribes his visit to Mr. Lincoln in the following manner : 
 
 " It had been reported by some of Mr. Lincoln's po- 
 litical enemies, that he was a man who lived in the 
 ' lowest hoosier style/ and I thought I would see for 
 myself. Accordingly, as soon as the business of thf 
 Convention was closed, I took the cars for Springfield. 
 I found Mr. Lincoln living in a handsome, but not pre- 
 tentious, double two-story frame house, having a wide 
 hall running through the centre, with parlors on both 
 sides, neatly, but not ostentatiously, furnished. It was 
 just such a dwelling as a majority of the well-to-do 
 residents of these fine western towns occupy. Every- 
 thing about it had a look of comfort and independence. 
 The library I remarked in passing, particularly, and I 
 was pleased to see long rows of books, which told of the 
 scholarly tastes and culture of the family. 
 
 " Lincoln received us with great, and to me, sur- 
 prising urbanity. I had seen him before in New- York, 
 and brought with me an impression of his awkward 
 and ungainly manner ; but in his own house, where he 
 doubtless feels himself freer than in the strange New- 
 York circles, he had thrown this off, and appeared easy, 
 if not graceful. He is, as you know, a tall, lank man, 
 with a long neck, and his ordinary movements are 
 unusually angular, even out West. As soon, however, 
 as he gets interested in conversation, his face lights up, 
 vud his attitudes and gestures assume a certain dignity 
 and impressiveness. His conversation is fluent, agree- 
 able and polite. You see at once from it that he is a 
 man of decided and original character. His views are
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 147 
 
 all his own ; such as lie has worked out from a patient 
 and varied scrutiny of life, and not such as he has 
 learned from others. Ye.t he cannot be called opinion- 
 ated. He listens to others like one eager to learn, and 
 his replies evince at the same time, both modesty and 
 self-reliance. I should say that sound common sense 
 was the principal quality of his mind, although at times 
 a striking phrase or word reveals a peculiar vein of 
 thought. He tells a story well, with a strong idiomatic 
 smack, and seems to relish humor, both in himself and 
 others. Our conversation was mainly political, but of 
 a general nature. One thing Mr. Lincoln remarked, 
 which I will venture to repeat. He said that in the 
 coming presidential canvass he was wholly uncommitted 
 to any cabals or cliques, and that he meant to keep 
 himself free from them, and from all pledges and 
 promises. 
 
 "I had the pleasure, also, of a brief interview with 
 Mrs. Lincoln, and, in the circumstances of these per- 
 sons, I trust I am not trespassing on the sanctities of 
 private life, in saying a word in regard to that lady. 
 Whatever of awkwardness may be ascribed to her 
 husband, there is none of it in her. On the contrary, 
 she is quite a pattern of lady-like courtesy and polish. 
 She converses with freedom and grace, and is thoroughly 
 au fait in all the little amenities of society. Mrs. 
 Lincoln belongs, by the mother's side, to the Preston 
 family of Kentucky, has received a liberal and refined 
 education, and should she ever reach it, will adorn the 
 White-House. She is, I am told, a strict and consis- 
 tent member of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 "Not a man of us who saw Mr. Lincoln but was 
 impressed by his ability and character. In illustration 
 of the last let me mention one or two things, which 
 your readers, I think, will be pleased to hear. Mr. 
 Lincoln's early -life, as you know, was passed in the 
 roughest kind of experience on the frontier, and among 
 the roughest sort of people. Yet, I have been told
 
 148 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 that, in the face of all these influences, he is a strictly 
 temperate man, never using wine or strong drink ; and 
 stranger still, he does not ' twist the filthy weed,' nor 
 smoke, nor use profane language of any kind. When 
 we consider how common these vices are all over our 
 country, particularly in the West, it must be admitted 
 that it exhibits no little strength of character to have 
 refrained from them. 
 
 " Mr. Lincoln is popular with his fiiends and neigh- 
 bors ; the habitual equity of his mind points him out 
 as a peacemaker and composer of dilliculties ; his 
 integrity is proverbial ; and his legal abilities are 
 regarded as of the highest order. The soubriquet of 
 ' Honest old Abe/ has been won by years of upright 
 conduct, and is the popular homage to his probity. 
 He carries the marks of honesty in his face and entire 
 deportment. 
 
 " I am the more convinced by this personal inter- 
 course with Mr. Lincoln, that the action of our Con- 
 vention was altogether judicious and proper." 
 
 The Tribune gives the subjoined incident : 
 
 " Probably no attribute of our candidate will, after 
 all, endear him so much to the popular heart as the 
 cooviction that he is emphatically ' one of the people/ 
 His manhood has not been compressed into the artificial 
 track of society ; but his great heart and vigorous in- 
 tellect have been allowed a generous development amid 
 his solitary struggles in the forest and the prairie. 
 With vision unobscured by the mists of sophistry, he 
 distinguishes at the first glance between what is true 
 and what is false, and with will and courage fortified 
 by his life of hardship, he is not the man to shirk any 
 responsibility, or to shrink from any opposition. More- 
 over, he is peculiarly one to win our confidence and 
 affection. To know ' honest Abe' is to love him ; and 
 his neighbors in the West, although voting for him to 
 a man, will mourn the victory which is to deprive them
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 149 
 
 of his presence. The following incident will exhibit 
 Lincoln in one of those unobtrusive acts of goodness 
 which adorn his life. The circumstance was related by 
 a teacher from the Five-Points' House of Industry in 
 this city : ' Our Sunday-school in the Five-Points was 
 assembled, one Sabbath morning, a few months since, 
 when I noticed a tall and remarkable looking man enter, 
 the room and take a seat among us. He listened with 
 fixed attention to our exercises, and his countenance 
 manifested such genuine interest, that I approached 
 him and suggested that he might be willing to say 
 something to the children. He accepted the invitation 
 with evident pleasure, and coming forward, began a 
 simple address, which at once fascinated every little 
 hearer, and hushed the room into silence. His lan- 
 guage was strikingly beautiful, and his tones musical 
 with intensest feeling. The little faces around would 
 droop into sad conviction, as he uttered sentences of 
 warning, and would brighten into sunshine as he spoke 
 cheerful words of promise. Once or twice he attempted 
 to close his remarks, but the imperative shout of " Go 
 on !" " Oh, do go on !" would compel him to resume. 
 As I looked upon the gaunt and sinewy frame of the 
 stranger, and marked his powerful head and deter- 
 mined features, now touched into softness by the im- 
 pressions of the moment, I felt an irrepressible curiosity 
 to learn something more about him, and when he was 
 quietly leaving the room, I begged to know his name. 
 He courteously replied, " It is Abraham Lincoln, from 
 Illinois!"'" 
 
 That the Convention at Chicago acted wisely and 
 sagaciously, no man can for a moment doubt who looks 
 over the field and sees the enthusiasm of the people 
 over the nominations. Tliat Lincoln and Hamlin can 
 be, and will be, elected to the places to which they have 
 been nominated we have no manner of doubt, and we
 
 150 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 
 
 cannot do better than to finish our sketch of -Mr. Lin- 
 coln by quoting the following admirable song of one of 
 America's most gifted sons, William Henry Burleigh, 
 of New- York : 
 
 Up, again for the conflict ! our banner fling out, 
 * And rally around it with song and with ehout 1 
 
 Stout of heart, firm of hand, should the gallant boys be, 
 Who bear to the battle the Flag of the Free ! 
 Like our fathers, when Liberty called to the strife, 
 They should pledge to her cause fortune, honor, and life I 
 And follow wherever she beckons them on, 
 Till Freedom exults in a victory won ! 
 
 Then fling out the banner, the old starry banner, 
 The battle-torn banner that beckons us on ! 
 
 They come from the hillside, they come from the glen 
 From the streets, thronged with traffic, and surging with men 
 From loom and from ledger, from workshop and farm. 
 The fearless of heart, and the mighty of arm. 
 Aa the mountain-bom torrents exultingly leap, 
 When their ice-fetters melt, to the breast of the deep ; 
 As the winds of the prairie, the waves of the sea, 
 They are coming are coming the Sons of the Free I 
 Then fling out the banner, the old fctarry banner, 
 The war-tattered banner, the flag of the Free ! 
 
 Our Leader ia one who, with conquerlesa will, 
 
 lisa climbed from the base to the brow of the bill ; 
 
 Undaunted in peril, unwavering in strife, 
 
 HJ has fought a good fight in the Battle of Life 
 
 And we trust him as one who, come woe or come weal, 
 
 Is a> firm as the rock, and as true aa the steel, 
 
 Eight loyal and brave, with no stain on his crest, 
 
 Then, hurrah, boys, for honest "Old Abe of the West 1" 
 And fling out your banner, the old etarry banner. 
 The signal of triumph for " Abe of the West !" 
 | 
 
 The West, whose broad acres, from lake-shore to sea, 
 
 Now wait for the harvest and homes of the free I 
 
 Shall the dark tide of Slavery roll o'er the sod, 
 
 That Freedom makes bloom like the garden of God f 
 
 The bread of our children be torn from their mouth, 
 
 To feed the fierce dragon that preys on the South ? 
 
 No, never 1 the tru.4 which our Washington laid 
 
 On us, for the Future, shall ne'er be betrayed ! 
 
 Then fling out the banner, the old ctarry banner. 
 And </n to the conflict with hearts undismayed 1
 
 SPEECHES OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
 
 PAET FIFTH.
 
 SPEECH OF MR. LINCOLN, 
 
 AT SPRINGFIELD, June 17, 1858. 
 
 [The following speech was delivered at Springfield, 
 111., at the close of the Republican State Convention, 
 held at that time and place, and by which Convention 
 Mr. Lincoln had been named as their candidate for 
 United States Senator. Mr. Douglas was not pres- 
 ent.,] 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE C OXVENTION : 
 If \VQ could first kno\v where we are. and whither we are 
 lending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. 
 "VVe are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initi- 
 ated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting 
 an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that 
 policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has con- 
 stantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a 
 crisis shall have been reached and passed. " A house_divided 
 against itself cannot stand." I believe this government can- 
 not endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not 
 expect the Union to be dissolved I do not expect the house 
 to fall but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will 
 become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents 
 of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it 
 where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the 
 course of ultimate extinction ; or its advocates will push it 
 forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old 
 as well as new North as well as South. 
 
 Have we no tendency to the latter condition ? 
 
 Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now
 
 154 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 almost complete legal combination piece.^>fUm.ajQbinery, so to 
 speak compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred 
 Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the 
 machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted ; but also, 
 let him study the history of its constructipn, and trace, if he 
 can, or rather fail, if he can, to 'trace, the evidences of design, 
 and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the be- 
 ginning. " 
 
 The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more 
 than half the States by State constitutions, and from most of 
 the national territory by Congressional prohibition. Four 
 days later, commenced the struggle which ended in repealing 
 that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the national 
 territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. 
 
 But, so far, Congress only had acted ; and an endorsement 
 by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the 
 point already gained, and give chance for more, 
 
 This necessity had not been overlooked ; but had been pro- 
 vided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of 
 ''squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self- 
 government " which latter phrase, though expressive of the 
 only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in 
 this attempted use of it as to amount to just this : That if 
 any one man choose to ensl.tve another, no third man shall be 
 allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the 
 Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows : " It 
 being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate 
 slavery into any territory or State, nor to exclude it there- 
 from ; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
 and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, 
 subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Then 
 opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of " squatter 
 sovereignty," and " sacred rights of self-government." " But," 
 said opposition members, " let us amend the bill so as to ex- 
 pressly declare that the people ot' the territory may exclude 
 slavery." "Not we," sail the friends of the measure; and 
 down they voted the amendment. 
 
 While the Nebrask a bill was passing through Congress, a 
 law case involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason 
 of his owner having voluntarily taken him. first into a free 
 State and then into a territory covered by the Congressional
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 155 
 
 prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, 
 was passing through the U. S. Circuit Court for the District 
 of Missouri ; and both Nebraska bill and law suit wen 
 brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The 
 . . iiegro's name was " Dred Scott," which name now designate? 
 the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next 
 Presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued 
 in. the Supreme Court of the United States ; but the decision 
 of^t was deferred until after the election. Still, before the 
 election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, re- 
 quested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state hr 
 opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally 
 exclude slavery from their limits ; and the latter answers : 
 " That is a question for the Supreme Court." 
 
 The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the 
 endorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the secom' 
 point gained. The endorsement, however, fell short of a clea 
 popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, am 
 so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory 
 ~~^ The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impree 
 sively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight an- 
 authority of the erTdorsement. The Supreme Court met again ; 
 did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argumen 1 
 The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision o' 
 the court ; but the incoming President, in his inaugural ad 
 dress, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcom 
 ing decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days 
 came the decision. 
 
 The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early oc- 
 -^ casion to make a speech at this capital endorsing of the Dred 
 v j Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition tc 
 j I it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of tht 
 >S/ Silliman letter to endorse and strongly constiue that decision. 
 / and to express his astonishment that any different view had 
 ever been entertained ! 
 
 At length a squabble springs up between the President ;m< . 
 
 the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact. 
 
 whether the Lecompton Constitution was, or was not, in 
 
 1^ tuny just sense, made by the people of Kansas ; and, in 
 
 (/that quarrel, the latter declares that all he wants is a 
 / fair vote of the people, and that he cares not whether 
 y
 
 156 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 slavery be voted doim or voted up. I do not under- 
 stand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be 
 voted down or voted up. to be intended by him other than as 
 an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the pub- 
 lic mind the principle for which he declares he has suffered 
 * so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he 
 I cling to that principle. If he has any.pjjr^njtal feeling, well 
 
 I may he cling to u. That principle is the only_shred_leftjDf 
 
 II his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Died Scott decis^- 
 I ion, " squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tum- 
 bled down. like_iemporary scaffolding like the mould at the 
 foundry- served through one blast and fell back into loose sand 
 helpeoMo carry an election, and then was kicked _to the 
 winds His late'joint struggle with the Republicans, against 
 the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original 
 Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point 
 the right of a people to make their own constitution upon 
 which he and the Republicans have never differed. 
 
 The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection 
 with Senator Douglas's " care riot" policy, constitute the piece 
 ' of machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was 
 the third point gained. The working points ot that machine- 
 ry are : 
 
 First, That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, 
 and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any 
 tate, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of 
 he United States. This point is made in oi'der to deprive 
 he negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that pro- 
 vision of the. United States Constitution, which declares that 
 'The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges 
 and immunities of citizens in the several States." 
 
 Secondly, That " subject to the Constitution of the United 
 States," neither Congress nor a territorial legislature can ex- 
 clude slavery from any United States territory. r l his point is 
 /made in order that individual men may fill up the territories 
 vvilli slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and 
 thus to tnhance the chances of permanency to the inetitutiun 
 through all the future. 
 
 Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in actual slave- 
 ry in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the 
 United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be de-
 
 >~"\ 
 * ) 
 
 ABEAHAM LINCOLN. 157 
 
 cided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced 
 into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed im- 
 mediately ; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently 
 endorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logi- 
 cal conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully 
 do with Dred Scott, in the free Slate of Hinois, every other 
 master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand 
 slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State. 
 
 Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, 
 the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and 
 mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not 
 to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This 
 shows exactly where we now are ; and partially, also, whith- 
 er we are tending. 
 
 It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and 
 run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. 
 Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than 
 they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be 
 left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." 
 What the Constitution hud to do with it outsiders couli not 
 then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted 
 for the Dred Scott decision to afterward- come in, an-t declare 
 the pel feet freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. 
 A Wjy was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the 
 
 (Y } people, voted down ? Plainly enough now : the adoption of 
 I it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott deci.-ion. 
 
 _^/ Why was the court decision held up ? Why even a Senator's 
 individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential elec- 
 tion '? Plainly enough now : the speaking out then would 
 have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the 
 election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's fe- 
 licitation on the endorsement ? Why the delay of a re-argu- 
 ment ? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation 
 in favor of the decision'? These things look like the cautious 
 patting and pt-tiing of a spirited ho^e preparatory to mount- 
 ing him, when it is dreaded that lie may <_i\e the rider a fall. 
 And why the hasty after-endorsement of the decision by the 
 President and others ? 
 
 We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations 
 are the result of pre-concert. But when we see a lot ot framed 
 timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten
 
 158 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 out at different times and places and by different 
 i Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance and when 
 we see these tiniberajonied together, and see they exactly 
 Uji make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mor-- 
 tices exactly fitting, all the lengths and proportions of the dif- 
 ferent pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and 
 not a piece too many or too few not omitting even scaffold- 
 \ ing or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the 
 " 1 frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in 
 IV in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Ste- 
 / phen and Franklin, and Roger and James, all understood one 
 another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common 
 plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. 
 
 It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the 
 people of a Slate as well as territory, were to be left " per- 
 fectly free," " subject only to the Constitution." Why men- 
 tion a State ? They were legislating for territories, and not 
 for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and 
 ought to be eubject to the Constitution of the United States ; 
 bnt why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial 
 la\v ? Why are the people of a territory and the people of a 
 State therein lumped together, and their relation to the Con- 
 stitution therein treated as being precisely the same? While 
 ,*, the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred 
 UQjScott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring 
 V ljudges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United 
 \J States neither permits Congress nor a territorial legislature to 
 exclude slavery from any United States territory, they all omit 
 to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a 
 State, or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly, this is 
 a mere omission ; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or 
 Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of un- 
 li/nited power in the people of a State to exclude slavery from 
 their limits, just as Cha^e and Mace sought to get such dec- 
 laration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the Ne- 
 braska bill I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not 
 have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the 
 other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the 
 power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He 
 approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and al- 
 most the language, too, of the Nebraska act. On one occa-
 
 ABBAHAM LINCOLN. 159 
 
 sion, his exact language is, " except in cases where the power 
 is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law 
 of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its 
 jurisdiction." In what cases the power of the State is so re- 
 strained by the United States Constitution, is left an open 
 question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on 
 the power ot the territories, was left open in ihe Nebraska 
 act. Tut this and that together, and we have another nice 
 little niche, which we ma}-, ere long, see filled with another 
 Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the 
 United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from, 
 its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doc- 
 trine of " care not whether slavery be voted down or voted 
 up," shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to gi, - e 
 promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. 
 
 Such a decision is all that slavery no-v lacks of being alike 
 lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such de- 
 cision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless 
 the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and 
 overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the 
 people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, 
 and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme 
 Court lias made Illinois a slave State. To meet and over- 
 throw the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all 
 those who would prevent that consummation. That is what 
 we have to do. How can we best do it ? 
 
 There- are those who denounce us openly to their own 
 friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the 
 aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. 
 Ihey wish us to infer all, from the fact that he now has a lit- 
 tle quarrel with the present head of the dynasty ; and that he 
 has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he 
 and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great 
 man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this 
 be gnmti'd. lint "a living dog w better than a dead lioiu" 
 Jud-e Douglas, "if not u. d*-ad lion, for this work, is at least a 
 caged. aiuLioot filers one. How can he oppose the advance.- of 
 slavery'? 1 l.e__dmilt- care anything about it. His avowed 
 mission is impressing the '' public heart" to care nothing about 
 it. A leading Douglas democratic newspaper thinks Doug- 
 las's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the
 
 160 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 African slave trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to re- 
 vive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does 
 he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it 1 ? For 
 years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men 
 to take negro slaves into the new territories. Can he possi- 
 bly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they 
 can be bought cheapest ? And unquestionably they can be 
 bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all 
 in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of 
 a mere right of property ; and as such, how can he oppose 
 the foreign slave trade how can he refuse that trade in that 
 " property" shall be " perfectly free" unless he does it as a 
 protection to the home production ? And as the home pro- 
 ducers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly 
 without a ground of opposition. 
 
 Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may right- 
 fully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday that he may 
 rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, 
 for that reason, run ahead, and inter that he will make any 
 particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intima- 
 tion ? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague 
 I inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge 
 Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can 
 be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we 
 can come together on principle, so that our cause may have 
 assistan.-e from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no 
 adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now with us> 
 he does not pretend to be he does not promise ever to be. 
 
 Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its 
 own undoubted friends those whose hands are free, whose 
 hearts are in the work who do care for the result. Two 
 years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen 
 hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single im- 
 ) ul.se of resistance to a common danger, with every external 
 Circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even 
 ho>tile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and termed 
 and fought the battle through, under the constant hot nre of a 
 disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all 
 then, to falter now ? now, when that tame enemy i& waver- 
 ing, dissevered, and belligerent I The result is not doubtful. 
 We shall not fail if we stand firm, we shall not fail. W'ise
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 161 
 
 counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but sooner or 
 later, the victory is sure to come. 
 
 ME. LINCOLN'S SPEECH IN KEPLY TO ME. 
 DOUGLAS, 
 
 AT CHICAGO, July 10, 1858. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln was introduced by C. L. Wilson, Esq., and as 
 he made his appearance he was greeted with a perfect storm 
 of applause. For some moments the enthusiasm continued 
 unabated. At last, when by a wave of his hand partial 
 silence was restored, Mr. Lincoln said : 
 
 MY FKIXOW-CITIZEXS : On yesterday evening, upon the oc- 
 casion of the reception given to Senator Douglas, I was fur- 
 nished with a seat very convenient for hearing him, and was 
 otherwise very courteously treated by him and his friends, and 
 for which I thank him and them. During the course of his 
 remarks my name was mentioned in such a way as, I suppose, 
 renders it at least not improper that I should make some sort 
 of reply to him. I shall not attempt to follow him in the pre- 
 cise order in which he addressed the assembled multitude upon 
 that occasion, though I shall, perhnps, do so in the main. 
 
 There was one question to which he asked the attention of 
 the crowd, which I deem of somewhat less importance at 
 least of propriety for me to dwell upon than the others, 
 which he brought in near the close of his speech, and which 
 I think it would not be entirely proper for me to omit attend- 
 ing to ; and yet, if I were not to give some attention to it now, 
 I should probably forget it altogether. While I am upon this 
 subject, allow me to say, that I do not intend to indulge in that 
 inconvenient mode sometimes adopted in public speaking, of 
 reading from documents ; but I shall depart from that rule sc 
 fur as to read a little scrap from his speech, which notices this 
 first topic of which I shall speak that is, provided I can find 
 it in the paper.
 
 162 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 " I have made up ray mind to appeal to the people against 
 the combination that has been made against me ! the Repub- 
 lican leaders having formed an alliance, an unholy and unnat- 
 ural alliance, with a portion of unscrupulous federal office- 
 holders. I intend to h'ght that allied army wherever I meet 
 them. I know they deny the alliance, but yet these men who 
 are trying to divide the Democratic party for the purpose of 
 electing a Republican Senator in my place, are just as much 
 the agents and tools of the supporters of Mr. Lincoln. Hence 
 I shall deal with this allied army just as the Russians dealt 
 with the allies at Sebastopol that is, the Russians did not 
 stop to inquire, when they fired a broadside, whether it hit an 
 Englishman, a Frenchman, or a Turk. Nor will I stop to 
 inquire, nor shall I hesitate, whether my blows shall hit these 
 Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal 
 offices and yet acting in concert with them." 
 
 Well, now, gentlemen, is not that very alarming ! Just to 
 think of it ! right at the outset of the canvass, I, a poor, kind, 
 amiable, intelligent gentleman, I am to be slain in this way ! 
 Why, my friend, the Judge, is not only, as it turns out, not a 
 dead Lon, nor even a living one he is the rugged Russian < 
 bear ! * 
 
 But if they will have it for he says that we deny it that 
 there is any such alliance, as he says there is and I don't 
 propose hanging very much upon this question of veracity 
 but if he will have it that there is such an alliance that the 
 administration men and we are allied, and we stand in the 
 attitude of English, French, and Turk, be occupying the posi- 
 tion of- the Russian, in that case, I beg that he will indulge 
 us while we barely suggest to him that these allies took Sebas- 
 topol. 
 
 Gentlemen, only a few more words as to this alliance. For 
 my part, I have to say, that whether there be such an alliance, 
 depends, so far as I know, upon what may be a right defini- 
 tion of the term alliance. If for the Republican party to see 
 the other great party to which they are opposed divided among 
 themselves, and not try to stop the division, and rather be 
 glad of it if that is an alliance, I confess I am in ; but if it is 
 meant to be said that the Republicans have formed an alliance 
 going beyond that, by which there is contribution of money 
 or sacrifice of principle, on the one side or the other, so far as
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 163 
 
 the Republican party is concerned, if there be any such thing, 
 I protest that I neither know anything of it, nor do I believe 
 it. I will, however, say as I tliink this branch of the argu- 
 ment is lugged in I would before I leave it, state, for the 
 benefit of those concerned, that one of those same Buchanan 
 men did once tell me of an argument that he made for his op- 
 position to Judge Douglas. He said that a friend of our 
 Senator Douglas had been talking to him, and had, among 
 other things, said to him : " Why, you don't want to beat 
 Douglas ?" " Yes," said he, " I do want to beat him, and I 
 will tell you why. I believe his original Nebraska bil was 
 right in the abstract, but it was wrong in the time that it was 
 brought forward. It was wrong in the application to a terri- 
 tory in regard to which the question ha 1 been settled ; it was 
 brought forward at a time when nobody asked him ; it was 
 tendered to the South when the South had not asked for it, but 
 when they could not well refuse it ; and for this same reason 
 he forced that question upon our party ; it has sunk the best 
 men all over the nation, everywhere ; and now, when our 
 President, struggling with the difficulties of this man's getting 
 up, has reached the very hardest point to turn in the case, he 
 deserts him, and I am for putting him where he will trouble us 
 no more. " 
 
 Now, gentlemen, that is not my argument that is not my 
 argument at all. I have only been stating to you the argu- 
 ment of a Buchanan man. You will judge if there is any 
 force in it. 
 
 Popular sovereignty ! everlasting popular sovereignty ! Let 
 us for a moment inquire into this vast matter of popular sov- 
 ereignty. What is popular sovereignty? We recollect that 
 at an early period in the history of this struggle, there was 
 another name for the same thing squatter sovereignty. It 
 was not exactly popular sovereignty, but squatter sovereign- 
 ty. What do those terms mean ? VV hat do those terms mean 
 when used now 1 And vast credit is taken by our friend, 
 the Judge, in regard to his support of it, when he declares the 
 last years of his life have been, and all the future years of his 
 lite shall be, devoted to this matter of popular sovereignty. 
 What is it '? Why, it is the sovereignty of the people ! What 
 was squatter sovereignty 1 ? I suppose, if it had any signiti- 
 cance at all, it was the right of the people to govern them-
 
 164 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 selves, to be sovereign in their own affairs while they were 
 squatted down in a territory not their own, while they had 
 squatted on a territory that did not belong to them, in the 
 sense that a State belongs to the people who inhabit it when 
 it belonged to the nation such right to govern themselves was 
 called ' squatter sovereignly." 
 
 Now, I wish you to mark. What has become of that 
 squatter sovereignty ? What has become of it '? Can you 
 get anybody to tell you now that tiie people of a territory 
 have any authority to govern Jhemselves, in regard to this 
 mooted question of slavery, before they form a State constitu- 
 tion ? No such thing at all, although there is a general run- 
 ning fire, and although there has been a hurrah made in every 
 speech on that side, assuming that policy had given the people 
 of a territory the right to govern themselves upon this ques- 
 tion ; yet the point is dodged. To-day it has been decided 
 no more than a year ago it was decided by the Supreme Court 
 of the United States, and is insisted upon to-day, that the 
 people of a territory have no right to exclude slavery from a 
 territory ; that if any one man chooses to take slaves into a 
 territory, all the rest of the people have no right to keep them 
 out. Thus being so, and this decision being rmUle one of the 
 points that the Judge approved, and one in the approval of 
 which lie says he means to keep me down put me down, I 
 should not say, for I have never been up. He says he is in 
 favor of it, and sticks to it, and expects to win his battle on 
 that decision, which says that there is no such thing as squat- 
 ter sovereignty ; but that any one may take slaves into a ter- 
 ritory, and all the other men in a territory may be opposed to 
 it, and yet, by reason of the Constitution, they cannot pro- 
 hibit it. When that is so, how much is left of this vast matter 
 of squatter sovereignty, I should like to know? 
 
 When we get back, we get to the point of the right of the 
 people to make a constitution. Kansas was settled, for ex- 
 ample, in 1854. It was a terriiory yet, without having 
 formed a constitution, in a very regular way, for three years. 
 All this time negro slavery could be taken in by any few in- 
 dividuals, and by that decision of the Supreme Court, which 
 the Judge approves, all the rest of the people canot keep it 
 out; but when they come to make a constitution, the}' may 
 say they will not have slarery. But it is there ; they are
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 165 
 
 obliged to tolerate it some way, and all experience shows it 
 will be so for they will not take the negro slaves and abso- 
 lutely deprive the owners of them. All experience shows 
 this to be so. All that space of time that runs from the begin- 
 ning of the settlement of the territory, until there is sufficiency 
 of people to make a State constitution all that portion of 
 time popular sovereignty is given up. The seal is absolutely 
 put down upon it by the court decision, and Judge Douclus 
 puts his own upon the top of that, yet he is appealing to the 
 people to give him vast credit for his devotion to popular sov- 
 ereignty. 
 
 Again, when we get to the question of the right of the 
 people to form a State constitution as they please, to form it 
 with slavery or without slavery if that is anything new, I 
 confess I don't know it. JIas there ever been a time when 
 anybody s^id that any other than the people of a territory 
 itself should form a constitution ? What is now in it th:it 
 Judge Douglas should have fought several years of his life, 
 and pledge himself to fight all the remaining years of his life, 
 for? Can Judge Douglas find anybody on earth that said 
 that anybody else should -form a constitution fora people? 
 [A voice "Yes."] Well, I should like you to name him; I 
 should like to know who he was. [Same voice " John Cal- 
 houn."] 
 
 Mr. Lincoln No, sir, I never heard of even John Calhoun 
 saying such a thing. He insisted on the same principle as 
 Judge Douglas; but his mode of apphing it, in fact, was 
 wrong. It is enough for my purpose to ask this crowd, when- 
 ever a Republican said anything against it? They never said 
 anything against it, but they have constantly spoken for it ; 
 and whosoever will undertake to examine the platform, and 
 the speeches of responsible men of the party, and of irre- 
 sponsible men, too, if you please, will be unable to find one 
 word from anybody in the Republican ranks, opposed to that 
 popular sovereignty which Judge Douglas thinks that he has 
 invented. I suppose that Judge Douglas will claim, in a 
 little while, that lie is the inventor of the idea that the peo- 
 ple should govern themselves ; that nobody ever thought of 
 such a thing until he brought it forward. We do not remem- 
 ber, that in that old Declaration of Independence, it is said 
 that " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
 
 166 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator 
 with certain inalienable rights ; that .among these are life, 
 liberty, and the pur. uit of happiness ; that lo secure these 
 rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their 
 just powers from the consent of the governed." There is the 
 origin of popular sovereignty. Who then, shall come in at 
 this day and claim that he invented it? 
 
 The Lecompton constitution connects itself with this ques- 
 tion, for it is in this matter of the Lecompton constitution 
 that our friend Judge Douglas claims such vast credit. I 
 agree that, in opposing the Lecompton constitution, so far as 
 1 can perceive, he was right. I do not deny that at all ; and, 
 gentlemen, you will readily see why I could not deny it, even 
 if I wanted to. But I do not wish to ; for all the Republi- 
 cans in the nation opposed it, and they would have opposed it 
 just as much without Judge Douglas' aid as with it. Tliey 
 had all taken ground against it long before he did. Why, the 
 reason that he urges against that constitution, I urged against 
 him a year before. I have the printed speech in my hand. 
 The argument that he makes, why that constitution should 
 not be adopted, that the people were not fairly represented 
 nor allowed to vote, I pointed out in a speech a year ago, 
 which I hold in my hand now, that no fair chance was to be 
 given to the people. " Read it," "Read it."] I shall not 
 waste your time by trying to read it. [" Read it," " Read it."] 
 Gentlemen, reading from speeches is a very tedious business, 
 particularly for an old man that has to put on spectacles, and 
 more so if the man be so tall that he has to bend over to the 
 light 
 
 A little more, now, as to this matter of popular sovereign- 
 ty, and the Lecompton constitution. The Lecompton con- 
 stitution, as the Judge tells us, was defeated. The defeat of 
 it was a good thing or it was not. He thinks the defeat of it 
 was a good thing, and so do I, and we agree in that. Who 
 defeated it"? 
 
 A voice " Judge Douglas." 
 
 Mr. Lincpln Yes, he furnished himself, and if you suppose 
 he controlled the other Democrats that went with him, he 
 furnished three votes, while the Republicans furnished itce/ify. 
 
 That is what he did to defeat it. In the House of Repre- 
 sentatives he and his friends furnished some twenty votes, and
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 167 
 
 the Republicans furnished ninety odd. Now who was it that 
 did the work? % 
 
 A voice " Douglas." 
 
 Mr. Lincoln Why, yes, Douglas did it! To be sure he 
 did. 
 
 Let us, however, put that proposition another way. The 
 Republicans could not have done it without Judge Douglas. 
 Could he have done it without them? Wliich could have 
 come the nearest to doing it without the other? 
 
 A voice" Who killed the bill ?" 
 
 Another voice " Douglas." 
 
 Mr. Lincoln Ground was taken against it by the Repub- 
 licans long before Douglas did it. The proportion of opposi- 
 tion to that measure is about five to one. 
 
 A voice " Why don't they come out on it ?" 
 
 Mr. Lincoln You don't know what you are talking about, 
 my friend. I am quite willing to answer any gentleman in 
 the crowd who asks an intelligent question. 
 
 Now who, in all this country, has ever found any of our 
 friends of Judge Douglas' way of thinking, and who have 
 acted upon this main question, that has ever thought of utter- 
 ing a word in behalf of Judge Trumbull? 
 
 A voice " We have." 
 
 Mr. Lincoln 1 defy you to show a printed resolution 
 passed in a Democratic meeting I take it upon myself to 
 defy any man to show a printed resolution f a Democratic 
 meeting, large or small, in favor of Judge Trumbull, or any of 
 the five to one Republicans who beat that bill. Everything 
 must be for the Democrats! They did everything, and the 
 five to the one that really did the thing, they snub over, and 
 they do not seem to remember that they have an existence 
 upon the face of the earth. 
 
 Gentlemen, I fear that I shall become tedious. I leave this 
 branch of the subject to take hold of another. I take up 
 that part of Judge Douglas' speech in which he respectfully 
 attended to me. 
 
 Judge Douglas made two points upon my recent speech at 
 Springfield. He says they are to be the issues of this cam- 
 paign. The first one of these points he bases upon the lan- 
 guage in a speech which I delivered at Springfield, which I 
 believe I can quote correctly from memory. 1 said there that
 
 168 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 " we are now far into the fifth year since a policy wag insti- 
 tuted for the avowed object, and with the confident promise, 
 of putting an end to the slavery agitation ; under the opera- 
 tkm of that policy, that agitation had only not ceased, but 
 had constantly augmented." " I believe it will not cease until 
 a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house divi- 
 ded 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 am quoting from 
 my speech " 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 the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the 
 spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest, in 
 the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its 
 advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike law- 
 ful in all the States, North as well as South." 
 
 What is the paragraph? In this p.iragraph, which I have 
 quoted in your hearing, and to which I ask the attention of 
 all, Judge Douglas thinks he discovers great political heresy. 
 I want your attention particularly to what he has inferred 
 from it. He says I am in favor of making all the States of 
 this Union uniform in all their internal regulations ; that in 
 all their domestic concerns I am in favor of making them en- 
 tirely uniform. He draws this inference from the language I 
 have quoted to you. He says that I am in favor of making 
 war by the North upon the South, for the extinction of sla- 
 very ; that I am also in favor of inviting (as he expresses it) 
 the South to a war upon the North, for the purpose of na- 
 tionalizing slavery. Now, it is singular enough, if you will 
 carefully read that passage over, that 1 did not say that I was 
 in favor of anything in it. I only said what I expected 
 would take place. I made a prediction only it may have 
 been a foolish one, perhaps. I did not even say that I desired 
 that slavery should be put in course of ultimate extinction. I 
 do say so now, however, so there need be no longer any diffi- 
 culty about that. It may be written down in the great 
 speech. 
 
 Gentlemen, Judge Douglas informed you that this speech 
 of mine was probably carefully prepared. I admit that it 
 was. I am not master of language ; 1 have not a h'ne educa- 
 tion ; I am not capable of entering into a disquisition upon
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 169 
 
 dialectic?, as I believe you call it ; but I do not believe the 
 language I employed bears any such construction as Judge 
 Douglas puts upon it. But I don't care about a quibble in 
 regard to words I know what I meant, and I will not leave 
 this crowd in doubt, if I can explain it to them, what 1 really 
 meant in the use of that paragraph. 
 
 I am not, in the first place, unaware that this government 
 has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. I 
 know that. I am tolerably well acquainted with the history 
 of the country, and I know that it has endured eighty-two 
 years, half slave and half free. I believe and that is what I 
 meant to allude to there I believe it has endured, because 
 during all that time, until the introduction of the Nebraska 
 bill, the public mind did rest all the time in the belief that 
 flavery was in course of ultimate extinction. That was what 
 gave us the rest that wo had through that period of eighty- 
 two years ; at least, so I believe. I have always hated sla- 
 very, I think, as much as any abolitionist I have been an 
 Old Line Whig I have always hated it, but I have always 
 been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of 
 the Nebraska bill began. I always believed that everybody 
 was against it, and that it was in course o; ultimate extinc- 
 tion. [Pointing to Mr. Browning, who stood near by.] 
 Browning thought so; the great mass of the nation have rested 
 in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. 
 They had reason so to believe. 
 
 The adoption of the Constitution and its attendant history 
 led the people to believe so ; and that such was the belief of 
 the tramers of the Constitution itself, why did those old men, 
 about the time of the adoption of the Constitution, decree 
 that slavery bhould not go into the new territory, where it 
 had not already gone * Why declare that within twenty years 
 the African slave-trade, by which slaves are supplied, might 
 be cut off by Congress "? Why were all these acts ? I might 
 enumerate more of these acts but enough. What were they 
 but a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution in- 
 tended and expected the ultimate extinction of that institu- 
 tion 1 And now, when I say, as I said in my speech that 
 Judge Douglas has quoted from, when I say that I think the 
 opponents of slavery will resist the further spread of it, and 
 place it where the public mind shall rest with the belief that 
 8
 
 170 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 it is in course of ultimate extinction, I only mean to say, that 
 they will place it where the founders of this government origi- 
 nally placed it. 
 
 I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclina- 
 tion to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to 
 he no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into 
 the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at 
 all. 1 have said that always ; Jud^e Douglas has heard me 
 say it if not quite a hundred times, at least as good as a 
 hundred times ; and when it is said that I am in favor of in- 
 terfering with slavery where it exists, I know it is unwar- 
 ranted by anything I have ever intended, and, as I believe, by 
 anything I have ever said. If, by any means, I have ever 
 used language which could fairly be so construed (as, how- 
 ever, I believe I never have), I now correct it. 
 
 So much, then, for the inference that Judge Douglas draws, 
 that I am in favor of setting the sections at war with one 
 another. I know that I never meant any such thing, and I 
 believe that no fair mind can infer any such thing from any- 
 thing I have ever said. 
 
 Now in relation to his inference that I am in favor of a 
 general consolidation of all the local institutions of the various 
 States. I will attend to that for a little while, and try to in- 
 quire, if I can, how on earth it could be that any man could 
 draw such an inference from anything I said. I have said, 
 very many times, in Judge Douglas's hearing, that no man 
 believed more than I in the principal of self-government; that 
 it lies at the bottom of all my ideas of just government, from 
 beginning to end. I have denied that his use of that term 
 applies properly. But for the thing itself, I deny that any 
 man has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion to the princi- 
 ple, whatever he may have done in efficiency in advocating it. 
 I think that I have said it in your hearing that I believe 
 each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with 
 himself and the fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise in- 
 terferes with any other man's rights that each community, 
 as a State, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the 
 concerns within that State that interferes with the right of no 
 other State, and that the general government, upjn princi- 
 ple, has 110 right to interfere with anything other thai that 
 general class of things that does concern the whole. I have
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 171 
 
 said that at all times. I have said, as illustration?, that I do 
 not believe in the right of Illinois to interfere with the cran- 
 berry laws of Indiana, the oyster laws of Virginia, or the 
 liquor laws of Maine. I have said these things over and over 
 again, and I repeat them here as my sentiments. 
 
 HOW is it, then, that Judge Douglas infers, because I hope 
 to see slavery put where the public mind shall rest in the be- 
 lief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, that I am 
 in favor of Illinois going over and interfering with the cran- 
 berry laws of Indiana 1 What can authorize him to draw 
 any such inference? I suppose there might be one thing that 
 at least enabled him to draw such an inference that would not 
 be true with me or many others, that is, because he looks upon 
 all this matter of slavery as an exceedingly little thing this 
 matter of keeping one sixth of the population of the whole 
 nation in a state of oppression and tyranny unequalled in the 
 world. He looks upon it as being an exceedingly little thing 
 only equal to the question of the cranberry laws of Indi- 
 ana as something having no moral question in it as some- 
 thing on a par with the question of whether a man shall pas- 
 ture his land with cattle, or plant it with tobacco so little 
 and so small a thing, that he concludes, if I could desire that 
 if anything should be done to bring about the ultimate ex- 
 tinction of that little thing, I must be in favor of bringing about 
 an amalgamation of all the other little things in the Union. 
 Now, it so happens and there, I presume, is the foundation 
 of this mistake that the Judge thinks thus ; and it so hap- 
 pens that there is a vast portion of the American people that 
 do not look upon that matter as being this very little thing. 
 They look upon it as a vast moral evil ; they can prove 
 it as such by the writings of those who gave us the blessings 
 of liberty which we enjoy, and that they so looked upon it, 
 and not as an evil merely confining itself to the States where 
 it is situated ; and while we agree that, by the Constitution 
 we assented to, in the States where it exists we have no 
 right to interfere with it, because it is in the Constitution ; 
 and we are by both duty and inclination to stick by that Con- 
 stitutiun, in all its letter and spirit, from beginning to end. 
 
 So much then as to my disposition my wish to have all 
 the State Legislatures blotted out, and to have one consoli- 
 dated government, and a uniformity of domestic regulations in
 
 172 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 all the States, by which I suppose it is meant, if we raise 
 corn here, we must make sugar-cane grow here too, and we 
 must make those which grow North grow in the South. All 
 this, I suppose, he understands I am in favor of doing. Now, 
 so much for all this nonsense for I must call it so. The 
 Judge can have no issue with me on a question of establish- 
 ing uniformity in the domestic regulations of the States. 
 
 A little now on the other point the Dred Scott decision. 
 Another of the issues, he says, that is to be made with me, is 
 upon his devotion to the Dred Scott decision, and my opposi- 
 tion to it. 
 
 I have expressed, heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposi- 
 tion to the Dred Scott decision, but I/ should be allowed to 
 state the nature of that opposition, and I ask your indulgence 
 while I do so. What is fairly implied by the term Judge 
 Douglas has used, "resistance to the decision ?" I do not re- 
 sist, it. If I wanted to take Dred Scott from his master, I 
 would be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty 
 that Judge Douglas speak* f, of interfering with property 
 would arise. But I am doing no such thing as that, but all that 
 I am doing is refusing to obey it as a political rule. If I 
 were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question 
 whether slavery should be prohibited in a new territory, in 
 spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should. 
 
 That is what I would do. Judge Douglas said, last 
 night, that before the decision he might advance his opinion, 
 and it might be contrary to the decision when it was made ; 
 but after it was made he would abide by it until it was 
 reversed. Just so ! We let this property abide by the de- 
 cision, but we will try to reverse that decision. We will 
 try to put it where Judge Douglas would not object, for he 
 says he will obey it until it is reversed. Somebody has to re- 
 verse that decision, since it is made, and we mean to reverse 
 it, and we mean to do it peaceably. 
 
 What are the uses of decisions of courts'? They have two 
 uses. As rules of property they have two uses. First they 
 decide upon the question before the court. They decide in 
 this case that Dred Scott is a slave. Nobody resists that. 
 Not only that, but they say to everybody else, that persons 
 standing just as Dred Scott stands, is as he is. That is, they 
 say that when a question comes up upon another person, it
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 173 
 
 will be so decided again, unless the court decides in another 
 way, unless the court overrules its decision. Well, we mean 
 to do what we can to have the court decide the other way. 
 That is one thing we mean to try to do. 
 
 The sacredncss that Judge Douglas throws around this de- 
 cision, is a degree of sacredness that has never been before 
 thrown around any other decision. I have never heard of 
 such a thing. Why, decisions apparently contrary to that 
 decision, or that good lawyers thought were contrary to that 
 decision, have been made by that very court before. It is 
 the first of its kind ; it is an astonisher in legal history. It 
 is a new wonder of the world. It is based upon falsehood in 
 the main as to the facts allegations of facts upon which it 
 stands are not facts at all in many instances, and no decision 
 made on any question the first instance of a decision made 
 under so many unfavorable circumstances ; thus placed, has ever 
 been held by the profession as law, and it has always needed 
 confirmation before the law}'ers regarded it as settled law. 
 But Judge Douglas will have it that all hands must take this 
 extraordinary decision, made under these extraordinary cir- 
 cumstances, and give their vote in Congress in accordance with 
 it, yield to it, and obey it in every possible sense. Circum- 
 stances alter cases. Do not gentlemen here remember the 
 case of that same Supreme Court, some twenty-five or thirty 
 years ago, deciding that a National Bank was constitutional? 
 I ask, if somebody does not remember that a National Bank 
 was declared to be constitutional ? Such is the truth, whether 
 it be remembered or not. The bank charter ran out, and a 
 recharter was granted by Congress. That recharter was laid 
 before General Jackson. It was urged upon him, when he 
 denied the constitutionality of the bank, that the Supreme 
 Court had decided that it was constitutional ; and that General 
 Jackson then said that the Supreme Court had no right to lay 
 down a rule to govern a co-ordinate branch of the Govern- 
 ment, the members of which had sworn to support the Con- 
 stitution that each member had sworn to support that Con- 
 stitution as he understood it. I will venture here to say, that 
 I have heard Judge Douglas say that he approved of General 
 Jackson for that act. What has now become of all his tirade 
 about " resistance to the Supreme Court I" 
 
 My fellow-citizens, getting back a little, for I pass from
 
 174 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 these points, when Judge Douglas makes his threat of anni- 
 hilation upon the " alliance," he is cautious to say that that 
 warfare of his is to fall upon the leaders of the .Republican 
 party. Almost every word he utters, and every distinction he 
 makes, has its significance. He means for the Republicans, 
 who do not count themselves as leaders, to bo his friends ; he 
 makes no fuss over them ; it is the leaders that he is making 
 war upon. He wants it understood that the mass of the Re- 
 publican party are really his friends. It is only the leaders 
 that are doing something, that are intolerant, and that require 
 extermination at his hands. As this is clearly and unquestion- 
 ably the light in which he presents that matter, I want to ask 
 your attention, addressing myself to the Republicans here, that 
 I may ask you some questions, as to where you, as the Re- 
 publican party, would be placed if you sustained Judge Doug- 
 las in his present position by a re-election "? I do not claim, 
 gentlemen, to be unselfish ; I do not pretend that I would not 
 like to go the United States Senate, I make no such hypocriti- 
 cal pretence, but I do say to you that in this mighty issue, it is 
 nothing to you nothing to the mass of the people of the 
 nation whether or not Judge Douglas or myself shall ever be 
 heard of after this night ; it may be a trifle to either of us, but 
 in connection with this mighty question, upon which hangs 
 the destinies of the nation, perhaps, it is absolutely noth- 
 ing ; but where will you be placed if you re-endorse Judge 
 Douglas? Don't you know how apt he is how exceedingly 
 anxious he is at all times to seize upon anything and every- 
 thing to persuade you that something he has done you did 
 yourselves ? Why, he tried to persuade you last that night our 
 Illinois Legislature instructed him to introduce the Nebraska 
 bill. There was nobody in that Legislature ever thought of 
 such thing ; and when he first introduced the bill, he never 
 thought of it ; but still he fights furiously for the proposition, 
 and that he did it because there was a standing instruction to 
 our Senators to be always introducing Nebraska bills. He tells 
 you he is for the Cincinnati platform, he tells you he is for the 
 Dred Scott decision. He tells you, not in his speech last 
 night, but substantially in a former speech, that he cares not 
 if slavery is voted up or down he tells you the struggle on 
 Lecompton is past it may come up again or not, and if it 
 does he stands where he stood when, in spite of him and his
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 175 
 
 opposition, you built up the Republican party. If you endorse 
 him, you tell him you do not care whether slavery be voted up 
 or down, and he will close, or try to close your mouths with 
 his declaration, repeated by the day, the week, the month, and 
 the year. Is that what you mean ? [Cries of " no," one 
 voice, "yes."] Yes, I have no doubt you have always been 
 for him, if you mean that. No doubt of that, soberly I have 
 said, and I repeat it. I think, in the position in which Judge 
 Douglas stood in opposing the Lecompton Constitution, he was 
 right ; he does not know that it will return, but if it does we 
 may know where to find him, and if it does not we may know 
 where to look for him, and that is on the Cincinnati platform. 
 Now, I could ask the Republican party, after all the hard 
 names that Judge Douglas has called them by all his repent- 
 ed charges of their inclination to marry with and hug negroes 
 all his declarations of Black Republicanism by the way, 
 we are improving, the black has got rubbed off but with all 
 that, if he be endorsed by Republican votes, where do you 
 stand ? Plainly, you stand ready saddled, bridled, and har- 
 nessed, and waiting to be driven over to the slavery extension 
 camp of the nation just ready to be driven over, tied togeth- 
 er in a lot to be driven over, every man with a rope around 
 his neck, that halter being held by Judge Douglas. That is 
 the question. If Republican men have been in earnest in 
 what they have done, I think they had better not do it ; but I 
 think that the Republican party is made up of those who, as 
 far as they can peaceably, will oppose the extension of slavery, 
 and who will hope for its ultimate extinction. If they believe 
 it is wrong in grasping up the new lands of the continent, and 
 keeping them from the settlement of free white laborer.-*, who 
 want the land to bring up their families upon ; if they are in 
 earnest, although they may make a mistake, they will grow 
 restless, and the time will come when they will come back 
 again and reorganize, if not by the same name, at least upon 
 the same principles as their party now has. It is better, then, 
 to sav the work while it is begun. You have done the la- 
 bor ; maintain it keep it. If men choose to serve you, go 
 with them ; but as you have made up your organization upon 
 principle, stand by it ; for, as surely as God reigns over you, 
 and has inspired your mind, and given you a sense of propriety, 
 and continues to give you hope, so surely will you still cling to
 
 176 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 these idea?, and you will at last come back again after your 
 wanderings, merely to do your work over again. 
 
 We were often more than once at least in the course of 
 Judge Douglas's speech last night, reminded that this govern- 
 ment was made for white men that he believed it was made 
 for white men. Well, that is putting it into a shape in which 
 no one wants to deny it ; but the Judge then goes into his 
 passion for drawing inferences that are not warranted. I 
 protest, now and forever, against that counterfeit logic which 
 presumes that because I did not want a negro woman for a 
 slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife. My understand- 
 ing is that I need not have her for either, but, as God made 
 us separate, we can leave one another alone, and do one an- 
 other much good thereby. There are white men enough to 
 marry all the white women, and enough black men to marry 
 all the black women, and in God's name let them be so mar- 
 ried. The Judge regales us with the terrible enormilies that 
 take place by the mixture of races ; that the inferior race 
 bears the superior down. Why, Judge, if we do not let them 
 get together in the territories they won't mix there. 
 
 A voice "Three cheers for Lincoln.'' (The cheers were 
 given with a hearty good will.) 
 
 Mr. Lincoln I should say at least that that is a self-evi- 
 dent truth. 
 
 Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, 
 sometimes about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. 
 These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you 
 will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them. 
 
 We are now a mighty nation ; we are thirty, or about 
 thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one 
 fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run 
 our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty- 
 two years, and we discover that we were then a very small 
 people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are 
 DOW, with a vastly less extent of country, with vastly less of 
 everything we deem desirable among men we look upon the 
 change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our pos- 
 terity, and we h'x upon something that happened away back, 
 as in some way or other being connected with this rise of 
 prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom 
 we claim as our fathers and grandfathers ; they were iron
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 177 
 
 men ; they fought for the principle that they were contending 
 for ; and we understood that by \vhat they then did it has fol- 
 lowed that the degree of prosperity which we now enjoy has 
 come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind our- 
 selves of all the good done in this process of time, of how it 
 was done and who did it, and how we are historically con- 
 nected with it ; and we go from these meetings in better hu- 
 mor with ourselves we feel more attached the one to the 
 other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit In 
 every way we are better men in the age, and race, and coun- 
 try in which we live, for these celebrations. But after we 
 have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There 
 is something else connected with it. We have besides these, 
 men descended by blood from our ancestors among us, per- 
 haps half our people, who are not descendants at all of these 
 men ; they are men who have come from Europe German, 
 Irish, French, and Scandinavian men that have come from 
 Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and 
 settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If 
 they look back through this history to trace their connection 
 with those days by blood, they find they have none, they can- 
 not carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make 
 themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look 
 through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that 
 those old men say that " We hold these truths to be self-evi- 
 dent, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that 
 that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their rela- 
 tion to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle 
 in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they 
 were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who 
 wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric 
 cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and 
 liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic 
 hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of 
 men throughout the world. 
 
 Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea 
 of " don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down," for sus- 
 taining the Dred Scott decision, for holding that the Declara- 
 tion of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have 
 Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration 
 of Independence moans, and wt have him saying that tbj 
 
 8*
 
 178 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 people of America are equal to the people of England. Ac- 
 cording to his construction, you Germans are not connected 
 with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, 
 if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught 
 to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out 
 the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this 
 government into a government of some other form ? Those 
 arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated 
 with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying ; that 
 as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. 
 What are these arguments ? They are the arguments that 
 kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the 
 world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king- 
 craft were of this class ; they always bestrode the necks of 
 the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the peo- 
 ple were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, 
 and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that 
 says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits 
 of it. Turn in whatever way you will whether it come 
 from the mouth of a king, an excuse for enslaving the people 
 of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a 
 reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same 
 old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that 
 is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that 
 we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not 
 stop with the negro. I should like to know if, taking the old 
 Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are 
 equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will 
 it stop I If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not 
 another say it does not mean some other man ? If that 
 declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book in 
 which we find it, and tear it out. Who is so bold as to do it ? 
 If it is not true, let us tear it out ! (Cries of " No, no !") Let 
 us stick to it then, let us stand firmly by it then. 
 
 It may be argued that there are certain conditions that 
 make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent 
 that a necessity is imposed upon a man, he must submit to it. 
 I think that was the condition in which we found ourselves 
 when we established this government We had slavery 
 among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we per- 
 mitted them to remain in slavery, we could not secure the
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 179 
 
 good we did secure if we grasped for more, and having by 
 necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the prin- 
 ciple that is the charter of our liberties. Let that charter 
 stand as our standard. 
 
 My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand to quote 
 Scripture. I will try it again, however. It is said in one of 
 the admonitions of our Lord, " As your Father in Heaven is 
 perfect, be ye also perfect." The Savior, I suppose, did not 
 expect that any human creature could be perfect as the Fa- 
 ther in Heaven ; but He paid, " As your Father in Heaven is 
 perfect, be ye also perfect." He set that up as a standard, 
 and he who did most toward reaching that standard, attained 
 the highest degree of moral perfection. So I say, in relation 
 to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be as 
 nearly reached as we can. If we cannot give freedom to 
 every creature, let us do nothing that'will impose slavery upon 
 any other creature. Let us then turn this government back 
 into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution orig- 
 inally placed it. Let us stand firmly by each other. If we 
 do not do so we are turning in the contrary direction, that our 
 friend Judge Douglas proposes not intentionally as work- 
 ing in the traces tends to make this one universal slave nation. 
 He is one that runs in that direction, and as such I resist 
 him. 
 
 My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired 
 to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling 
 about this man and the other man this race and that race and 
 the other race being inferior, arid therefore they must be placed 
 in an inferior position discarding our standard that we have 
 left us. Let us discard ail these things, and unite as one peo- 
 ple throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up 
 declaring that all men are created equal. 
 
 My frieuds, I could not, without launching off upon some 
 new topic, which would detain you too long, continue to- 
 night. I thank you for this most extensive audience that 
 you have furnished me to-night. I leave you, hoping that the 
 lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no 
 longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal.
 
 180 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 SPEECH OF MK. LINCOLN, 
 
 DELIVERED in SPRINGFIELD, Saturday evening, July 17, 1858. 
 (Mr. Douglas was not present. ) 
 
 FELLOW-CITIZENS : Another election, which is deemed an 
 important one, is approaching, and, as I suppose, the Repub- 
 licans will, without much difficulty, elect their State ticket. 
 But in regard to the Legislature, we, the Republicans, labor 
 under some disadvantages. In the first place, we have a Legis- 
 lature to elect upon an apportionment of the representation 
 made several years ago, when the proportion of the popula- 
 tion was far greater in the South (as compared with the North) 
 than it now is ; and inasmuch as our opponents hold almost 
 entire sway in the South, and we a correspondingly large maj- 
 ority in the North, the fact that we are now to be represented 
 as we were years ago, when the population was different, is, 
 to us, a very great disadvantage. We had in the year 1855, 
 according to law, a census or enumeration of the inhabitants 
 taken for the purpose of a new apportionment of representa- 
 tion. We know what a fair apportionment of representation 
 upon that census would give us. We know that it could not, 
 if fairly made, fail to give the Republican party from six to 
 ten more members of the Legislature than they can probably 
 get as the law now stands. It so happened at the last session 
 of the Legislature, that our opponents, holding the control of 
 both branches of the Legislature, steadily refused to give us 
 such an apportionment as we were rightly entitled to have 
 upon the census already taken. The Legislature steadily refused 
 to give us such an apportionment as we were rightfully enti- 
 tled to have upon the census taken of the population of the 
 State. The Legislature would pass no bill upon that subject, 
 except such as was at least as unfair to us as the old one, and 
 in which, in some instances, two men in the Democratic 
 regions were allowed to go as far toward sending a member 
 to the Legislature as three were in the Republican regions. 
 Comparison was made at the time as to representative and 
 senatorial districts, which completely demonstrated that such
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 181 
 
 was the fact. Such a bill was passed and tendered to the' 
 Republican Governor for his signature ; but principally for 
 the reasons I have stated, he withheld his approval, and the 
 bill fell without becoming a law. 
 
 Another disadvantage under which we labor is, that there 
 are one or two Democratic Senators who will be members of 
 the next Legislature, and will vote for the election of Senator, 
 who are holding over in districts in which we could, on all 
 reasonable calculation, elect men of our own, if we only had 
 the chance of an election. When we consider that there are 
 but twenty-five Senators in the Senate, taking two from the 
 side where they rightfully belong and adding them to the 
 other, is to us a disadvantage not to be lightly regarded. Still, 
 so it is; we have this to contend with. Perhaps there is no 
 ground of complaint on our part. In attending to the many 
 things involved in the last general election for President, Gov- 
 ernor, Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, 
 Members of Congress, of the Legislature, County Officers, and 
 so on, we allowed these things to happen by want of sufficient 
 attention, and we have no cause to complain of our adver- 
 saries, so far as this matter is concerned. But we have some 
 cause to complain of the refusal to give us a fair apportion- 
 ment. 
 
 There is still another disadvantage under which we labor, 
 and to which I will ask your attention. It arises out of the rela- 
 tive positions of the -two persons who stand before the State as 
 candidates for the Sanate. Senator Douglas is of world- wide 
 renown. All the anxious politicians of his party, or who have 
 been of his party for years past, have been looking upon him as 
 certainly, at no distant day, to be the President of the United 
 States. .They have seen in his round, jolly, fruitful face, 
 post offices, land-offices, marshalships, and cabinet appoint- 
 ments, chargeships, and foreign missions, bursting and sprout- 
 ing out in wonderful exuberance, ready to be laid hold of by 
 the'r greedy hands. And as they have been gazing upon this 
 attractive picture so long, they cannot, in the little distraction 
 that has taken place in the party, bring themselves to give up 
 the charming hope ; but with greedier anxiety they rush 
 about him, sustain him, and give him marches, triumphal en- 
 tries, and receptions beyond what, even in the days of his 
 highest prosperity, they could have brought about in his
 
 182 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 favor. On the contrary, nobody has ever expected me to be 
 President. In my poor, lean, lank face, nobody has ever seen 
 that any cabbages were sprouting out. These are disadvan- 
 tage?, all taken together, that the Republicans labor under. 
 We have to fight this battle upon principle, and upon principle 
 alone. I am, in a certain sense, made the standard-bearer in be 
 half of the Republicans. I was made so merely because t4rere 
 had to be some one so placed I being in nowise preferable 
 to any other one of the twenty-five perhaps a hundred we 
 have in the Republican ranks. Then I say I wish it to be dis- 
 tinctly understood and borne in mind that we have to fight 
 this battle without many perhaps without any of the 
 external aids which are brought to bear against us. So I hope 
 those with whom I am surrounded have principle enough to 
 nerve themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone, that 
 can be fairly done, to bring about the right result. 
 
 After Senator Douglas left Washington, as his movements 
 were made known by public prints, he tarried a considerable 
 time in the city of New- York ; and it was heralded that, like 
 another Napoleon, he -was lying by and framing the plan of 
 his campaign. It was telegraphed to Washington City, and 
 published in the Union, that he was framing his plan for the 
 purpose of going to Illinois to pounce upon and annihilate the 
 treasonable and disunion speech which Lincoln had made here 
 on the 16th of June. Now, I do suppose that the Judge really 
 spent some time in New-York maturing the plan of the campaign, 
 as his friends heralded for him. I have been able, by noting 
 his movements since his arrival in Illinois, to discover evi 
 dences confirmatory of that allegation. I think I have been 
 able to see what are the material points of that plan. I will, 
 for a little while, ask your attention to some of them. What 
 I shall point out, though not showing the whole plan, are, 
 nevertheless, the main points, as I suppose. 
 
 They are not very numerous. The first is popular sover- 
 eignty. The second and third are attacks upon my speech 
 made on the 16th of June. Out of these three points draw- 
 ing within the range of popular sovereignty the question of the 
 Lecompton constitution he makes his principal assault. 
 Upon these his successive speeches are substantially one and 
 the same. On this matter of popular sovereignty I wish to 
 be a little careful. Auxiliary to these main points, to be sure,
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 183 
 
 are their thunderings of cannon, their marching and music, 
 their fizzle-gigs and fire-works ; but I will not waste time 
 with them. They are but the little trappings of the cam- 
 paign. 
 
 Coming to the substance the first point popular sovereignty. 
 It is to be labeled upon the cars in which he travels ; put upon 
 the hacks he rides in ; to be flaunted upon the arches he passes 
 under, and the banners which wave over him. It is to be dished 
 up in as many varieties as a French cook can produce soups 
 from potatoes. Now, as this is so great a staple of the plan 
 of the campaign, it is worth while to examine it carefully ; and 
 if we examine only a very little, and do not allow ourselves to 
 be misled, we shall be able to see that the whole thing is the 
 most arrant Quixotism that was ever enacted before a com- 
 munity. What is the matter of popular sovereignty ? The 
 first thing, in order to understand it, is to get a good definition 
 of what it is, and after that to see how it is applied. 
 
 I suppose almost every one knows that, in this controversy, 
 whatever has been said has had reference to the question of 
 negro slavery. We have not been in a controversy about the 
 right of the people to govern themselves in the ordinary mat- 
 ters of domestic concern in the States and territories. Mr. 
 Buchanan, in one of his late messages (I think when he sent 
 up the Lecompton constitution), urged that the main point to 
 which the public attention had been directed, was not in re- 
 gard to the great variety of small domestic matters, but was 
 directed to the question of negro slavery ; and he asserts, that 
 if the people had had a fair chance to vote on that question, 
 there was no reasonable ground of objection in regard to minor 
 questions. Now, while I think that the people had not had 
 given, or offered them, a fair chance upon that slavery ques- 
 tion ; still, if there had been a fair submission to a vote upon 
 that main question, the President's proposition would have 
 been true to the uttermost. Hence, when hereafter I speak 
 of popular sovereignty, I wish to be understood as applying 
 what I say to the question of slavery only, not to other minor 
 domestic matters of a territory or a State. 
 
 Does Judge Douglas, when he says that several cf the past 
 years of his life have been devoted to the question of " popular 
 sovereignty," and that all the remainder of his life shall be de- 
 voted to it, does he mean to say that he has been devoting his
 
 184 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 life to securing to the people of the territories the right to ex- 
 clude slavery from the territories ? If he means so to say, he 
 means to deceive ; because he and every one knows that the 
 decision of the Supreme Court, which he approves and makes 
 especial ground of attack upon me for disapproving, forbids 
 the people of a territory to exclude slavery. This covers the 
 whole ground, from, the settlement of a territory till it reaches 
 the degree of maturity entitling it to form a State constitution. 
 So ftvr as all that ground is concerned, the Judge is not sus- 
 taining popular sovereignty, but absolutely opposing it. He 
 sustains the decision which declares that the popular will of 
 the territories has no constitutional power to exclude slavery 
 during their territorial existence. This being so, the period 
 of time from the first settlement of a tei'ritory till it reaches 
 the point of forming a State constitution, is not the thing that 
 the Judge has fought for, or is fighting for, but, on the contra- 
 ry, he has fought for, and is fighting for, the thing that anni- 
 hilates and crushes out that same popular sovereignty. 
 
 Well, so much being disposed of, what is left ? Why, he 
 is contending for the right of the people, when they come to 
 make a State constitution, to make it for themselves, and pre- 
 cisely as best suits themselves. I say again, that is Quixotic. 
 I defy contrad ction when I declare that the Judge can find no 
 one to oppose him on that proposition. I repeat, there is no- 
 body opposing that proposition on principle. Let me not be 
 misunderstood. I know that, with reference to the Lecomp- 
 ton constitution, I may be misunderstood ; but when you un- 
 derstand me correctly, my proposition will be true and accu- 
 rate. Nobody is opposing, or has opposed, the right of the 
 people, when they form a constitution, to form it for them- 
 selves. Mr. Buchanan and his friends have not done it; they, 
 too, as well as the Republicans and the Anti-Lecompton 
 Democrats, have not done it ; but, on the contrary, they 
 together have insisted on the right of the people to form a 
 constitution for themselves. The difference between the Bu- 
 chanan men on the one hand, and the Douglas men and the 
 Republicans on the other, has not been on a question of prin- 
 ciple, but on a question of fact. 
 
 The dispute was upon the question of fact, whether the 
 Lecompton constitution had been fairly formed by the people 
 or not. Mr. Buchanan and his friends have not contended
 
 ABKAHAM LINCOLN. 185 
 
 for the contrary principle any more than the Douglas men or 
 the Republicans. They have insisted that whatever of small 
 irregularities existed in getting up the Lecompton constitution 
 were such as happen in the settlement of all new territories. 
 The question was, was it a fair emanation of the people? It 
 was a question of fact and not of principle. As to the princi- 
 ple, all were agreed. Judge Douglas voted with the Repub- 
 licans upon that matter of fact. 
 
 lie and they, by their voices and votes, denied that it was 
 a fair emanation of the people. The administration affirmed 
 that it was. With respect to the evidence bearing upon that 
 question of fact, I readily agree that Judge Douglas and the 
 Republicans had the right on their side, and that the adminis- 
 tration was wrong. But I state again, as a matter of prin- 
 ciple, there is no dispute upon the right, of a people in a ter- 
 ritory, merging into a State to form a constitution for them- 
 selves, without outside interference from any quarter. This 
 being so, what is Judge Douglas going to spend his life for? 
 Is he going to spend his life in maintaining a principle that 
 nobody on earth opposes"? Does he expect to stand up in 
 majestic dignity, and go through his apotheosis and become a 
 god, in the maintaining of a principle which neither man nor 
 mouse in all God's creation is opposing ? Now, something in 
 in regard to the, Lecompton constitution more specially ; for I 
 pass from this other question of popular sovereignty as the 
 most arrant humbug that has ever been attempted on an in- 
 telligent community. 
 
 As to the Lecompton constitution, I have already said that, 
 on the question of fact as to whether it was a fair emanation 
 of the people or not, Judge Douglas with the Republicans and 
 some Americans, had greatly the argument against the admin- 
 istration ; and while I repeat this, I wish to know what there 
 is in the opposition of Judge Douglas, to the Lecompton con- 
 stitution that entitles him to be considered the only opponent 
 to it as being par excellence the very quintessence of that oppo- 
 sition. I agree to the rightfulness of his opposition. He in 
 the Senate and his class of men there formed the number 
 three and no more. In the House of Representatives his class 
 of men the Anti-Lecompton Democrats formed a number 
 of about twenty. It took one hundred and twenty to defeat the 
 measure, against one hundred and twelve. Of the votes of
 
 186 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 that one hundred and twenty, Judge Douglas's friends furnished 
 twenty, to add to which there were six Americans and ninety- 
 four Republicans. I do not say that I am precisely accurate 
 in their numbers, but I am sufficiently so for any use I am 
 making of it. 
 
 Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the credit of 
 doing that work, and the hundred none of it ? Why, if, as 
 Judge Douglas says, the honor is to be divided, and due 
 credit is to be given to other parties, why if jusf so much given 
 as is consonant with the wishes, the interests, and advance- 
 ment of the twenty ? My understanding is, when a common 
 job is done, or a common enterprise prosecuted, if I put in five 
 dollars to your one, I have a right to take out five dollars to 
 your one. But he does not so understand it. He declares 
 the dividend of credit for defeating Lecompton upon a basis 
 which seems unprecedented and incomprehensible. 
 
 Let us see. Lecompton in the raw was defeated. It after- 
 ward took a sort of cooked-up shape, and was passed in the 
 English bill. It is said by the Judge that the defeat was a 
 good and proper thing. If it was a good thing, why is he en- 
 titled to more credit than others, for the performance of that 
 good act, unless there was something in the antecedents of the 
 Republicans that might induce every one to expect them to 
 join in that good work, and at the same time, something lead- 
 ing them to doubt that he would? Does he place his supe- 
 rior claim to credit, on the ground that he performed a good 
 act which was never expected of him ? He says I have a 
 proneness for quoting scripture. If I should do so now, it 
 occurs that perhaps he places himself somewhat upon the 
 ground of the parable of the lost sheep, which went astray 
 upon the mountains, and when the owner of the hundred 
 sheep found the one that was lost, and threw it upon his 
 shoulders, and came home rejoicing, it was said that there was 
 more rejoicing over the one sheep that was lost, and had been 
 found, than over the ninety and nine in the fold. The appli- 
 cation is made by the Savior in this parable, thus : <- Verily, 
 I say unto you, there is more rejoicing in heaven over one 
 sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons 
 that need no repentance." 
 
 And now, if the Judge claims the benefit of this parable, 
 let him repent Let him not come up here and say : "I am
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 187 
 
 the only just person ; and you are the ninety-nine sinners !" 
 Repentance before forgiveness is a provision of the Christian 
 system, and on that condition alone will the Republicans grant 
 his forgiveness. 
 
 How will he prove that we have ever occupied a different 
 position in regard to the Lecompton constitution, or any prin- 
 ciple in it "I He says he did not make his opposition on the 
 ground as to whether it was a free or slave constitution, and 
 he would have you understand that the Republicans made their 
 opposition because it ultimately became a slave constitution. 
 To make proof in favor of himself on this point, he reminds 
 us that he opposed Lecompton before the vote was taken de- 
 claring whether the State was to be be free or slave. But he 
 forgets to say that our Republican Senator, Trumbull, made 
 a speech against Lecompton even before he did. 
 
 Why did he oppose it? Partly, as he declares, because the 
 members of the convention who framed it were not fairly 
 elected by the people ; that the people were not allowed to 
 vote unless they had been registered ; and that the people of 
 whole counties, in some instances, were not registered. For 
 these reasons he declares the constitution was not an emana- 
 tion, in any sense, from the people. He also has an additional 
 objection as to the mode of submitting the constitution back 
 to the people. But bearing on the question of whether the 
 delegates were fairly elected, a speech of his, made something 
 more than twelve months ago, from this stand, becomes im- 
 portant. It was made a little while before the election of the 
 delegates who made Lecompton. In that speech, he declared 
 there was every reason to hope and believe the election would 
 be fair ; and if any one failed to vote, it would be his own 
 culpable fault. 
 
 I, a few days after, made a sort of answer to that speech. 
 In that answer, I made, substantially, the very argument with 
 which he combated his Lecompton advei'saries in the Senate 
 last winter. I pointed to the facts that the people could not 
 vote without being registered, and that the time for registering 
 had gone by. 1 commented on it as wonderful that Judge 
 Douglas could be ignorant of these facts, which every one else 
 in the nation so well knew. 
 
 I now pass from popular sovereignty and Lecompton. I 
 may have occasion to refer to one or both.
 
 188 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 When he was preparing his plan of campaign, Napoleon- 
 like, in New-York, as appears by two speeches I have heard 
 him deliver since his arrival in Illinois, he gave special atten- 
 tion to a speech of mine, delivered here on the 16th of June 
 last. He says that he carefully read that speech. He told 
 us that at Chicago, a week ago last night, arid he repeated it 
 at Hloomington last night. Doubtless, he repeated it again 
 to-day, though I did not hear him. In the first two places 
 Chicago and Bloomington I heard him ; to-day I did not. 
 He said he had carefully examined that speech ; when, he did 
 not say ; but there is no reasonable doubt it was when he was 
 in New-York, preparing his plan of campaign. I am glad he 
 did read it carefully. He says it was evidently prepared with 
 great care. I freely admit it was prepared with care. I 
 claim not to be more free from errors than others perhaps 
 scarcely so much ; but I was very careful not to put anything 
 in that speech as a matter of fact, or make any inferences 
 which did not appear to me to be true, and fully warrantable. 
 If I had made any mistake I was willing to be corrected ; if 
 I had drawn any inference in regard to Judge Douglas, or 
 any one else, which was not warranted, I was fully prepared 
 to modify it as soon as discovered. I planted myself upon the 
 truth, and the truth only, so far as I knew it, or could be 
 brought to know it. 
 
 Having made that speech with the most kindly feelings to- 
 ward Judge Douglas, as manifested therein, I was gratified 
 when I found that he had carefully examined it, and had de- 
 tected no error of fact, nor any inference against him, nor 
 any misrepresentations, of which he thought fit to complain. 
 In neither of the two speeches I have mentioned, did he make 
 any such complaint. I will thank any one who will inform 
 me that he, in his speech to-day, pointed out anything I had 
 stated, respecting him, as being erroneous. I presume there 
 is no such thing. I have reason to be gratified that the care 
 and caution used in that speech, left it so that he, most of all 
 others interested in discovering error, has not been able to 
 point out one thing against him which he could say was 
 wrong. He seizes upon the doctrines he supposes to be in- 
 cluded in that speech, and declares that upon them will turn 
 the issues of this campaign. He then quotes, or attempts to 
 quote, from my speech. I will not say that he wilfully mis-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 189 
 
 quotes, but he does fail to quote accurately. His attempt at 
 quoting is from a passage which I believe I can quote accu- 
 rately from memory. I shall make the quotation now, with 
 some comments upon it, as I have already said, in order that 
 the Judge shall be left entirely without excuse for misrepre- 
 senting me. I do so now, as I hope, for the last time. I do 
 this in great caution, in order that if he repeats his misrepre- 
 sentation, it shall be plain to all that he does so wilfully. If, 
 after all, he still persists, I shall be compelled to reconstruct 
 the course I have marked out for myself, and draw upon such 
 humble resources as I have, for a new course, better suited to 
 the real exigencies of the case. I set out, in this campaign, 
 with the intention of conducting it strictly as a gentleman, in 
 substance at least, if not in the outside polish. The latter I 
 shall never be, but that which constitutes the inside of a gen- 
 tleman I hope I understand, and am not less inclined to prac- 
 tise than others. It was my purpose and expectation, that 
 this canvass would be conducted upon principle, and with' 
 fairness upon both sides, and it shall not be my fault if this 
 purpose and expectation shall be given up. 
 
 He charges, in substance, that I invite a war of sections ; 
 that I propose all the local institutions of the different States 
 shall become consolidated and uniform. What is there in the 
 language of that speech which expresses such purpose, or 
 bears such construction ? I have again and again said that 
 I would not enter into any of the States to disturb the insti- 
 tution of slavery. Judge Douglas said, at Bloomington, that 
 I used language most able and ingenious for concealing what 
 I really meant ; and that while I had protested against enter- 
 ing into the slave States, I nevertheless did mean to go on the 
 banks of the Ohio and throw missiles into Kentucky, to dis- 
 turb them in their domestic institutions. 
 
 I said, in that speech, and I meant no more, that the insti- 
 tution of slavery ought to be placed in the very attitude where 
 the framers of this government placed it and left it. I do not 
 understand that the framers of our Constitution left the peo- 
 ple of the freo States in the attitude of firing bombs or shells 
 into the slave States. I was not using that passage for the 
 purpose for which he infers I did use it. I said: "We are 
 now far advanced into the fifth year since a policy was created 
 for the avowed object and with the confident promise of
 
 190 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of 
 that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has 
 constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease till 
 a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided 
 against itself cannot stand.' I believe that this government 
 cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. It 
 will become all one thing or all the other. Either the op- 
 ponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and 
 place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it 
 is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will 
 push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the 
 States, old as well as new, North as well as South." 
 
 Now you all see, from that quotation, I did not express my 
 wish on anything. In that passage I indicated no wish or 
 purpose of my own ; I simply expressed my eocpectation. 
 Cannot the Judge perceive a distinction between a purpose and 
 
 C expectation ? I have often expressed an expectation to die, 
 t I never expressed a wish to die. I said at Chicago, and 
 now repeat, that I am quite aware this government has en- 
 dured, half slave and half free, for eighty-two years. I un- 
 derstand that little bit of history. I expressed the opinion I 
 did, because I perceived or thought I perceived a new set 
 of causes introduced. I did say at Chicago, in my speech 
 there, that I do wish to see the spread of slavery arrested, and 
 to see it placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief 
 that it is in .the course of ultimate extinction. I said that 
 because I supposed, when the public mind shall rest in that 
 belief, we shall have peace on the slavery question. I have 
 believed and now believe the public mind did rest on that 
 belief up to the introduction of the Nebraska bill. 
 
 Although I jiave ever been opposed to slavery, so far I 
 rested in the hope and belief that it was in the course of ulti- 
 mate extinction. For that reason, it had been a minor ques- 
 tion with me. I might have been mistaken ; but I had believed, 
 and now believe, that the whole public mind that is, the 
 mind of the great majority had rested in that belief up to 
 the repeal of the Missouri compromise. But upon that event, 
 I became convinced that either I had been resting in a delu- 
 sion, or the institution was being placed on a new basis a 
 basis for making it perpetual, national, and universal. Sub- 
 sequent events have greatly confirmed me in that belief. I
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 191 
 
 believe that bill to be the beginning of a conspiracy for that 
 purpose. So believing, I have since then considered that 
 question a paramount one. So believing, I thought the public 
 mind will never rest till the power of Congress to restrict the 
 spread of it shall again be acknowledged and exercised on the 
 one hand, or on the other, all resistance be entirely crushed 
 out. I have expressed that opinion, and I entertain it 
 to-night. It is denied that there is any tendency to the na- 
 tionalization of slavery in these States. 
 
 Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, in one of his speeches, 
 when they were presenting him canes, silver plate, gold pitch- 
 ers, and the like, fov assaulting Senator Sumner, distinctly 
 affirmed his opinion that when this Constitution was formed, 
 it was the belief of no man that slavery would last to the 
 present day. 
 
 He said, what I think, that the framers of our Constitu- 
 tion placed the institution of slavery where the public mind 
 rested in the hope that it was in the course of ultimate ex- 
 tinction. But he went on to say that the men of the present 
 age, by their experience, have become wiser than the iramers 
 of the Constitution ; and the invention of the cotton-gin had 
 made the perpetuity of slavery a necessity in this country. 
 
 As another piece of evidence tending to this same point: 
 Quite recently in Virginia, a man the owner of slaves 
 made a will, providing that, after his death, certain of his 
 slaves should have their freedom, if they should so choose, 
 and go to Liberia, rather than remain in slavery. They 
 chose to be liberated. But the persons to whom they would 
 descend as property, claimed them as slaves. A suit was in- 
 stituted, which finally came to the Supreme Court of Vir- 
 ginia, and was therein decided against the slaves, upon the 
 ground that a negro cannot make a choice that they had no 
 legal power to choose could not perform the condition upon 
 which their freedom depended. 
 
 I do not mention this with any purpose of criticising it, 
 but to connect it with the arguments as affording additional 
 evidence of the change of sentiment upon this question of 
 slavery in the direction of making it perpetual and national. 
 I argue now, as I did before, that there is such a tendency, 
 and I am backed not merely by the facts, but by the open 
 confession in the slave States.
 
 192 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 And now, as to the Judge's inference, that because I wish 
 to see slavery placed in the course of ultimate extinction 
 placed where our fathers originally placed it I wish to 
 annihilate the State Legislatures to force cotton to grow on 
 the tops of the Green Mountains to freeze ice in Florida 
 to cut lumber on the broad Illinois prairies that I am in 
 favor of all these ridiculous and impossible things. 
 
 It seems to me it is a complete answer to all this to ask, if, 
 when Congress did have the fashion of restricting slavery 
 from free territory when courts did have the fashion of de- 
 ciding that taking a slave into a free country made him 
 free I say it is a sufficient answer to ask, if any of this 
 ridiculous nonsense about consolidation, and uniformity, did 
 actually follow ? Who heard of any such thing, because of 
 the Ordinance of '87 ? because of the Missouri restriction ? 
 because of the numerous court decisions of that character? 
 
 Now, as to the Dred Scott decision ; for upon that he 
 makes his last point at me. He boldly takes ground in favor 
 of that decision. 
 
 This is one half the onslaught, and one third of the entire 
 plan of the campaign. I am opposed to that decision in a 
 certain sense, but not in the sense which he puts on it. I say 
 that in so far as it decided in favor of Dred Scott's master, 
 and against Dred Scott and his family, I do not propose to 
 disturb or resist the decision. 
 
 I never have proposed to do any such thing. I think, that 
 in respect for judicial authority, my humble history would not 
 suffer in comparison with that of Judge Douglas. He would 
 have the citizen conform his vote to that decision ; the mem- 
 ber of Congress, his ; the President, his use of the veto power. 
 He would make it a rule of political action for the people and 
 all the departments of government. I would not. By re- 
 sisting it as a political rule, I disturb no right of property, 
 create no disorder, excite no mobs. 
 
 When he spoke at Chicago, on Friday evening of last week, 
 he made this same point upon me. On Saturday evening I 
 replied, and reminded him of a Supreme Court decision which 
 he opposed for at least several years. Last night, at Bloom- 
 ington, he took some notice of that reply ; but entirely forgot 
 to remember that part of it. 
 
 He renews his onslaught upon me, forgetting to remember
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 193 
 
 that I have turned the tables against himslf on that very 
 point. I renew the effort to draw his attention to it. I wish 
 to stand erect before the country, as well as Judge Douglas, 
 on this question of judicial authority; and therefore I add 
 something to the authority in favor of my own position. I 
 wish to show that I am sustained by authority, in addition 
 to that heretofore presented. I do not expect to convince the 
 Judge. It is part of the plan of his campaign, and he will 
 cling to it with a desperate gripe. Even, turn it upon him 
 the sharp point against him, and gaff him through he will 
 still cling to it till he can invent spine new dodge to take the 
 place of it. 
 
 In public speaking it is tedious reading from documents ; 
 but I must beg to indulge the practice to a limited extent. I 
 shall read from a letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1820, nnd 
 now to be found in the seventh volume of his correspondence, 
 at page 177. It seems he had been presented by a gentleman 
 of the name of Jarvis with a book, or essay, or periodical, 
 called the " Kepublican," and he was writing in acknowledg- 
 ment of the present, and noting some of its contents. After 
 expressing the hope that the work will produce a favorable 
 effect upon the minds of the young, he proceeds to say : 
 
 " That it will have this tendency may be expected, and for 
 that reason I feel an urgency to note what I deem an error in 
 it, the more requiring notice as your opinion is strengthened 
 by that of many others. You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to 
 consider the judges as the ultimate, arbiters of all constitutional 
 questions a very dangerous docrVine indeed, and one which 
 would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our 
 judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They 
 have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and 
 the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is, ' boni judicis 
 est ampliare jurisdictlonem ;' and their power is the more dan- 
 gerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the 
 other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitu- 
 tion has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to 
 whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and 
 party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely 
 made ail the departments coequal and cosovereign with them- 
 selves." 
 
 Thus we see the power claimed for the Supreme Court by 
 9
 
 194 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Judge Douglas, Mr. Jefferson holds, would reduce us to the 
 despotism of an oligarchy. 
 
 Now, I have said no more than this in fact, never quite 
 so much as this at least I am sustained by Mr. Jefferson. 
 
 Let us go a little farther. You remember we once had a 
 National Bank. Some one owed the bank a debt ; he was 
 sued and sought to avoid payment, on the ground that the 
 bank was unconstitutional. The case went to the Supreme 
 Court, and therein it was decided that the bank was constitu- 
 tional. The whole democratic party revolted against that de- 
 cision. General Jackson himself asserted that he, as Presi- 
 dent, would not be bound to hold a National Bank to be 
 constitutional, even though the court had decided it to be so. 
 He fell in precisely with the view of Mr. Jefferson, and acted 
 upon it under his official oath, in vetoing a charter for a 
 National Bank. The declaration that Congress does not pos- 
 sess this constitutional power to charter a bank, has gone into 
 the democratic platform, at their national conventions, and 
 was Brought forward and reaffirmed in their last convention 
 at Cincinnati. They have contended for that declaration, in 
 the very teeth of the Supreme Court, for more than a quarter 
 of a century. In fact, they have reduced the decision to an 
 absolute nullity. That decision, I repeat, is repudiated in the 
 Cincinnati platform ; and still, as if to show that effrontry 
 can go no farther, Judge Douglas vaunts in the very speeches 
 in which he denounces me for opposing the Dred Scott de- 
 cision, that he stands on the Cincinnati platform. 
 
 Now, I wish to know what the Judge can charge upon me, 
 with respect to decisions of the Supreme Court, which does 
 not lie in all its length, breadth, and proportions at his own 
 door. The plain truth is simply this : Judge Douglas is^br 
 Supreme Court decisions when he likes and against them 
 when he does not likes them. He is for the Dred Scott 
 decision because it tends to nationalize slavery because it is 
 part of the original combination for that object. It so hap- 
 pens, singularly enough, that I never stood opposed to a 
 decision of the Supreme Court till this. On the contrary, I 
 have no recollection that he was ever particularly in favor of 
 one till this. Pie never was in favor of any, nor opposed to 
 any, till the present one, which helps to nationalize slavery. 
 
 Free men men of Sangamon free men of Illinois free
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 195 
 
 men everywhere judge ye between him and me, upon this 
 issue. 
 
 He pays this Dred Scott case is a very small matter at most 
 that it has no practical effect ; that at best, or rather, I 
 suppose, at worst, it is but an abstraction. I submit that the 
 proposition, that the thing which determines whether a man is 
 free or a slave, is rather concrete and abstract. I think you 
 would conclude that it was, if your liberty depended upon it, 
 and so would Judge Douglas if his liberty depended upon it. 
 But suppose it was on the question of spreading slavery over 
 the new territories that he considers it as being merely an abstract 
 matter, and one of no practical importance. How has the 
 planting of slavery in new countries always been effected ? It 
 has now been decided that slavery cannot be kept out of our new 
 territories by any legal means. In what does our new territories 
 now differ in this respect from the old colonies when slavery 
 was first planted within them 1 It was planted, as Mr. Clay 
 once declared, and as history proves true, by individual men 
 in spite of the wishes of the people ; the mother government 
 refusing to prohibit it, and withholding from, the people of the 
 colonies the authority to prohibit it for themselves. Mr. 
 Clay says this was one of the great and just causes of com- 
 plaint against Great Britain by the colonies, and the best 
 apology we can now make for having the institution among 
 us. In that precise condition our Nebraska politicians have 
 at last succeeded in placing our own new territories ; the gov- 
 ernment will not prohibit slavery within them, nor allow the 
 people to prohibit it. 
 
 1 defy any man to find any difference between the policy 
 which originally planted slavery in these colonies and that 
 policy which now prevails in our new territories. If it does 
 not go into them, it is only because no individual wishes it to 
 go. The Judge indulged himself, doubtless to-day, with the 
 question as to what I am going to do with or about the Dred 
 Scott decision. Well, Judge, will you please to tell me what 
 you did about the bank decision t Will you not graciously 
 allow us to do with the Dred Scott decision precisely as you 
 did with the bank decision? You succeeded in breaking down 
 the moral effect of that decision ; did you find it necessary to 
 amend the Constitution ? or to set up a court of negroes in 
 order to do it ?
 
 196 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 There is one other point. Judge Douglas has a very affec- 
 tionate leaning toward the Americans and Old Whigs. Last 
 evening, in a sort of weeping tone, he described to us a death- 
 bed scene. He had been called to the side of Mr. Clay, in 
 his last moments, in order that the genius of " popular sover- 
 eignty" might duly descend from the dying man and settle 
 upon him, the living and most Avorthy successor. He could 
 do no less than promise that he would devote the remainder of 
 his life to " popular sovereignty ;" and then the great statesman 
 departs in peace. By this part of the "plan of the cam- 
 paign," the Judge has evidently promised .himself that tears 
 shall be drawn down the cheeks of all Old Whigs, as large as 
 half-grown apples. 
 
 Mr. Webster, too, was mentioned ; but it did not quite 
 come to a death-bed scene, as to him. It would be amusing, 
 if it were not disgusting, to see how quick these compromise- 
 breakers administer on the political effects of their dead ad- 
 v^rsaries, trumping up claims never before heard of, and di- 
 viding the assets among themselves. If I should be found 
 dead to-morrow morning, nothing but my insignificance could 
 prevent a speech being made on my authority, before the end 
 of next week. It so happens that in that "popular sover- 
 eignty" with which Mr. Clay was identified, the Missouri 
 Compromise was expressly reserved ; and it was a little singu- 
 lar if Mr. Clay cast his mantle upon Judge Douglas on pur- 
 pose to have that compromise repealed. 
 
 Again, the Judge did not keep faith with Mr. Clay when he 
 first brought in his Nebraska bill. He left the Missouri Com- 
 promise unrepealed, and in his report accompanying the bill, 
 he told the world he did it on purpose. The manes of Mr. 
 Clay must have been in great agony, till thirty days later, 
 when " popular sovereignty" stood forth in all its glory. 
 
 One more thing. Last night Judge Douglas tormented 
 himself with horrors about my disposition to make negroes 
 perfectly equal with white men in social and political relations. 
 He did not stop to show that I have said any such thing, or 
 that it legitimately follows from anything I have said', but he 
 rushes on with his assertions. I adhere to the Declaration of 
 Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not wil- 
 ling to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let 
 them make it read that all men are created equal except ne-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 197 
 
 groes. Let us have it decided, whether the Declaration of 
 Independence, in this blessed year of 18.58, shall be thus 
 amended. In his construction of the Declaration last year, 
 he said it only meant that Americans in America were equal 
 to Englishmen in England. Then, when I pointed out to him 
 that by that rule he excludes the Germans, the Irish, the Por- 
 tuguese, and all the other people who have come among us 
 since the Revolution, he reconstructs his construction. In his 
 last speech he tells us it meant Europeans. 
 
 I press him a little further, and ask if it meant to include the 
 Russians in Asia 1 ? or does he mean to exclude that vast popula- 
 tion from the principles of our Declaration of Independence ? 
 I expect ere long he will introduce another amendment to his 
 definition. He is not at all particular. He is satisfied with 
 anything which does not endanger the nationalizing of negro 
 slavery. It may draw white men down, but it must not lift 
 negroes up. Who shall say, " I am the superior, and you are 
 the inferior ?" 
 
 My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be 
 misrepresented, but cannot be misunderstood. I have said 
 that I do not understand the Declaration to mean that all 
 men were created equal in all respects. They are not our 
 equal in color ; but I suppose that it does mean to declare that 
 all men are equal in some respects ; they are equal in their 
 right to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Cer- 
 tainly the negro is not our equal in color perhaps not in 
 many other respects ; still, in the right to put into his mouth 
 the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of 
 every other man, white or black In pointing out that more 
 has been given you, you cannot be justified in taking away the 
 little which has been given him. All I ask for the negro is 
 that if you do not like him, let him alone. If God gave him 
 but little, that little let him enjoy. 
 
 When our government was established, we had the institu- 
 tion of slavery among us. We were in a certain sense com- 
 pelled to tolerate its existence. It was a sort of necessity. 
 We had gone through our struggle and secured our own inde- 
 pendence. The frarners of the Constitution found the institu- 
 tion of slavery among their other institutions at the time. 
 They found that by an effort to eradicate it, they might lose 
 much of what they had already gained. They Avere obliged
 
 198 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 to bow to the necessity. They gave power to Congress to 
 abolish the slave trade at the end of twenty years. They also 
 prohibited it in the territories where it did not exist. They 
 did what they could and yielded to the necessity for the rest. 
 I also yield to all which follows from that necessity. What I 
 would most desire would be the separation of the white and 
 black races. 
 
 One more point on this Springfield speech which Judge 
 Douglas says he has read so carefully. I expressed my be- 
 lief in the existence of a conspiracy to perpetuate and nation- 
 alize slavery. I did not profess to know it, nor do I now. I 
 showed the part Judge Douglas had played in the string of 
 facts, constituting to my mind the proof of that conspiracy. 
 I showed the parts played by others. 
 
 I charged that the people had been deceived into carrying 
 the last Presidential election, by the impression that the peo- 
 dle of the territories might exclude slavery if they chose, 
 when it was known in advance by the conspirators, that the 
 court was to decide that neither Cougress nor the people could 
 so exclude slavery. These charges are more distinctly made 
 than anything else in the speech. 
 
 Judge Douglas has carefully read and re-read that speech. 
 He has not, so far as I know, contradicted those charges. In 
 the two speeches which I heard, he certainly did not. On his 
 own tacit admission I renew that charge. I charge him as 
 having been a party to that conspiracy and to that deception 
 for the sole purpose of nationalizing slavery. 
 
 MK. LINCOLN'S SPEECH, 
 
 AT GALESBUUGH, Oct. 7, 1858. 
 
 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 aftbrded to the
 
 ABKAHAM LINCOLN. 199 
 
 public to see our respective views upon the topics discussed in 
 a large portion of the speech which he has just delivered. I 
 make these remarks for the purpose of excusing myself for not 
 passing over the entire ground that the Judge has traversed. 
 I, however, desire to take up some of the points that he has at- 
 tended to, and ask your attention to them, and I shall follow 
 him backward upon some notes which I have taken, revers- 
 ing the order by beginning where he concluded. 
 
 The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, 
 and insisted that negroes are not included in that Declaration ; 
 and that it is a slander upon the framers of that instrument, 
 to suppose that negroes were meant therein ; and he asks you : 
 Is it possible to believe that Mr. Jefferson, who penned the 
 immortal paper, could have supposed himself applying the 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 1 ? I only have to remark upon this part of the 
 Judge's speech (and that, too, very briefly, for I shall not de- 
 tain myself, or you, upon that point for any great length of 
 time), that I believe the entire records of the world, from the 
 date of the Declaration of Independence up to within three 
 years ago, maybe searched in vain for one single affirmation, from 
 one single man, that the negro was not included in the Decla- 
 ration of Independence ; I think I may defy Judge Douglas to 
 show that he ever said so, that Washington ever said so, that 
 any President ever said so, that any member of Congress ever 
 said so, or that any living man upon the whole earth ever 
 said so, until the necessities of the present policy of the Dem- 
 ocratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that affirma- 
 tion. And I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience, 
 that while Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as un- 
 doubtedly he was, in speaking upon this very subject, he used 
 the strong language that " he trembled for his country when 
 he remembered that God was just ;" and I will offer the high- 
 est premium in my power to Judge Douglas if he will show 
 that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at all akin to 
 that of Jefferson. 
 
 The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the 
 Judge's comments upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that 
 we cannot call our public meetings as Republican meetings ; 
 and he instances Tazewell county as one of the places where
 
 200 LIFE' AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the friends of Lincoln have called a public meeting and have 
 not dared to name it a Republican meeting. He instances 
 Monroe county as another where Judge Trumbull and Jehu 
 Baker addressed the persons whom the Judge assumes to be 
 the friends of Lincoln, calling them the " Free Democracy." 
 I have the honor to inform Judge Douglas that he spoke in 
 that very county of Tazewell last Saturday, and I was there 
 on Tuesday last, and when he spoke there he spoke under a 
 call not venturing to use the word "Democrat." [Turning 
 to Judge Douglas.] What think you of this ? 
 
 So again, there is another thing to which I would ask the 
 Judge's attention upon this subject. la the contest of 1856 
 his party delighted to call themselves together as the " Na- 
 tional Democracy," but now, if there should be a notice put up 
 anywhere, for a meeting of the " National Democracy." Judge 
 Douglas and his friends would not come. They would not 
 suppose themselves invited. They would understand that it 
 was a call for those hateful post-masters 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 considerable time, 
 and if they have any inconsistency in them, if there is 
 any conflict in them, the public have been able to detect it. 
 When the Judge says, in speaking on this subject, that I make 
 speeches of one sort for the people of the northern end of the 
 State, and of a different sort for the southern people, he as- 
 sumes 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 Jones- 
 boro and the one at Charleston, would all be put in print and 
 all the reading and intelligent men in the community would 
 see them and know all about my opinions. And I have not sup- 
 posed, and do not now suppose, that there is any conflict what- 
 ever between them. But the Judge will have it that if we do 
 not confess that there is a sor.t of inequality between the white 
 and black races, which justifies us in making them slaves, we 
 must, then, insist that there is a degree ot equality that re- 
 quires us to make them our wives. Now, I have all the while 
 taken a broad distinction in regard to that matter ; and that 
 is all there is in these different speeches which he arrays here, 
 and the entire reading of either of the speeches will show that
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 201 
 
 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 equali- 
 ty between the white and black races that should produce a 
 perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility. 
 This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have 
 said, that in their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of 
 happiness," as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior 
 races are our equals. And these declarations I have constant- 
 ly made in reference to the abstract moral question, to con- 
 template and consider when we are legislating about any new 
 country which is not already cursed with the actual presence 
 of the evil slavery. I have never manifested any impatience 
 with the necessities that spring from the actual presence of 
 black people among us, and the actual existence of slavery 
 among us where it does already exist ; but I have insisted 
 that, in legislating for new countries, where it does not exist, 
 there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract 
 right ! With reference to those new countries, those maxims 
 as to the right of a people to " life, liberty and the pursuit of 
 happiness," were the just rules to be constantly referred to. 
 There is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested 
 to misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an in- 
 telligent and reading community, who will peruse what I say, 
 weigh it, and then judge whether I advance improper or un- 
 sound views, or whether I advance hypocritical, and deceptive, 
 and contrary views in ditferent portions of the country. I be- 
 lieve myself to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, though, 
 of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free from all error 
 in the opinions I advance. 9 
 
 The Judge has also detained us a while 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 Republican party ? He assumes that 
 our party is altogether sectional that the party to which he 
 adheres is national ; and the argument is, that no party can 
 be a rightful party can be based upon rightful principles 
 unless it can announce its principles everywhere. I presume 
 that Judge Douglas could not go into Russia and announce
 
 202 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the doctrine of our national Democracy ; he could not de- 
 nounce the doctrine of king?, and emperors, aud monarchies, 
 in llussia ; and it may be true of this country, that in some 
 places we may not be able to proclaim a doctrine as clearly true 
 as the truth of Democracy, because there is a section so directly 
 opposed to it that they will not tolerate us in doing so. Is it 
 the true test of the soundness of a doctrine, that in some 
 places people won't let you proclaim it 1 Is that the way to 
 test the truth of any doctrine? Why, I understood that at 
 one time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas 
 preach a certain favorite doctrine of his. I commend to his 
 consideration the question, whether he takes that as a. test of 
 the unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. 
 
 There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for 
 a little while on this occasion. What has always been the 
 evidence brought forward to prove that the Republican party 
 is a sectional party 1 The main one was that in the Southern 
 portion of the Union the people did Hot let the Republicans 
 proclaim their doctrines among them. That has been the 
 main evidence brought forward that they had no supporters, 
 or substantially none, in the slave States. The South have 
 not taken hold of our principles as we announce 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 
 before the country. We are now far advanced in this canvass. 
 J udge Douglas and I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, 
 and we have now for the fifth time met face to face in debate, 
 and up to this day I have not found either Judge Douglas or 
 any friend of his taking hold of the 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 prin- 
 ciples. If he had great confidence that our principles were 
 wrong, he would take hold of them and demonstrate them to 
 be wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he 
 has of their being wrong is in the fact that there are people 
 who won't allow us to preach them. I ask again is that the 
 way to test the soundness of a doctrine ? 
 
 I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of na-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 203 
 
 tionality he is himself fast becoming sectional. I ask his 
 attention to the fact that his speeches would not go as current 
 now south of the Ohio river as they have 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. Jf he has not thought of this, I com- 
 mend to his consideration the evidence of his own declaration, 
 on this day, of his becoming sectional too. I sec 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 Kepublicans 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 Compromise of 1850, containing the 
 principle of the Nebraska bill, although I have often pre- 
 sented my views upon that subject, yet as I have not done so 
 in this canvas?, I will, if you please, detain you a little with 
 them. I have always maintained, so far as I was able, that 
 there was nothing of the principle of the Nebraska bill in the 
 Compromise of 1850 at all nothing whatever. Where can 
 you find the principle of the Nebraska bill in that Compromise 1 
 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 ad- 
 mitted into the Union, they should be admitted with or with- 
 out slavery, as they should choose, by their own constitutions. 
 Nothing was said in either of those acts as to what was to be 
 done in relation to slavery during the territorial existence of 
 those territories, while Henry Clay constantly made the decla- 
 ration (Judge Douglas recognizing him as a leader) that, in 
 his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control that question 
 during the territorial existence, and that these old Mexican 
 laws excluded slavery. How can that be used as a principle 
 for declaring that during the territorial existence as well as 
 at the time of framing the Constitution, the people, if you 
 please, might have slaves if they wanted them? I am not 
 discussing the question whether it is right or wrong ; but how 
 are" the New-Mexican and Utah laws patterns for the Ne- 
 braska bill? I maintain that the organization of Utah and
 
 204 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 New-Mexico did not establish a general principle at all. It 
 had no feature of establishing a general principle. The acts 
 to which I have referred were a part of a general system of 
 Compromises. 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 al- 
 lowed to come in in that shape, because in another way it was 
 paid for considering that as a part of that system of measures 
 called the Compromise of 1850, which finally included half a 
 dozen acts. It included the admission of California as a free 
 State, which was kept out of the Union for half a year because 
 it had formed a free Constitution. It included the settlement 
 of the boundary of Texas, which had been undefined before, 
 which was in itself a slavery question : for, if you pushed the 
 line farther west, you made Texas larger, and made more 
 slave territory ; while, if you drew the line toward the east, 
 you narrowed the boundary and diminished the domain of 
 slavery, and by so much increased free territory. It included 
 the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. 
 It included the passage of a new Fugitive Slave Jaw. 
 
 All these things were put together, and though passed in 
 separate acts, were nevertheless in legislation (as the speeches 
 at the time will show), made to depend upon each other. 
 Each got votes, with the understanding that the other meas- 
 ures were to pass, and by this system of compromise, in that 
 series of measures, thos two bills the New-Mexico and 
 Utah bills were passed; and I say for that reason they conld 
 not be taken as models, framed upon their own intrinsic prin- 
 ciple, 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 introduced bills 
 for the purpose of framing new territories, did not attempt to 
 follow these bills of New Mexico and Utah ; and even when 
 he introduced this Nebraska bill, I think .you will discover 
 that he did not exactly follow them. But I do not wish to 
 dwell at great length upon this branch of the discussion. My 
 own opinion is, that a thorough investigation will show most 
 plainly that the New-Mexico and Utah bills were part of a 
 system of compromise, and not designed as patterns for future 
 territorial legislation ; and that this Nebraska bill did not fol- 
 low them as a pattern at all.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 205 
 
 The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to mak- 
 ing any odious distinctions between 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 ^Republicans in this. I suppose that the real 
 difference between Judge Douglas and his friends, and the Re- 
 publicans 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 institu- 
 tions ; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the 
 idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Everything that 
 emanates from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy, 
 carefully excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in 
 sjavery. All their arguments, if you will consider them, will 
 be seen to exclude the thought that there is anything what- 
 ever 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 " doji't care whether slavery is voted, 
 up or down" you will see at once that this i.s perfectly logi- 
 cal, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong. Jf you do ad- 
 mit 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 want 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 logically say that anybody 
 has a right to do wrong. He insists that, upon the score of 
 equality, the owners of slaves and owners of property of 
 horses and every other sort of property should be alike and 
 hold them alike in a new territory. That is perfectly logical, 
 if the two species of property are alike and are equally found- 
 ed in right. But if you admit that one of them is wrong, you 
 cannot institute any equality between right and wrong. And 
 from this difference of sentiment the belief on the part of one 
 that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that 
 belief 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
 
 206 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 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 coun- 
 try who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political 
 evil, having due regard for its actual existence among us, 
 and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, 
 and to all the constitutional obligations which have been 
 thrown about it ; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks 
 to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the 
 time when as a wrong it may come to an end. 
 
 Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, it 
 not the seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a 
 conspiracy or combination between tho National Democrats 
 and Republicans. What evidence Judge Douglas has upon 
 this subject, I know not, inasmuch as he never favors us with 
 any. I have said upon a former occasion, and I do not choose 
 to suppress it now, that I have no objection to the division in 
 the Judge's party. He got it up himself. It was all his and 
 their work. He had, I think, a great deal more to do with 
 the steps that led to the Lecompton constitution than Mr. Bu- 
 chanan had ; though at last, when they reached it, they quar- 
 reled over it, and their friends divided upon it. I am very 
 free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have no objection to 
 the division ; but I defy the Judge to show any evidence that 
 I have in any way promoted that division, unless he insists on 
 being a witness himself, in merely saying so. I can give all 
 fair friends of Judge Douglas here to understand exactly the 
 view that Republicans take in regard to that division. Don't 
 you remember how, two years ago, the opponents of the Dem- 
 ocratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore 1 
 I gue^s you do. Any Democrat who remembers that division, 
 will remember also, that he was at the time veiy glad of it, 
 and then he will be able to see all there is between the Na- 
 tional Democrats and the Republicans. What we now think 
 of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought of the 
 Fremont and Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. 
 
 But, if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration 
 that there is an unholy and unnatural alliance between the 
 Republican and the National Democrats, I now want to enter 
 my protest against receiving him as an entirely competent wit-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 207 
 
 ness upon that subject. I want to call to the Judge's atten- 
 tion an attack he made upon me, in the first one of these 
 debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order to fix 
 extreme Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of 
 resolutions, which he declared had been passed by a Republi- 
 can State Convention, in October, 1854, at Springfield, Illi- 
 nois, and he declared 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 a State 
 Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days after- 
 ward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been 
 misled by Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, 
 and Thomas L. Harris, member of Congress in that District, 
 and he promised in that speech that when he went to Spring- 
 field he would investigate the matter. Since then Judge 
 Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made the 
 investigation ; but a month has passed since he has been there, 
 arid, so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of 
 his investigation. I have waited, as I think, sufficient time 
 for the report of that investigation, and I have some curiosity 
 to see and hear it. A fraud an absolute forgery was com- 
 mitted, and the perpetration of it was traced to the three 
 Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed 
 in any way so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge 
 Douglas's report would probably show. 
 
 It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas 
 were published in the Illinois State Register, on the 16th of 
 October, 1854, as being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska 
 Convention, which had sat in that same month of October, at 
 Springfield. But it is also true, that the publication in the 
 Register was a forgery then, and the question, is still behind, 
 which of the three, if not all of them, committed that forgery 1 ? 
 The idea that it was done by mistake, is absurd. The article 
 in the Illinois State Register contains part of the real proceed- 
 ings of that Springfield Convention, showing that the writer 
 of the article had the real proceedings before him, and pur- 
 posely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the Con-
 
 208 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 vention, and fraudulently substituted the others. Lanphier 
 then, as now, was the editor of the Register, so there seems to 
 be but little room for his escape. But then it is to be borne 
 in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of that 
 forgery than either of the other two. The main object of that 
 forgery, at that time, was to beat Yates and elect Harris to 
 Congress, and that object was known to be exceedingly dear 
 to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and Douglas were 
 both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, and 
 although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Reg- 
 ister, subsequent events show that they have both had their 
 eyes fixed upon that Convention. 
 
 The fraud having heen apparently successful upon Ihe occa- 
 sion, both Harris and Douglas have more than once since then 
 been attempting to put it to new uses. As the fisherman's 
 wife, whose drowned husband was brought home with his body 
 full of eels, said when she was asked, " What was to be done 
 with him T' " 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 attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull on 
 the floor of the Senate of the United States, as will appear 
 from the appendix of the Congressional Globe of that date. 
 
 On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Nor- 
 ton in the House of Representatives, as will appear by the 
 same documents the appendix to the Congressional Globe of 
 that date. On the 21st of August last, all three Lanphier, 
 Douglas, and Hacris reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. It 
 has been clung to and played out again and again as an ex- 
 ceedingly high trump by this blessed trio. And now that it 
 has been discovered publicly to be a fraud, we find that Judge 
 Douglas manifests no surprise at it at all. He makes no com- 
 plaint of Lanphier, who must have known it to be a fraud 
 from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and Harris, are jnst 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. 
 Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of hcnor among thieves 
 does not quite require him to take all upon himself, and con-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 209 
 
 sequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a 
 satisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile 
 the three are agreed that each is " a most honorable man." 1 
 
 Judge Douglas requires an endorsement of his truth and 
 honor by a re-election to the United States Senate, and he 
 makes and reports against me and against Judge Trumbull, 
 day after day, charges which we know to be utterly untrue, 
 without for a moment seeming to think that this one unex- 
 plained 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 Slate Register, edited by Lanphier, then, 
 as now, the central organ of both Harris and Douglas, con- 
 tinues to din the public ear with this assertion without seeming 
 to suspect that these assertions 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 was origi- 
 nally 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 devised, shall at 
 least bear their share of it ! How that is, I do not know, 
 and while it remains unexplained, I hope to be pardoned if I 
 insist that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making charges 
 against Trumbull and myself is not quite sufficient evidence to 
 establish them ! t 
 
 While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discus- 
 sions, I answered certain interrogatories 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 the 
 States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in 
 favor of acquiescing in, adhering to, and following such de- 
 cision, as a rule of political action '"' 
 
 To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer, in 
 any just sense of the word. He contented himself with 
 sneering at the thought that it was possible for f,ho Supreme
 
 210 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Court ever to make such a decision. He sneered at me for 
 propounding the interrogatory. I had not propounded 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 believe it is, of 
 the Constitution of the United States, we find the following 
 language: "This Constitution and the laws of the United 
 States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all 
 treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of 
 the United States, shall be the 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 contrary, not- 
 withstanding." 
 
 The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the 
 sentence which I will now read : ' Now, as we have already 
 said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, 
 the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly 
 affirmed in the Constitution." I repeat it, " The right of 
 property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Con- 
 stitution I " What is it to be " affirmed " in the Constitution *? 
 Made firm in the Constitution so made that it cannot be 
 separated from the Constitution without breaking the Consti- 
 tution durable as the Constitution, and part of the Consti- 
 tution. Now, remembering the provision of the Constitution 
 which I have read, affirming that that instrument is the su- 
 preme law of the land ; that the judges of every State shall 
 be bound by it, any law or constitution of any Stafe 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 argu- 
 ment has any fault in it ? 
 
 Nothing in the constitution or laws of any State can de- 
 stroy a right distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitu- 
 tion 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.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 211 
 
 I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument ; 
 assuming the truth of the premises, the conclusion, so far as 
 I have capacity at all to understand it, follows inevitably. 
 There is a fault in it as I think, but the fault is not in the 
 reasoning ; but the falsehood in fact is a fault of the premises. 
 I believe that the right of property in a slave in not distinctly 
 and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge Douglas 
 thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advo- 
 cates of that decision may search in vain for the place in the 
 Constitution where the right of a slave is distinctly and ex- 
 pressly affirmed. I say, therefore, that I think one of the 
 premises is not true in fact. But it is true with Judge Doug- 
 las. It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced it. 
 They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from 
 denying it, the conclusion follows that the Constitution of the 
 United States being the supreme law, no constitution or law 
 can interfere with it. It being affirmed in the decision that 
 the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly 
 affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows 
 that no State law or constitution can destroy that right. I 
 then say to Judge Douglas and to all others, that I think it 
 will take a better answer than a sneer to show that those 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 intelligent men that whoever 
 has so said, is not prepared, whenever public sentiment is so 
 far advanced as to justify it, to say the other. 
 
 This is but an opinion, and the opinion of one very humble 
 man ; but it is my opinion that the Dred Scott decision, as it 
 is, never would have 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 decis- 
 ion, deciding against the right of the people of the States to 
 exclude slavery, 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 1 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
 
 212 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 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 attention to the fact that General Jackson differed 
 with him in regard to the political obligation of a Supreme 
 Court decision. I have asked his attention to the fact that 
 Jeiferson 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 submission to any department of government, retain-, 
 ing for themselves no appeal from it, their liberties are gone." 
 I have asked his attention to the fact that the Cincinnati plat- 
 form, upon which he says he stands, disregards a time-honored 
 decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the power of Con- 
 gress to establish a National Bank. I have asked his attention 
 to the fact that he himself was one of the most active instru- 
 ments at one time in breaking down the Supreme Court of tho 
 State of Illinois, because it had made a decision distasteful to 
 him a struggle ending in the remarkable circumstance of his 
 sitting down as one of the new Judges who were to overslaugh 
 that decision getting his title of Judge in that very way. 
 
 So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from 
 Judge Douglas upon these subjects. Not one can I get from 
 him, except that he swells himself up and says, "All of us 
 who stand by the decision of the Supreme Court are the 
 friends of the Constitution ; all you fellows that dare question 
 it in any way are the enemies of the Constitution." Now, in 
 this very devoted adherence to this decision, in opposition to 
 all the great political leaders whom he has recognized as 
 leaders in opposition to his former self and history, there is 
 something very marked. And the manner in which he ad- 
 heres to it not as being right upon the merits, as he con- 
 ceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being 
 absolutely obligatory upon every one, simply because of 
 the source 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.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 213 
 
 So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is right 
 or wrong. He teaches men this doctrine, and in, doing so 
 prepares the public mind to take the next, decision when it 
 comes, without any inquiry. In this I think I argue fairly 
 (without questioning motives at all), that Judge Douglas is 
 most ingeniously and powerfully preparing the public mind to 
 take that decision when it comes ; and not only so. but he is 
 doing it in various other ways. In these general maxims about 
 liberty in his assertions that he " don't care whether slavery 
 is voted up or 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 pre- 
 paring (whether purposely or not) the way for making the in- 
 stitution of slavery national ! I repeat again, for I wish no 
 misunderstanding, that I do not charge that he means it so ; 
 but I call your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the 
 best instrument you could, and then set it to work in the most 
 ingenious way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, 
 operating in the free States, where there is now an abhorrence 
 of the institution of slavery, could you find an instrument so 
 capable of doing it as Judge Douglas? or one employed in so 
 apt a way to do it ? 
 
 I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. 
 Clay, when he was once answering an objection to the Colo- 
 nization Society, that it had a tendency to the ultimate eman- 
 cipation 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 So- 
 ciety they must go back to the era of our liberty and indepen- 
 dence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous 
 return they must blot out the moral lights around us they 
 must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of rea- 
 son 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 Independence, 
 is " going back to the era of our liberty and independence, and, 
 so far as in him lies, muzzling the cannon that thunders its 
 annual joyous return ;" that he is blowing out the moral lights 
 around us, when he contends that whoever wants slaves has
 
 214 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 a right to hold them ; that he is penetrating, so far as lies in 
 his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of rea- 
 son and the love of liberty, when he is in every possible way 
 preparing the public mind, by his vast influence, for making 
 the institution of slavery perpetual and national. 
 
 There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will 
 call your attention for the remaining time that I have left me, 
 and, perhaps, I shall not occupy the entire time that I have, 
 as that one point may not take me clear through it. 
 
 Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to 
 me at Freeport, there was one in about this language : ' ' Are 
 you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the 
 United States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein T' 
 I answered as' I thought, in this way, that I am not generally 
 opposed to the accpaisition of additional territory, and that I 
 would support a proposition for the acquisition of additional 
 territory, according as my supporting it was or was not calcu- 
 lated to aggravate this slavery question among us. I then 
 proposed to Judge Douglas another interrogatory, which was 
 correlative to that : " Are you in favor of acquiring addi- 
 tional territory in disregard of how it may aifect us upon the 
 slavery question?" Judge Douglas answered, that is, in his 
 own way he answered it. I believe that, although he took a 
 great many words to answer it, it was a little more fully an- 
 swered 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 ac- 
 quired, to be settled by the people of the acquired territory. 
 [" That's the doctrine."] May be it is ; let us consider that 
 for a while. This will probably, in the run of things, become 
 one of the concrete manifestations of this slavery question. 
 If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question succeeds and gets
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 215 
 
 fairly settled down, until all opposition is crushed out, the next 
 thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, and an 
 invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the adjoin- 
 ing 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 pure 
 white, and I suppose from the Judge's previous declaration 
 that when we get Mexico or any considerable portion of it, 
 that he will be in favor of these mongrels settling the question, 
 which would bring him somewhat into collision with his hor- 
 ror of an inferior race. 
 
 It is to 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 con- 
 trol of the representatives of the people any further than they, 
 the President and the Senate, can be considered representa- 
 tives of the people. 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 slavery should be forever prohibited 
 therein, upon the terms and in the language that slavery had 
 been prohibited from coming into this country. That was in- 
 sisted upon constantly, and never failed to call forth an assur- 
 ance that any territory thus acquired should have that prohi- 
 bition in it, so far as the House of Representatives was con- 
 cerned. But at last the President and the Senate acquired the 
 territory without asking the House of Representatives any- 
 thing about it, and took it without that prohibition. They 
 have the power of acquiring territory without the immediate 
 representatives of the people being called upon to say any- 
 thing about it, and 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
 
 216 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 slavery agitation. It is, therefore, as I think, a very import- 
 ant question for the consideration of the American people, 
 whether the policy of bringing in additional territory, without 
 considering at all how it will operate upon the safety of the 
 Union, in reference to this one great disturbing element in our 
 national politics, shall be adopted as the policy of the country. 
 You will bear in mind that it is to be acquired, 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 Douglas 
 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 territory is needed by the necessities of the country. 
 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 territory. 
 Then it is as easy to show the necessity of additional slave 
 territory as it is to assert anything that is incapable of absolute 
 demonstration. Whatever motive a man or a set of men may 
 have for making annexation of property or territory, it is very 
 to easy assert, but much less 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 Republican institu- 
 tions the only one that has ever 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 liberty in 
 view of these facts, I think it is an exceedingly interesting and 
 important question for this people to consider, whether we 
 shall engage in the policy of acquiring additional territory, dis- 
 carding altogether from our consideration, while obtaining 
 new territory, the question how it may affect us in regard to 
 this the only endangering element to our liberties and national 
 greatness. The Judge's view has been expressed. I, in my 
 answer to his question, have expressed mine. I think it will 
 become an important 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 con- 
 sider the importance of the question, and arrive at a just con- 
 clusion as to whether it is or it is not wise in the people of
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 217 
 
 this Union, in the acquisition of new territory, to consider 
 whether it will add to the disturbance that is existing among 
 us whether it will add to the one only danger that has ever 
 threatened the perpetuity of the Union or of our own 'liberties. 
 I think it is extremely important that they shall deci.le, and 
 rightly decide, that question before entering upon that policy. 
 
 And now, my friends, having said the little 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 topics 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. 
 
 MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH, 
 
 AT QCINCY, Irx., October 13, 1858. 
 
 LADIES AND GKNTLEMEN : I have had no immediate con- 
 ference 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 of the State of 
 Illinois, which have since been consolidated into the Republi- 
 can party, assembled together in a State Convention at Bloom- 
 ington. They adopted at that time, what, in political lan- 
 guage, is called a platform. In June of the same year, the 
 elements of the Republican party in the nation assembled to- 
 gether in a National Convention at Philadelphia. They 
 adopted what is called the National Platform. In June, 1858 
 the present year the Republicans of Illinois re-assembled 
 at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again their 
 platform, as I suppose, not differing in any essential particu- 
 lar from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding some- 
 thing in relation to the new developments of political progress 
 in the country. 
 
 The Convention that assembled in June last did me the 
 honor, if it be one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as 
 their candidate for the United States Senate. I havo sup- 
 10
 
 218 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 posed that, in entering upon this canvass, I stood generally 
 upon these platforms. AVe are now met together on the 13th 
 of October of the same year, only four months from the adop- 
 tion of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this can- 
 va?s, from the beginning until to-day, any one of our adver- 
 saries has taken hold of our platforms, or laid hig finger upon 
 anything that lie calls wrong in them. 
 
 Jn the very first one of these joint discussions between Sen- 
 ator Douglas and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding 
 at all to these platform?, or any one of them, of which I have 
 ppoken, attempted to hold me responsible for a set of resolu- 
 tions passed long before the meeting of either one of these 
 Conventions of which I have spoken. And as a ground for 
 holding me responsible for these resolutions, he assumed that 
 they had been passed at a State Convention of the Bepablicun 
 party, and that I took part in that Convention. It was dis- 
 covered afterward that this was erroneous, that the resolutions 
 which he endeavored to hold me responsible for, had not been 
 passed by any State Convention anywhere, had not been 
 parsed at Springfield, where he supposed they had, or as- 
 sumed that they had, and that they had been passed in no 
 Convention in which I had taken part. The Judge, never- 
 theless, was not willing to give up the point that he was en- 
 deavoring to make upon me, and he therefore thought to still 
 hold me to the point that he was endeavoring to make, by 
 showing that the resolutions that he read, had been passed at 
 a local 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 hun- 
 dred 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 intro- 
 duced other resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by com- 
 bining the Avhole, although they were all antecedent to the 
 two State Conventions, and the one National Convention I 
 have mentioned, still he insisted and now insists, as I under- 
 stand, 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 pro- 
 ceedings of this local meeting or Convention, in which I had 
 taken no part, and in which I was in no way embraced ; but 
 I insisted to him that if he thought I was responsible for every
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 219 
 
 man or even- set of men everywhere, \vho happen to tie- my 
 friends, the rule ought to work both way?, and he ought to be 
 responsible for the acts and resolutions of all men or sets of 
 men who were and are now his supporters and friend. 8 , 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 different parts of the State have done ; but that he 
 is not responsible for what his have done. At least, so I un- 
 derstand him. But in addition to that, the Judge, at our meet- 
 ing in Galesburgh, last week, undertakes to establish that I 
 am guilty of a species of double-dealing with the public that 
 I make speeches of a certain sort in the north, among the 
 Abolitionists, which I would not make in the south, and that 
 I make speeches of a certain sort in the south which I would 
 not make in the north. I apprehend, in the course I have 
 marked out for myself, that I shall not have to dwell at very 
 great length upon this subject. 
 
 As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Gales- 
 burgh, I had an opportunity, as I had the middle speech there, 
 of saying something in answer to it. He brought forward a 
 quotation or two from a speech of mine, delivered at Chicago, 
 and then, to contrast with it, he brought forward an extract 
 of a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted that I 
 was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that his conclusion fol- 
 lowed that I was playing a double part, and speaking in one 
 region one way, and in another region another way. I have 
 not time now to dwell on this as long as I would like, and 
 wish only now to requote that portion of my speech at Charles- 
 ton, which the Judge quoted, and then make some comments 
 upon it. This he quotes from me as being delivered at Charles- 
 ton, 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 of- 
 fice, nor to intermarry with white people ; and I will say in addi- 
 tion to this, that there is a physical difference between the white 
 and black races which will ever forbid the two races living to-
 
 220 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 gether on terras of social and political equality. And inas- 
 much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together? 
 there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as 
 much as any other man in f;ivor 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. Plis 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 
 re required and expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he 
 goes for the equality of races, holding that in the Declaration 
 of Independence the white man and negro were declared equal, 
 and endowed by law with equality. And down south with 
 the old line Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians, and 
 the Tennesseans, he tells you there is a physical difference be- 
 tween the races, making the one superior, the other inferior, 
 and he is in favor of maintaining the superiority of the white 
 race over the negro." 
 
 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 awhile 
 but at our first meeting, at Ottawa, I read an extract from 
 an old speech of mine, made nearly four years ago, not merely 
 to show my sentiments, but to show that my sentiments were 
 long entertained and openly expressed , in which extract I 
 expressly declared that my own feelings would not admit a 
 social and political equality between the white and black races, 
 and that even if my own feelings would admit of it, I still 
 knew that the public sentiment of the country would not, and 
 that such a thing was an 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 thai 
 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,
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 221 
 
 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 : u Now, gentlemen, I don't wan't to read at 
 any great 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 ; anything th?t 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 insti- 
 tution in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right 
 to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose 
 to introduce political and social equality between the white 
 . and black races. There is a physical difference between the 
 two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their 
 living together on the footing of perfect equality, and inas- 
 much as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, 
 I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which 
 1 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 rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence the right of 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 intellectual 
 and moral endowments ; but in the right to eat the bread 
 without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, 
 he is iny equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal 
 of every other man." 
 
 1 have chiefly introduced this for the purpose of meeting the 
 Judge's charge that the quotation he took from my Charleston 
 speech was what I would say down south among the Ken- 
 tuckiaus, the Virginians, etc., but would not say in the regions 
 in which was supposed to be more of the abolition element. I 
 now make this comment : That speech, from which I have 
 now read the quotation, and which is there given correctly, 
 perhaps too much so for good taste, was made away up north
 
 222 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 in the abolition district of this State par excellence in the 
 Lovejoy District 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 prinl in that region 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 unconscious of having attempted any double- 
 dealing anywhere that upon one occasion I may say one 
 thing and leave other things unsaid, and vice versa ; but that I 
 have saTft anything on one occasion 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 sentiment I have occasionally advanced upon the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, I am entirely borne out by the senti- " 
 ments advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I 
 have the book here to show it from ; but because I have al- 
 ready occupied more time than I intended to do on that topic, 
 I pass over it. 
 
 At Galesburgh I tried to show that by the Dred Scott de- 
 cision, pushed to its legitimate consequences, 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 decis- 
 ion declaring that the States had not the power to exclude 
 slavery from their limits, he would adopt and follow that de- 
 cision as a rule of political action ; and becnuse he had not 
 directly answered that question, but had merely contented 
 himself with sneering at it, I again introduced it, and tried to 
 show that the conclusion that I stated followed inevitably and 
 logically from the proposition already decided by the court. 
 Judge Douglas had the privilege of replying to me at Gales- 
 burgh, and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether 
 he would or would not sustain such a decision if made. I 
 give him this third chance to say yes or no. He is not 
 obliged to do either probably he will not do either but I give 
 him the third chance. I tried to show then that this result 
 this conclusion inevitably followed from the point already de- 
 cided by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at
 
 ABB AH AM LINCOLN. 223 
 
 the thought of the court making any such decision, and in the 
 course of his remarks upon this subject, uses the language 
 which I will now read. Speaking of me the Judge says : 
 
 "He goes on and insists that the Pred Scott decision would 
 carry slavery into the free States, notwithstanding the decis- 
 ion itself says the contrary." And he adds : " Mr. Lincoln 
 knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that 
 holds that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in 
 their opinions held the reverse." 
 
 I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of 
 saying that I have the Dred Scott decision here, and [ will 
 thank Judge Douglas to lay his finger upon the place in the 
 entire opinions of the court where any of them " says the con- 
 trary." It is very hard to affirm a negative with entire con- 
 fidence. I say, however, that I have examined that decision 
 with a good deal of care, as a lawyer examines a decision, 
 and so far as I have been able to do so, the court has 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 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 approach he made to it wa exactly, 
 in substance, the Nebraska bill that the States had the ex- 
 clusive power over the question of slavery, so far as they are 
 not limited by the Constitution of the United States. I asked 
 the question therefore, if the non-concurring Judges, McLean 
 or Curtis, had asked to get an express declaration that the 
 States could absolutely exclude slavery from their limits, what 
 reason have we to believe that it would not havebeen voted 
 down by the majority of the Judges, just as Chase's amend- 
 ment was voted down by Judge Douglas and his compeers 
 when it was offered to the Nebraska bill. 
 
 Also at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those 
 Springfield resolutions that Judge Douglas attempted to use 
 upon me at Ottawa, and commented at some length upon the 
 fact that they were, as presented, not genuine. Judge Doug- 
 las in his reply to me seemed to be somewhat exasperated. 
 He said he would never have believed that Abraham Lincoln, 
 as he kindly called me, would have attempted such a thing as
 
 224 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 I had attempted upon that occasion ; and among other ex- 
 pressions which lie used toward me, was that I dared to say 
 forgery that Thad 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 
 i he 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 slrould not concern himself with Trumbull 
 any more, but thereafter he should hold Lincoln responsible 
 for the slanders upon him. When I met him at Charleston 
 after that, although I think that I should not have noticed the 
 subject if he had not aid 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 pur 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 forgery. 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." 
 
 Mr. Lincoln Yes, sir, it's the same thing with me. 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 the 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 inves- 
 tigate 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
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 225 
 
 believed of Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an 
 attempt as that, he reminds me of the fact that he entered 
 upon this canvass with the purpose to treat me courteously ; 
 that touched me somewhat. It sets me to thinking. I was 
 aware, when it was first agreed that Judge Douglas and I 
 were to have these seven-joint discussions, that they were 
 the successive acts of a drama perhaps I should say, to be 
 enacted not merely in the face of audiences 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 before which, they were conducted. But when 
 Judge Douglas got home from Washington and made his first 
 speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some sort of a 
 reply to it. His second speech Avas made at Bloomington, in 
 which he commented upon my speech at Chicago, and said that 
 I had used language ingeniously contrived to conceal my inten- 
 tions, 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 dis- 
 cussion 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 implicated 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 treat- 
 ing 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 Galesburgh, when he brings forward an extract from 
 a speech made at Chicago, and an extract from a speech 
 made at Charleston, to prove that I was trying to play a 
 double part and that I Avas trying to cheat the public, and 
 get votes upon one set of principles at one place and upon 
 another set of principles at another place I do not under- 
 stand but Avhat 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
 
 . 
 226 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 hands off him. As soon as I learned that Judge Douglass 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 originated with the 
 Judge, and if he quits, I probably will. But I shall not ask 
 any favors at all. He asks me, as he asks the audience, if I 
 wish to push this matter to the point of personal difficulty. I 
 tell him, no. He did not make a mistake, in one of his early 
 speeches, when he calls mean " amiable" man, though per- 
 haps he did when he called me an u intelligent" man. It 
 really hurts me very much to suppose that I have wronged 
 anybody on earth. I again tell him, no! I very much pre- 
 fer, when this canvass shall be over, however it may result, 
 that we at least part without any bitter recollections of per- 
 sonal difficulties. 
 
 Thfi Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says 
 that I was pushing this matter to a personal difficulty, to 
 avoid the responsibility for the enormity of my principles. I 
 say to the Judge and this audience now, that I will again 
 state our principles as well as I hastily can in all their enor- 
 mity, and if the Judge hereafter chooses to confine himself to 
 a war upon these principles, he will probably not find me de- 
 parting from the same course. 
 
 We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery. 
 It is a matter of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing ele- 
 ment. It is the opinion of all the great men who have ex- 
 pre-sed an opinion upon it, that it is a dangerous element. 
 Wfl keep up a controversy in regard to it. That controversy 
 necessarily springs from difference of opinion, and if we can 
 learn exactly can reduce to the lowest elements what that 
 difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepare. 1 
 for discussing the different systems of policy that we would 
 propose in regard to that disturbing element. I suggest that 
 the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest terms, is no 
 other than the difference between the men whoMhink slavery 
 a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The ^pub- 
 lican party think it wrong we think it is a moral, a soc-ial,
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 227 
 
 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 in its tendency, to say the least, that ex- 
 tends itself to the existence of the whole nation. Because we 
 think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal 
 with it as a wrong. We deal with it as 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 among 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 ac- 
 tual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional obliga- 
 tions, we have no right at all to disturb it in the States where 
 it exists, and AVC profess that we have no more inclination to 
 disturb it than we have the right to do it. We go farther 
 than that ; we don't propose to disturb it where, in one in- 
 stance, 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 emancipation 
 gradual and compensating the unwilling owners. Where we 
 suppose we have the constitutional right, we restrain our- 
 selves in reference to the actual existence of the institution 
 and the difficulties thrown about it. We also oppose it as an 
 evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. We insist oh the policy 
 that shall restrict it to its present limits. We don't suppose 
 that in doing this we violate anything due to the actual pres- 
 ence of the institution, or anything due to the constitutional 
 guaranties thrown arouni it. 
 
 We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon 
 which I ought, perhaps, to address you a few words. W n do 
 not propose that when Dred Scott has been decided to be a 
 slave, by the court, \ve, as a mob, will decide him to be free. 
 We do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, 
 shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any vio- 
 lent 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 Congress or
 
 228 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the President to favor no measure that does not actually on- 
 cur with the principles of that decision. We do riot propose 
 to be bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we 
 think it lays the foundation not merely of enlarging and 
 spreading out what we consider an evil, but it lays the foun- 
 dation for spreading that evil into the States themselves. We 
 propose so renting it as to have it reversed if we can, and a, 
 new judicial rule established upon this subject 
 
 I will add this, that if there be any man who does not be- 
 lieve 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 an}' 
 man in the Republican party who is impatient over the neces- 
 sity 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, standing with us. 
 He will find his place somewhere else ; for we have a due re- 
 gard, so far as we are 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 con- 
 trary to me a sentiment which holds that slavery is not 
 wrong, and therefore it goes for the policy that does not pro- 
 pose dealing with it as a wrong. That policy is the Demo- 
 cratic policy, and that sentiment is the Democratic sentiment. 
 If there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this vast audience 
 that this is really the central idea of the Democratic party, in 
 relation to this subject, I ask him to bear with me while i 
 state a few things tending, as I think, to prove that proposi- 
 tion. In the first place, the leading man I think I may do 
 my friend, Judge Douglas, the honor of calling him such 
 advocating the present Democratic policy, never himself says 
 it is wrong. He has the high distinction, so far as I know, of 
 never having said slavery is either right or wrong. Almost 
 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 that if 
 he will examine the policy proposed to be carried forward, he 
 will find that he carefully excludes the idea that there is any-
 
 ABEAHAM LINCOLN. 229 
 
 thing wrong in it. If you will examine the arguments that 
 are made on it, yuu 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 constantly object to anybody 
 else saying so I Do you not constantly argue that this is not 
 the right place to oppose it ? You say it must not be opposed 
 in the i'ree States, because slavery is not here ; it must hot 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 emancipation in Missouri, had an election in August 
 and got beat, and you, Mr. Democrat, threw up your hat, 
 and hallooed " Hurrah for Democracy." So, I say again, that 
 in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Doug- 
 las says he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted 
 down," whether he means that as an individual expression of 
 sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on na- 
 tional 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 can- 
 not 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 adaiit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that 
 anybody has a light to do wrong. When he says that slave 
 property and horse and hog property are alike, to be allowed 
 to go inl o the territories, upon the principle of equality, he is 
 reasoning truly, if there is no difference between them as prop- 
 erty ; but if the one is property, held rightfully, and the other 
 is wrong, then there is 110 equality between the right and 
 wrong ; so that, turn it in any way you can, in all tle argu- 
 ments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that policy it-
 
 230 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 self, there is a careful, 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 say, that whenever we can get the question distinctly 
 stated can get all these men who believe that slavery is in 
 some of these respects wrong, to stand and act with us in 
 treating it as a wrong then, and not till then, I think we will 
 in some way come to an end of this slavery agitation. 
 
 MR. LINCOLN'S EEPLY TO MR. DOUGLAS, 
 
 AT ALTON, ILL., October 15, 1858. 
 
 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN : I have been somewhat, in my 
 own mind, complimented by a large portion of Judge Doug- 
 las's speech I mean that portion which he devotes to the con- 
 troversy between himself and the present Administration. 
 This is the seventh time Judge Douglas and myself have met 
 in these joint discussions, and he has been gradually improv- 
 ing in regard to his war with the Administration. At Quincy, 
 day before yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the Ad- 
 ministration than I had heard him upon any occasion, and I took 
 pains to compliment him for it. I then told him to "Give it 
 to them with all the power he had ;" and as some of them 
 were present, I told them I would be very much obliged if 
 they would give it to him in about the same way. I take it he 
 has now vastly improved upon the attack he made then upon 
 the Administration. I flatter myself he has really taken my 
 advice on this subject. All I can say now is to recommend 
 to him and to them what I then commended to prosecute 
 the war against one another in the most vigorous manner. I 
 say to them again " Go it,' husband ! Go it, bear !" 
 
 There is one other thing I will mention before I will leave 
 this branch of the discussion although I do not consider it 
 much of my business, any way. I refer to that part of the 
 Judge's remarks where he undertakes to involve Mr. Buchanan 
 in an inconsistency. He reads something from Mr. Buchanan, 
 from which he undertakes to involve him in an inconsistency ;
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN'. 231 
 
 and he gets something of a cheer for having done so. I 
 would only remind the Judge that while he is very valiantly 
 fighting for the Nebraska bill and the repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise, it has been but a little while since he was the 
 valiant advocate of (he Missouri Compromise. 1 want to 
 know if Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as 
 Douglas has ? Has Douglas the exclusive rujht^ in this country, 
 of being on all sides of all questions .* Is nobody allowed that 
 high privilege but himself? Is he to have an entire monopoly 
 on that subject ? 
 
 So far as Judge Douclas addressed his speech to me, or so 
 far as it was about me, it is my business to pay some atten- 
 tion to it. I have heard the Judge state two or three times 
 what he has stated to-day that in a speech which I made at 
 Springfield, Illinois, I had in a very especial manner com- 
 plained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had de- 
 cided that a negro could never be a citizen of the United 
 States. I have omitted, by some accident, heretofore, to an- 
 alyze this statement, and it is required of me to notice it now. 
 In point of fact it is untrue. I never have complained especially 
 of the Dred Scott decision because it held that a negro could 
 not be a citizen, and the Judge is always wrong when he says 
 I ever did so complain of it. I have the speech here, and I 
 will thank him, or any of his friends, to show where I 
 said that a negro should be a citizen, and complained es- 
 pecially of the Dred Scott decision because it declared he 
 could not be one. I have done no such thing, and Judge 
 Douglas so persistently insisting that I have done so, has 
 strongly impressed me with the belief of a predetermination 
 on his part to misrepresent me. He could not get his founda- 
 tion for insisting that I was in favor of this negro equality 
 anywhere else as well as he could by assuming that untrue 
 proposition. Let me tell this audience what is true in regard 
 to that matter ; and the means by which they may correct me 
 if I do not tell them truly is by a recurrence to the speech 
 itself. I spoke of the Dred Scott decision in ray Springfield 
 speech, and I was then endeavoring to prove that the Dred 
 Scott decision was a portion of a system, or scheme, to make 
 slavery national in this country. I pointed out what things 
 had been decided by the court. I mentioned as a fact that 
 they had decided that a negro eould not be a citizen that
 
 232 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 they had done so, as I supposed, to deprive the negro, under 
 all circumstances, of the remotest possibility of ever becoming 
 a citizen and claiming the lights of a citizen of the United 
 States under a certain clause of the Constitution. I stated 
 that, without making any complaint of it at all. I then went 
 on and stated the other points decided in the case, namely : 
 that the bringing of a negro in the State of Illinois and hold- 
 ing him in slavery for two years here was a matter in regard 
 to which they would not decide whether it would make him 
 free or not; that they decided the further point that taking 
 him into a United States Territory where slavery was pro- 
 hibited by act of Congress, did not make him free, because 
 that act of Congress, as they held, was unconstitutional. I 
 mentioned these three things as making up the points decided 
 in that case. I mentioned thorn in a lump taken in connection 
 with the introduction of the Nebraska bill, and the amend- 
 ment of Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of the right of 
 the people of the Territories to exclude slavery, which was 
 voted down by the friends of the bill. I mentioned all theee 
 things together, as evidence tending to prove a combination 
 and conspiracy to make the institution of slavery national. In 
 that connection and in that way I mentioned the decision on 
 the point that a negro could not be a citizen, and in no other 
 connection. 
 
 Out of this, Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrica- 
 tionof my purpose to introduce a perfect, social, and polit- 
 ical equality between the white and black races. His asser- 
 tion that I made an " especial objection" (that is his exact 
 language) to the decision on this account, is untrue in point 
 of fact. 
 
 Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry Clay has 
 been alluded to, I desire to place myself, in connection with 
 Mr. Clay, as nearly right before this people as may be. I am 
 quite aware what the Judge's object is here by all these allu- 
 sions. He knows that we are before an audience, having 
 strong sympathies southward by relationship, place of birth, 
 and so on. He desires to place me in an extremely Abolition 
 attitude. He read upon a former occasion, and alludes with- 
 out reading to-day, to a portion of a speech which I delivered 
 in Chicago. In hia quotations from that speech, as he has 
 made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken in
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 233 
 
 such a way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of 
 what is called garbling taking portions of a speech which, 
 when taken by themselves, do not present the entire sense of 
 the speaker as expressed at the time. I propose, therefore, 
 out of that same speech, to show how one portion of it which 
 he skipped over (taking an extract before and an extract after) 
 will give a different idea, and the true idea I intended to con- 
 vey. It will take me some little time to read it, but I believe 
 I will occupy the time that way. 
 
 You have heard him frequently allude to my controversy 
 with him in regard to the Declaration of Independence. I 
 confess that I have had a struggle with Judge Douglas on that 
 matter, and I will try briefly to place myself right in regard 
 to it on this occasion. I said and it is between the extracts 
 Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put in his pub- 
 lished speeches : 
 
 " It may be argued that there are certain conditions that 
 make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent 
 that a necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it. 
 I think that was the condition in which we found ourselves 
 when we established this government. We had slaves among 
 us ; we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted 
 them to remain in slavery , we could not secure the good Ave 
 did secure if we grasped for more ; and having, by necessity, 
 submitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle that 
 is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter remain as our 
 standard." 
 
 Now I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge 
 Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing 
 institution of slavery. You hear me read it from the same 
 speech from which he takes garbled extracts for the purpose 
 of proving upon me a disposition to interfere with the institu- 
 tion of slavery, and establish a perfect social and political 
 equality between negroes and white people. 
 
 Allow me, while upon this subject, briefly to present one 
 other extract from a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at 
 Springfield, in discussing this very same question, soon after 
 Judge Douglas took his ground that negroes were not included 
 in the Declaration of Independence : 
 
 "I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to 
 include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men
 
 234 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were 
 equal in color, size, intellect, moral development, or social 
 capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what 
 they did consider all men created equal equal in certain ina- 
 lienable rights, among which are lite, liberty, and the pursuit 
 of happiness. This they said, and this they meant. They 
 did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then 
 actually enjoying that equality, or yet, that they were about 
 to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no 
 power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare 
 the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as 
 circumstances should permit. 
 
 " They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society 
 which should be familiar to all : constantly looked to, con- 
 stantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, 
 constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading 
 and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and 
 value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere." 
 
 There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard 
 to the Declaration of Independence upon a former occasion 
 sentiments which have been put in print and read wherever 
 anybody cared to know what so humble an individual as my- 
 self chose to say in regard to it. 
 
 At Galesburgh, the other day, I said in answer to Judge 
 Dougla?, that three years ago there never had been a man, so 
 far as I knew or believed, in the whole world, who had said 
 that the Declaration of Independence did not include negroes 
 in the term " all men." I re-assert it to-day. I assert that 
 Judge Douglas and all his friends may search the whole 
 records of the country, and it will be a matter of great aston- 
 ishment to me if they shall be able to find that one human 
 being, three years ago, had ever uttered the astounding senti- 
 ment that the term "all men" in the Declaration did not 
 include the negro. Do not let me be misunderstood. I know 
 that more than three years ago there were men who, finding 
 this assertion constantly in the way of their schemes to bring 
 about the ascendency and perpetuation of slavery, denied the 
 truth of it. I know that Mr. Calhoun and all the politicians 
 of his school denied the truth of the Declaration. I know 
 that it ran along in the mouths of some Southern men for a 
 period of years, ending at last in that shameful, though rather
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 235 
 
 forcible, declaration of Pettit, of Indiana, upon the floor of the 
 United States Senate, that the Declaration of Independence 
 was, in that respect, " a self-evident lie," rather than a self- 
 evident truth. But I say, with a perfect knowledge of all this 
 hawking at the Declaration without directly attacking it, that 
 three years ago there never had lived a man who had ventured 
 to assail it in the sneaking way of pretending to believe it and 
 then asserting it did not include the negro. I believ.e the first 
 man who ever said it was Chief Justice Taney in the Dred 
 Scott case, and the next to him was our friend, Stephen A. 
 Douglas. And now it has become the catchword of the 
 entire party. I would like to call upon his friends everywhere 
 to consider how they have come in so short a time to view this 
 matter in a way so entirely different from their former belief"? 
 to ask whether they are not being borne along by an irresisti- 
 ble current whither, they know not ? 
 
 In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh, last week, I 
 see that some man in Chicago has got up a letter, addressed to 
 the Chicago Thnes, to show, as he professes, that somebody had 
 said so before ; and he signs himself " An Old-Line Whig," if 
 I remember correctly In the first place, I would say he was 
 not an old-line Whig. I am somewhat acquainted with old- 
 line Whigs. I was with the old-line Whigs from the origin 
 to the end of that party; I became pretty well acquainted 
 with them, and I know they always had some sense, whatever 
 else you could ascribe to them. I know there never was one 
 who had not more sense than to try to show by the evidence 
 he produces that some man had, prior to the time I named, 
 said that negroes were not included in the term '" all men" in 
 the Declaration of Independence. What is the evidence he 
 produces ? I will bring forward his evidence, and let you see 
 what he offers by way of showing that somebody more than 
 three years ago had said negroes were not included in the Dec- 
 laration. He brings forward part of a speech from Henry 
 Clay the part of the speech of Henry Clay which I used to 
 bring forward to prove precisely the contrary. I guess we are 
 surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of Mr. 
 Clay, and they will be glad to hear anything from that author- 
 ity. While he was in Indiana a man presented a petition to 
 liberate his negroes, anJ he (Mr. Clay) made a speech in an- 
 swer to it, which 1 suppose he carefully wrote out himself and
 
 236 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 caused to be published. I have before me an extract from 
 that speech, which constitutes the evidence this pretended 
 " Old-Line Whig" at Chicago brought forward to show that 
 Mr. Clay didn't suppose the negro was included in the Decla- 
 ration of Independence, Hear what Mr. Clay said : 
 
 "And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indi- 
 ana, to liberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is 
 a general declaration in the act announcing to the world the 
 independence of the thirteen American colonies, that all men 
 are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, there is no 
 doubt of the truth of that declaration; and it is desirable, in the 
 original construction of society, and in organized societies, to keep 
 it in view as a great fundamental principle. But, then, I ap- 
 prehend that in no society that ever did exist, or ever shall be 
 formed, was or can the equality asserted among the members 
 of the human race, be practically enforced and carried out. 
 There are portions, large portions, women, minors, insane, 
 culprit*, transient sojourners, that will always probably remain 
 subject to the government of another portion of the com- 
 munity. 
 
 " That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its im- 
 port, was made by the delegations of the thirteen States. In 
 most of them slavery existed, and had long existed, and was 
 established by law. It was introduced and forced upon the 
 colonies by the paramount law of England. Do you believe, 
 that in making that declaration the States that concurred in it 
 intended that it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation 
 of all the slaves within their respective limits? WcruM Vir- 
 ginia and other Southern States have ever united in a declara- 
 tion which was to be interpreted into an abolition of slavery 
 among them? Did any one of the thirteen colonies entertain 
 such a design or expectation? To impute such a secret and 
 unavowed purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon 
 the noblest band of patriots that ever assembled in council a 
 fraud upon the Confederacy of the Revolution a fraud upon 
 the union of those States whose constitution not only recogni- 
 zed the lawfulness of slavery, but permitted the importation of 
 slaves from Africa until the year 1808." 
 
 This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that 
 somebody previous to three years ago had said the negro was 
 not included in the term "all men" in the Declaration. How
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 237 
 
 does it do so ? In what way has it a tendency to prove that 1 
 Mr. Clay says it is true as an abstract principle that all men are 
 created equal, but that we cannot apply it practically in all 
 cases. He illustrates this by bringing forward the cases of 
 females, minors, and insane persons, with whom it cannot be 
 enforced ; but he says it is true as an abstract principle in the 
 organization of society as well as in organized society, and it 
 should be kept in view as a fundamental principle. Let me 
 read a few words more before I add some comments of my 
 own. Mr. Claj says a little further on : 
 
 " I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the 
 institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and 
 deeply lament that we have derived it from the parental 
 government, and from our ancestors. But here they are, and 
 the question is, how can they be best dealt with ? If a state 
 of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of 
 society, no man icould be more strongly opposed than I should be, to 
 incorporating the institution of slavery among its elements." 
 
 Now, here in this same book in this same speech in this 
 same extract brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held 
 that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence no such statement on his part, but the declaration 
 that it is agreat fundamental truth, which should be constantly 
 kept in view in the organization of society and in societies al- 
 ready organized. But if I say a word about it if I attempt, 
 as Mr. Clay said all good men ought to do, to keep it in view 
 if in this " organized society," I ask to have the public eye 
 turned upon it if I ask, in relation to the organization of 
 new territories, that the public eye should be turned upon it 
 forthwith lam vilified as you hear me to-day. What have 
 I done, that I have not the license of Henry Clay's illustrious 
 example here in doing ? Have I done aught that I have not 
 his authority for, while maintaining that in organizing new 
 territories and societies, this fundamental principle should be 
 regarded, and in organized society holding it up to the public 
 view and reorganizing what lie recognized as the great prin- 
 ciple of free government 1 
 
 And when this new principle this new proposition that no 
 human being ever thought of three years ago is brought for- 
 ward, I combat it as having an evil tendency, if not an evil de- 
 sign. I combat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the
 
 238 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 negro to take away from him the right of ever striving to be 
 a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things con- 
 stantly done in these days to prepare the public mind to make 
 property, and nothing but property, of the negro in all the 
 States of this Union. 
 
 But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of 
 the discussion, to ask attention to. I have read and I repeat 
 the words of Henry Clay : 
 
 " I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the 
 institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and 
 deeply lament that we have derived it from the parental 
 government and from our ancestors. I wish every slave in the 
 United States was in the country of his ancestors. But here 
 they are ; the question is how they can best be dealt with ? If 
 a state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foun- 
 dations of society, no man would be more strongly opposed 
 than I should be, to incorporate the institution of slavery among 
 its elements." 
 
 The principle upon which I have insisted in this canvass, is 
 in relation to laying the foundations of new societies. I have 
 never sought to apply these principles to the old States, for 
 the purpose of abolishing slavery in those States. It is noth- 
 ing but a miserable perversion of what I have said, to assume 
 that I have declared Missouri, or any other slave State, shall 
 emancipate her slaves. I have proposed no such thing. But 
 when Mr. Clay says that in laying the foundations of societies 
 in our territories where it does not exist, he would be op- 
 posed to the introduction of slavery as an element, I insist 
 that we have his warrant his license for insisting upon the 
 exclusion of that element which he declared in such strong and 
 emphatic language was most hateful to him. 
 
 Jud^e Douglas has again referred to a Springfield speech in 
 which I said " a house divided against itself cannot stand." 
 The Judge has so often made the entire quotation from that 
 speech that I can make it from memory I used this lan- 
 guage : 
 
 '' We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was 
 initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of 
 putting an end to the slavery agitation. Under the operation 
 of this policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has 
 constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease until
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 239 
 
 a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided 
 against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government can- 
 not endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not 
 expect the house to fall but I do expect it will cease to be 
 divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. 
 Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread 
 of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the be- 
 lief 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." 
 
 That extract and the sentiments expressed in it, have been 
 extremely offensive to Judge Douglas. He has warred upon 
 them as Satan wars upon the Bible. His perversions upon it 
 are endless. Here now are my views upon it in brief. 
 
 I said we are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was 
 initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of 
 putting an end to the slavery agitation. Is it not so ? When 
 that Nebraska bill was brought forward four years ago last 
 January, was it not for the " avowed object " of putting an 
 end to the slavery agitation? \Ve were to have no more agi- 
 tation in Congress it was all to be banished to the territories. 
 By the way, I will remark here that, as Judge Douglas is 
 very fond of complimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days, Mr. 
 Crittenden has said there was a falsehood in that whole 
 business, for there was no slavery agitation at the time to allay. 
 We were for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and 
 that very allaying plaster of Judge Douglas' stirred it up 
 again. But was it not understood or intimated with the 
 " confident promise " of putting an end to the slavery agita- 
 tion? Surely it was. In every speech you heard Judge 
 Douglas make, until he got into this " imbroglio," as they 
 call it, with the administration about the Lecompton consti- 
 tution, every speech on that Nebraska bill was full of his 
 felicitations that we were just at the end of the slavery agita- 
 tion. The last tip of the last joint of the old serpent's tail 
 was just drawing out of view. But has it proved so? I 
 have asserted that under that policy that agitation "has not 
 only not ceased, but has constantly augmented." When was 
 there ever a greater agitation in Congress than last winter ? 
 When was it as great in the country as to-day? 
 
 There was a collateral object in the introduction of thnt
 
 240 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Nebraska policy which was to clothe the people of the 
 territories with a superior degree of self-government, bejoml 
 what they had ever had before. The first object, and the 
 main one, of conferring upon the people a higher degree 
 of 'self-government," is a question of fact to be determined 
 by you in answer to a single question. Have you ever heard 
 or known of a people anywhere on eartli who had as little to 
 do, as, in the first instance of its use, the people of Kansas 
 had with this same right of " self-government ?" In its main 
 policy, and in its collateral object, it has been nothing but a liv- 
 ing, creeping lie from the time of its introduction till to-day. 
 
 I have intimated that I thought the agitation would not 
 cease until a crisis should have been reached and passed. I 
 have stated in what way I thought it would ba reached and 
 passed. I have said that it might go one way or the other. 
 We might, by arresting the further spread of it, and placing 
 it where the fathers originally placed it, put it where the 
 public mind should rest in the belief that it was in the course 
 of ultimate extinction. Thus the agitation may cease. It 
 may be pushed forward until it shall become alike lawful in 
 all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. 
 I have said, and I repeat, my wish is that the further spread 
 of it may be arrested, and that it may be placed where the 
 public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of 
 ultimate extinction. I have expressed that as my wish. I 
 entertain the opinion upon evidence sufficient to my mind, 
 that the fathers of this government placed that institution 
 where the public mind did rest in the belief that it was in tho 
 course of ultimate extinction. Let me ask why they made 
 provision that the source of slavery the African slave- 
 trade should be cut off at the end of twenty years? Why 
 did they make provision that in all the new territory we owned 
 at that time, slavery should be forever inhibited? Why stop 
 its spread in one direction, and cut off its source in another, 
 if they did not look to its being placed in the course of ulti- 
 mate extinction ? 
 
 Again ; the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the 
 Constitution of the United States two or three times, and in 
 neither of these cases does the word "slavery" or "negro 
 race" occur; but covert language is used each time, and for 
 a purpose full of significance. What is the language in re-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 241 
 
 gard to the prohibition of the African slave-trade? It runa 
 in about this way: " The migration or importation of such 
 persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper 
 to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the 
 year one thousand eight hundred and eight." 
 
 The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of 
 slavery and the black race, is on the subject of the basis of 
 representation, and there the language used is, "Representa- 
 tives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several 
 States which m'ay be included within this Union, according 
 to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by, ad- 
 ding to the whole number of free persons, including those 
 bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians 
 not taxed three fifths of all other persons." 
 
 It says " persons," not slaves, not negroes ; but this 
 " three fifths" can be applied to no other class among us than 
 the negroes. 
 
 Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, 
 it is said: "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 discharged from 
 such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of 
 the party to whom such service or labor may be due." There 
 again there is no mention of the word " negro" or of slavery. 
 In all three of these places, being the only allusions to slavery 
 in the instrument, covert language is used. Language is used 
 not suggesting that slavery existed or that the black race were 
 among us. And I understand the contemporaneous history of 
 those times to be that covert language was used with a pur- 
 pose, and that purpose was that in our Constitution, which it 
 was hoped and is still hoped will endure forever when it 
 should be read by intelligent and patriotic men, after the in- 
 stitution of slavery had passed from among us there should 
 bo nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty suggest- 
 ing that such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed among 
 us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the gov- 
 ernment expected and intended the institution of slavery to 
 come to an end. They expected and intended that it should 
 be in the course of ultimate extinction. And when I say tliat 
 1 desire to see the further spread of it arrested, I only say I 
 desire to see that done which the fathers have first done. 
 11
 
 242 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 When I say I desire to see it placed where the public mind 
 will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate ex- 
 tinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they placed 
 it. It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes, 
 made this government part slave and part free. Understand 
 the sense in which he put sit. He assumes that slavery is a right- 
 ful thing within itself was introduced by the framers of the 
 Constitution. The exact truth is that they .found the institu- 
 tion existing among us, and they left it as they found it. But 
 in making the government they left this institution with many 
 clear marks of disapprobation upon it. They found slavery 
 among them, and they,left it among them because of the dif- 
 ficulty the absolute impossibility of its immediate removal. 
 And when Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it re- 
 main part slave and part free, as the fathers of the govern- 
 ment made it, he asks a question based upon an assumption 
 which is itself a falsehood ; and I turn upon him and ask him 
 the question, when the policy that the fathers of the govern- 
 ment had adopted in relation to this element among us was the 
 best policy in the world the only wise policy the only poli- 
 cy that we can ever safely continue upon that will ever give 
 us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all and be- 
 comes a national institution / turn upon him and ask him why 
 he could not leave il alone ? I turn and ask him why he was 
 driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy in regard to 
 it? He has himself said he introduced a new policy. He .said 
 go in his speech on the 22d of March of the present year, 
 1858. I ask him why he could not let it remain where our 
 fathers placed it ? I ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends 
 why we shall not again place this institution upon the basis on 
 which the fathers left it 1 I ask you, when he infers that lam 
 in favor of setting the free and slave States at Avar, when the 
 institution was placed in that attitude by those who made the 
 Constitution, did they make any tear ? If we had no v;ar out 
 of it, when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief that 
 we shall have war out of it, if we return to that policy ? 
 Have we had any peace upon this matter springing from, any 
 other basis ? I maintain that we have not. I have proposed 
 nothing more than a return to the policy of the fathers. 
 
 I confess, when I propose a certain measure of policy, it is 
 not enough for me that I do not intend anything evil in the 
 result, but it is incumbent on me to show that it has not a
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 243 
 
 tendency to that result. I have met Judge Douglas in that 
 point of view. I have not only made the declaration that I 
 do not mean to produce a conflict between the States, but I 
 have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I think I have 
 shown to the minds of fair men, that I propose nothing but 
 what has a most peaceful tendency. The quotation that I 
 happened to make in that Springfield speech, that " a house 
 divided against itself cannot stand," and which has proved so 
 offensive to the Judge, was part and parcel of the same thing. 
 He tries to show that variety in the domestic institutions of 
 the different States is necessary and indispensable. I do not 
 dispute it. I have no controversy with,Judge Douglas about 
 that. I shall very readily agree with him that it would be 
 foolish for us to insist upon having a cranberry law here, in 
 Illinois, where we have no cranberries, because they have a 
 cranberry law in Indiana, where they have cranberries. I 
 should insist that it would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny 
 to Virginia the right to enact oyster laws, where they have 
 oysters, because we want no such laws here. I understand, I 
 hope, quite as well as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, that 
 the variety in the soil and climate and face of the country, 
 and consequent variety in the industrial pursuits and produc- 
 tions of a country, require systems of law conforming to this 
 variety in the natural features of the country. I understand, 
 quite as well as Judge Douglas, that if we here raise a barrel 
 of flour more than we want, and the Louisianians raise a bar- 
 rel of sugar more than they want, it is of mutual advantage to 
 exchange. That produces commerce, brings us together, and 
 makes us better friends. We like one another the more for it. 
 And I understand, as well as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, 
 that these mutual accommodations are the cements which 
 bind together the different parts of this Union that instead 
 of being a thing to '"divide the hou?e'' figuratively express- 
 ing the Union they tend to sustain it ; they are the pi-ops of 
 the house tending always to hold it up. 
 
 But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is any 
 parallel between these things and this institution of slavery 
 I do not see that there is any parallel at all between them. 
 Consider it. When have we had any difficulty or quarrel 
 among ourselves about the cranberry laws of Indiana, or the 
 oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine lumber laws of Maine, or
 
 244 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the fact that Louisiana produces sugar, and Illinois flour ? 
 When have we had any quarrels over these things ? When 
 have we had perfect peace in regard to this thing which I say 
 is an element of discord in this Union ? We have sometimes 
 had peace, but when was it ? It was when the institution of 
 slavery remained quiet where it was. We have had difficulty 
 and turmoil whenever it has made a struggle to spread itself 
 where it was not. I ask, then, if experience does not speak 
 in thunder-tones, telling us that the policy which has given 
 peace to the country heretofore, being returned to, gives the 
 greatest promise of peace again. You may say, and Judge 
 Douglas has intimated the same thing, that all this difficulty 
 in regard to the institution of slavery is the mere agitation of 
 office-seekers and ambitious northern politicians. He thinks 
 we want to get " his place," I suppose. I agree that there 
 are office-seekers among us. The Bible says somewhere that 
 we are desperately selfish. I think we would have discovered 
 that fact without the Bible. I do not claim that I am any 
 less so than the average of men, but I do claim that I am not 
 more selfish than Judge Douglas. 
 
 But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in 
 regard to this institution of slavery springs from office-seeking 
 from the mere ambition of politicians ? Is that the truth ? 
 How many times have we had danger from this question ? 
 Go back to the day of the Missouri Compromise. Go back 
 to the Nullification question, at the bottom of which lay this 
 same slavery question. Go back to the time of the Annexa- 
 tion of Texas. Go back to the troubles that led to the Com- 
 promise of 1850. You will find that every time, with the 
 single exception of the Nullification question, they sprung 
 from an endeavor to spread this institution. There never was 
 a party in the history of this country, and there probably 
 never will be, of sufficient strength to disturb the general 
 peace of the country. Parties themselves may be divided and 
 quarrel on minor questions, yet it extends not beyond the 
 parties themselves. But does not this question make a dis- 
 turbance outside of political circles ? Does it not'enter into 
 the churches and rend them asunder? What divided the 
 great Methodist Church into two parts, North and South ? 
 What has raised this constant disturbance in every Presby- 
 terian General Assembly that meets ? What disturbed the
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 245 
 
 Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago ? What 
 has jarred and shaken the great American Tract Society re- 
 cently, not yet splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end ? 
 Is it not this same mighty, deep-seated power, that somehow 
 operates on the minds of men, exciting and stirring them up 
 in every avenue of society in politics, in religion, in litera- 
 ture, in moral?, in all the manifold relations of life ? Is this 
 the work of politicians 1 Is that irresistible power, which for 
 fifty years has shaken the government and agitated the people 
 to be stilled and subdued by pretending that it is an exceed- 
 ingly simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it ? If 
 you will get everybody else 'to stop talking about it, I assure 
 you I will quit before they have half done so. But where is 
 the philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can 
 quiet that disturbing element in our society which has dis- 
 turbed us for more than half a century, which has been the 
 only serious danger that has threatened our institutions I 
 say, where is the philosophy or the statesmanship based on the 
 assumption that we are to quit talking about it, and that the 
 public mind is all at once to cease being agitated by it ? Yet 
 this is the policy here in the north that Douglas is advocating 
 that we are to care nothing about it ! I ask you if it is not 
 a false philosophy ? Is it not a false statesmanship that un- 
 dertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of 
 caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the 
 most about f a thing which all experience has shown we care 
 a very great deal about ? 
 
 The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks 
 to the exclusive right which the States have to decide the 
 whole thing for themselves. I agree with him very readily 
 that the different States have that right. He is but fighting a 
 man of straw when he assumes that I am contending against 
 the right of the States to do as they please about it. Our con- 
 troversy with him is in regard to the new territories. We 
 agree that when the States come in as States they have the 
 right and the power to do as they please. We have no power 
 as citizens of the free States or in our federal capacity as 
 members of the Federal Union through the general govern- 
 ment, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We 
 profess constantly that we have no more inclination than 
 belief in the power of the government to disturb it ; yet we
 
 246 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 are driven constantly to defend ourselves from the assumption 
 that we are warring upon the rights of the States. AVhat I 
 insist upon is, that the new territories shall be kept free from 
 it while in the territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes 
 that we have no interest in them that we have no right 
 whatever to interfere. I think we have some interest. I 
 think that as white men we have. Do we not wish for an 
 outlet for our surplus population, if I may so express myself ? 
 Do we not feel an interest in getting to that outlet with such 
 institutions as we would like to have prevail there ? If you 
 go to the territory opposed to slavery, and another man comes 
 upon the same ground with his slave, upon the assumption 
 that the things are equal, it turns out that he has the equal 
 ^ght all his way and you have no part of it your way. If he 
 goes in and makes it a slave territory, and by consequence a 
 slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have it a 
 free State were on equal ground. Let me suggest it in a dif- 
 ferent way. How many Democrats^ are about here [" A thou- 
 sand"] who have left slave States and come into the free 
 State of Illinois to get rid of the institution of slavery? 
 [Another voice "A thousand and one."] I reckon there 
 are a thousand and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are 
 now advocating had prevailed when this country was in a 
 territorial condition, where would you have gone to get rid of 
 it? Where would you have found your free State or terri- 
 tory to go to ? And when hereafter, for any cause, the peo- 
 ple in this place shall desire to find new homes, if they wish to 
 be rid of the institution, where will they find the place to 
 go to ? 
 
 Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to 
 whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am 
 still in favor of our new territories being in such a condition 
 that white men may find a home may find some spot where 
 they can better their condition where they can settle upon 
 new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of 
 this not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for 
 our own people who are born among us, but as an outlet for 
 free while people eveiywhere, the world over in which Hans, 
 and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the 
 world, may find new himes and better their conditions in life. 
 
 I have stated on former occasions, and I may as well state
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 247 
 
 again, what I understand to be the real issue in this contro- 
 versy between Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of 
 my wanting to make war between the free and the slave 
 States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when he 
 assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and 
 political equality between the white and black races. These are 
 false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the 
 controversy. There is no foundation in truth for the charge 
 that I maintain either of these propositions. The real issue in 
 this controversy the one pressing upon every mind is the 
 sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institu- 
 tion of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not 
 look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the 
 institution of slavery in this country as a wrong, is the senti- 
 ment of the Republican party. It is the sentiment around 
 which all their actions all their arguments circle from 
 which all their propositions radiate. They look upon it as 
 being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while they 
 contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for 
 its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid 
 of it in any satisfactory way and to all the constitutional 
 obligations thrown about it. Yet having a due regard for these, 
 they desire a policy in regard to it that looks to its not creat- 
 ing any more danger. They insist that it should, as far as may 
 be, be treated as a wrong, and one of the methods of treating it 
 as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. 
 They also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of 
 slavery at sometime, as being wrong. These are the views 
 they entertain in regard to it, as I understand them ; and all 
 their sentiments all their arguments and propositions are 
 brought within this range. I have said and I repeat it here, 
 that if there be a man among us who does not think that 
 the institution of slavery is wrong in any one of the 
 aspects of which I have spoken, he is misplaced and ought not 
 to be with us. And if there be a man among us who is so 
 impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence 
 among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a 
 satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations 
 thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our plat- 
 form. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. 
 He is not placed properly with us.
 
 248 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its 
 spread let me say a word. Has anything ever threatened the 
 existence of this Union save and except this very institution of 
 slavery? What is it that we hold most dear among us? 
 Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threatened 
 our liberty and prosperity save and except this institution of 
 slavery ? If this is true, how do you propose to improve the 
 condition of things by enlarging slavery by spreading it out 
 and making it bigger? You may have a wen or cancer upon 
 your person and not be able to cut it out lest you bleed to 
 death ; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and 
 spread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of 
 treating what you regard a wrong. You see this peaceful 
 way of dealing with it as a wrong restricting the spread of 
 it, and not allowing it to go into new countries where it has 
 not already existed. This is the peaceful way, the old-fashioned 
 way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us the example. 
 
 On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which 
 treats it as not being wrong. That is the Democratic senti- 
 ment of this day. 1 do not mean to say that every man who 
 stands within that range positively asserts that it is right. 
 That class will include all who positively assert that it is right, 
 and all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as indifferent and do 
 not say it is either right or wrong. These two classes of men fall 
 within the general class of those who do not look upon it as a 
 wrong. And if there be among you anybody who suppose 
 that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself " as much op- 
 posed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with 
 him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that 
 you consider as a wrong, do you deal with as you deal with 
 that ? Perhaps you tay it is wrong, but your leader never does, 
 and you quarrel with anybody who says it is wrong. Although 
 you pretend to say so yourself, you can find no fit place to 
 deal with it as a wrong. You must not say anything about 
 it in the free States, because it is not here. You must not say 
 anything about it in the slave States, because it is there. You 
 must not say anything about it in the pulpit, because that is 
 religion and has nothing to do with it. You must not say 
 anything about it in politics, because that will disturb tJte secu- 
 rity of " my place." There is no place to talk about, it as 
 being a wrong, although you say yourself it w a wrong. But
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 249 
 
 finally you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the 
 people of the slave States should adopt a system of gradual 
 emancipation on the slavery question, you would be in favor 
 of it. You would be in favor of it. You say that is getting 
 it in the right place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. 
 But you are deceiving yourself. You all know that Frank 
 Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, . undertook 
 to introduce that system in Missouri. They fought as val- 
 iantly as they could for the system of gradual emancipation 
 which you pretend you would be glad to see succeed. Now 
 I will bring you to the test. After a hard fight they were 
 beaten, and when the news came over here you threw up your 
 hats and hurrahed for Democracy. More than that, take all 
 the argument made in favor of .the system you have proposed, 
 and it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong 
 in the institution of slavery. The arguments to sustain that 
 policy carefully excluded it. Even here, to-day, you heard 
 Judge Douglas quarrel with me because I uttered a wish that 
 it might sometime come to an end. Although Henry Clay 
 could say he wished every slave in the United States was in 
 the country of his ancestors, I am denounced by those pre- 
 tending to respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish that it 
 might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. The 
 Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tol- 
 erate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree 
 of wrong about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas' argu- 
 ments. Pie says he " don't care whether it is voted up or 
 voted down " in the territories. I do not care myself in 
 dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be ex- 
 pressive of his individual sentiments on the subject, or only of 
 the national policy he desires to have established. It is alike 
 valuable for my purpose.. Any man can say that who does 
 not see anything wrong in slavery, but no man can logically 
 say it who does see a wrong in it ; because no man can 
 logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or 
 voted down. He may say he don't care whether an indiffer- 
 ent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a 
 choice between a' right thing and a wrong thing. He contends 
 that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have 
 them. So they have if it is not a wrong. But if it is a 
 wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He 
 
 n
 
 250 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 says that upon the score of equality, slaves should be allowed 
 to go in a new territory, like other property. This is strictly 
 logical if there is no difference between it and other property. 
 If it and other property are equal, -his argument is entirely 
 logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the other 
 right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right 
 and wrong. You may turn over everything in the Demo- 
 cratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it 
 takes on the statute-book, in the shape it takes in the Dred 
 Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the 
 shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments it everywhere 
 carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. 
 That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue 
 in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and 
 myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these 
 two principles right and wrong throughout the world. They 
 are the two principles that have stood face to /ace from the 
 beginning of time ; and will ever continue to struggle. The 
 one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine 
 right of kings. It is the same principle, in whatever shape 
 it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work 
 and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it " No matter in what 
 shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks 
 to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit 
 of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for en- 
 slaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I was 
 glad to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it 
 here to Judge Douglas that he looks to no end to the institution 
 of slavery. That will help the people to see where the strug- 
 gle really is. It will hereafter place with us all men who 
 really do wish the wrong may have an end. And whenever 
 we can get rid of the fog which obscures the real question 
 when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to avow a 
 policy looking to its perpetuation we can get out from among 
 that class of men and bring them to the side of those who 
 treat it as a wrong. Then there will soon be an end of it, 
 and that end will be its " ultimate extinction." Whenever 
 the issue can be distinctly made, and all extraneous matter 
 thrown out so that men can fairly see the real difference be- 
 tween the parties, this controversy will soon be settled, and 
 it will be done peaceably too. There will be no war, no vio
 
 ABKAHAM LINCOLN. 251 
 
 lencc. It will be placed again where the wisest and best men 
 of the world placed it. Brooks of South Carolina once de- 
 clared that when this Constitution was framed, its framers did 
 not look to the institution existing until this day. When he 
 said this, I think he stated a fact that is fully borne out by 
 the history of the times. But he also said they were better 
 and wiser men than the men of these days ; yet the men of 
 these days had experience which they had not, and by the 
 invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this coun- 
 try that slavery should be perpetual. I now say that, -will- 
 ingly or unwillingly, purposely or without purpose, Judge 
 Douglas has been the most prominent instrument in changing 
 the position of the institution of slavery which the fathers of the 
 government expected to come to an end ere this and putting 
 it upon Brooks' cotton-gin basis placing it where he openly 
 confesses he has no desire there shall ever be an end of it. 
 
 I understand I have ten minutes yet. f I will employ it in 
 saying something about this argument Judge Douglas uses, 
 while he sustains the Dred Scott decision, that the people of 
 the territories can still somehow exclude slavery. The first 
 thing I ask attention to is the fact that Judge Douglas con- 
 stantly said, before the decision, that whether they could or 
 not, was a question for the Supreme Court. But after the court 
 has made the decision he virtually says it is not a question for 
 the Supreme Court, but for the people. And how is it he 
 tells us they can exclude it? He says it needs "police regu- 
 lations," and that admits of " unfriendly legislation." Although 
 it is a right established by the Constitution of the United 
 States to take a slave into a territory of the United States 
 and hold him as property, yet unless the territorial legis- 
 lature will give friendly legislation, and, more especially, 
 if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can practically ex- 
 clude him. Now, without meeting this proposition as a 
 matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional obli- 
 gation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face 
 before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the terri- 
 torial legislature. The first thing he will do will be to swear 
 that he will support the Constitution of the United States. 
 His neighbor by his side in the territory has slaves and needs 
 territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitu- 
 tional right. Can he withhold the legislation which his neigh
 
 252 LIFE AND SPEECHES F 
 
 bor needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his 
 favor in the Constitution of the United States which he has 
 sworn to support ? Can he withhold it without violating 
 his oath ? And more especially can he pass unfriendly legis- 
 lation to v olate his oath? Why, this is a monstrous sort of 
 talk about the Constitution of the United States ! There his 
 never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of 
 any respectable man on earth. I do not believe it is a constitu- 
 tional right to hold slaves in a territory of the United States. 
 I believe the decision was improperly made and I go for re- 
 versing it. Judge Douglas is furious against those who go for 
 reversing a decision. But he is for legislating it out of all 
 force while the law itself stands. I repeat .that there has never 
 been so monstrous a doctrine uttered from the mouth of at 
 respectable man. 
 
 I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the 
 people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional 
 Fugitive Slave law that is a right fixed in the Constitution. 
 But it cannot be made available to them without Congressional 
 legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a " barren right" 
 which needs legislation before it can become efficient and val- 
 uable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the 
 right is constitutional I agree that the legislation shall be 
 granted to it and that not 'that we like the institution of 
 slavery. We profess to have no taste for running and catching 
 niggers at least I profess no taste for that job at all. Why 
 then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law ? Because I 
 do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that 
 right, can be supported without it. And if I believed that the 
 right to hold a slave in a territory was equally fixed in the 
 Constitution with the right to reclaim fugitives, I should be 
 bound to give it the legislation necessary to support it. I say 
 that no man can deny his obligation to give the necessary leg- 
 islation to support slavery in a territory, who believes it is a 
 constitutional right to haye it there. No man can, who does 
 not give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation 
 enjoined by the Constitution to enact a Fugitive Slave law. 
 Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition argument ever 
 made. I say if that Dred Scett decision is correct, then the 
 right to hold slaves in a territory is equally a constitutional 
 right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway re-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 253 
 
 turned. No one can show the distinction between them. 
 The one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is 
 construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes 
 the decision to be correct believes in the right. And the man 
 who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in spite of that 
 constitutional right, slavery may be driven from the territo- 
 ries, cannot avoid furnishing an argument by which Aboli- 
 tionists may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim 
 the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the slave- 
 holder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such an 
 argument may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy 
 anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educa- 
 ted to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there 
 is an iota of difference between the constitutional right to re- 
 claim a fugitive, and the constitutional right to hold a slave, 
 in a territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct. 
 I defy any man to make an argument, that will justify un- 
 friendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold 
 his slave in a territory, that will not equally, in all its length, 
 breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for nullifying the 
 Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not such an Abolitionist 
 in the nation as Douglas, after ail. 
 
 SPEECH OF MR. LINCOLN, 
 
 AT COLUMBUS, Oino, September, 1859. 
 
 FELLOW-CITIZENS OP THE STATE OF Oino: I cannot fail to 
 remember that I appear for the first time before an audience 
 in this now great State an audience that is accustomed to 
 hear such speakers as Corwin and Chase, and "Wade, and 
 many other renowned men ; and, remembering this. I feel that 
 it will be well for you, as for me, that you should not raise 
 your expectations to that standard to which you would have 
 been justified in raising them had one of these distinguished 
 men appeared before you. You would perhaps be only pre- 
 paring a disappointment for yourselves, and, as a consequence 
 of your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, there-
 
 254 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 fore, that you will commence with very moderate expecta- 
 tions ; and perhaps, if you will give me your attention, I shall 
 be able to interest you to a moderate degree. 
 
 Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been 
 somewhat embarrassed for a topic by way of introduction to 
 my speech ; but I have been relieved from that embarrass- 
 ment by an introduction which the Ohio Statesman newspaper 
 gave me this morning. In this paper I have read an article, in 
 which, among other statements, I find the following : 
 
 " In debating with Senator Douglas during the memorable 
 contest of last fall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro 
 suffrage, and attempted to defend that vile conception against 
 the Little Giant." 
 
 I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the 
 purpose of making three comments upon it. The first I have 
 already announced it furnishes me an introductory topic ; the 
 pecond is to show that the gentleman is mistaken ; thirdly, to 
 give him an opportunity to correct it. 
 
 Jn the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. 
 I have found that it is not entirely safe, when one is misrep- 
 resented under his very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to 
 go uncontradicted I therefore propose, here at the outset, not 
 only to say that this is a misrepresentation, but to show con- 
 clusively that it is so ; and you will bear with me while I 
 read a couple of extracts from that very " memorable" debate 
 with Judge Douglas last year, to which this newspaper refers. 
 In the first pitched battle which Senator Douglas and myself 
 had, at the town of Ottawa, I used the language which I will 
 now read. Having been previously reading an extract, I con- 
 tinued as follows : 
 
 "Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater 
 length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said 
 in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. 
 This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his 
 idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is 
 but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which 
 a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I 
 will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose 
 directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery 
 in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right 
 to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no pu r -
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 255 
 
 pose to introduce political and social equality between the 
 white and black races. There is a physical difference between 
 the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forbid their 
 ever living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and 
 inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a dif- 
 ference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race 
 to which I belong having the superior position. I have never 
 said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstand- 
 ing all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is 
 not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Decla- 
 ration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pur- 
 suit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these 
 as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas, he is not my 
 equal in many respects certainly not in color, perhaps not in 
 moral or intellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the 
 bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand 
 earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the 
 equal of every living man." 
 
 Upon a subsequent occasion, when the reason for making a 
 statement like this recurred, I said : 
 
 " While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman 
 called upon me to know whether I really was in favor of pro- 
 ducing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. 
 While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say 
 much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me, I 
 thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying some- 
 thing in regard to it. I will gay then, that I am not or ever 
 have been in favor of bringing about, in any way, the social 
 and political equality of the white and black races that I am 
 not or ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of 
 negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or intermarry 
 with the white people ; and I will say in addition to this 
 that there is a physical diiference between the white and the 
 black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races 
 Ihing together on terms of social and political equality. And, 
 inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together 
 there must be the position of superior and inferior, and 
 I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the su- 
 perior 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 every-
 
 256 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a 
 negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a 
 wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am 
 now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black 
 woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite 
 possible for us to get along without making either slaves or 
 wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, 
 to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child, who was in favor 
 of producing perfect equality, social and political, between 
 negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished 
 instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be satisfied of 
 its correctness and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old 
 friend, Col. Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the re- 
 marks I have made (for I am not going to enter at 
 large upon this subject), that I have never had the least ap- 
 prehension 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 lest they might, 
 if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the 
 most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the 
 law of the State, which forbids the marrying of white people 
 with negroes." 
 
 There, my friends, you have briefly, what I have, upon 
 former occasions, said upon the subject to which this newspa- 
 per, to the extent of its ability, has drawn the public atten- 
 tion. In it you not only perceive, as a probability, that in 
 that contest I did not at any time say I was in favor of negro 
 suffrage ; but the absolute proof that twice once substan- 
 tially and once expressly I declared against it. Having 
 shown you this, there remains but a word of comment upon 
 that newspaper article. It is this : that I presume the editor 
 of that paper is an honest and truth-loving man, and that he 
 will be greatly obliged to me for furnishing him thus early an 
 opportunity to correct the misrepresentation he has made, be- 
 fore it has run so long that malicious people can call him a 
 liar. 
 
 The Giant himself has been here recently. I have seen a 
 brief report of his speech. If it were otherwise unpleasant 
 to me to introduce the subject of the negro as a topic for dis- 
 cussion, I might be somewhat relieved by the fact that he 
 dealt exclusively in that subject while he was here. I shall,
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 257 
 
 therefore, without much hesitation or diffidence, enter upon 
 this subject. 
 
 The American people, on the firs; day of January, 1854, 
 found the African slave-trade prohibited by a law of Congress. 
 In a majority of the States of this Union, they found Afri- 
 can slavery, or any other sort of slavery, prohibited by State 
 constitutions. They also found a law existing, supposed to 
 be valid, by Vhich slavery was excluded from almost all the 
 territory the United States then owned. This was the condition 
 of the country, with reference to the institution of slavery, 
 on the first of January, 1854. A few days after that, a bill 
 was introduced into Congress, which ran through its regular 
 course in the two branches of the National Legislature, and 
 finally passed into a law in the month of May, by which the 
 act of Congress prohibiting slavery from going into the terri- 
 tories of the United States was repealed. In connection with 
 the law itself, and, in fact, in the terms of the law, the then 
 existing prohibition was not only repealed, but there was a 
 declaration of a purpose on the part of Congress never there- 
 after to exercise any power that they might have, real or sup- 
 posed, to prohibit the extension or spread of slavery. This 
 was a very great change ; for the law thus repealed was of 
 more than thirty years' standing. Following rapidly upon 
 Jie heels of this action of Congress, a decision of the Supreme 
 Court is made, by which it is declared that Congress, if it de- 
 sires to prohibit the spread of slavery into the territories, has 
 no constitutional power to do so. Not only so, but that de- 
 cision lays down principles, which, if pushed to their logical 
 conclusion I say pushed to their logical conclusion would 
 decide that the constitutions of free States, forbidding slavery, 
 are themselves unconstitutional. Mark me, I do not say the 
 Judge said this, and let no man say I affirm the Judge used 
 these words ; but I only say it is my opinion that what they 
 did say, if pressed to its logical conclusion, will inevitably re- 
 sult thus. 
 
 Looking at these things, the Republican party, as I under- 
 stand its principles and policy, believe that there is great dan- 
 ger of the institution of slavery being spread out and extended, 
 until it is ultimately made alike lawful in all the States of tl is 
 Union ; so believing, to prevent that incidental and ultimate 
 consummation, is the original and chief purpose of the Repub-
 
 258 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 lican organization. I say " chief purpose" of the Republican 
 organization ; for it is certainly true, that if the National 
 House shall fall into the hands of the Republicans, they will 
 have to attend to all the other matters of national house- 
 keeping, as well as this. The chief and real purpose of the 
 Republican party is eminently conservative. It propose.? 
 nothing save and except to restore this government to its 
 original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there 
 to maintain it, looking for no further change in reference to it, 
 than that which the original framers of the government them- 
 selves expected and looked forward to. 
 
 The chief danger to this purpose of the Republican party is 
 not just now the revival of the African slave-trade, or the pas- 
 sage of a Congressional slave-code, or the declaring of a second 
 Dred Scott decision, making slavery lawful in all the States. 
 These are not pressing us just now. They are not quite 
 ready yet. The authors of these measures know that we are 
 too strong for them ; but they will be upon us in due time, 
 and we will be grappling with them hand to hand, if they are 
 not now headed off. They are not now the chief danger to 
 the purpose of the Republican organization ; but the most im- 
 minent danger that now threatens that purpose is the insidious 
 Douglas popular sovereignty. This is the miner and sapper. 
 While it does not propose to revive the African slave-trade, 
 nor to pass a slave-code, nor to make a second Dred Scott de- 
 cision, it is preparing us for the onslaught and charge of these 
 ultimate enemies when they shall be ready to come on and the 
 word of command for them to advance shall be given. I say 
 this Douglas popular sovereignty for there is a broad dis- 
 tinction, as I now understand it, between that article and a 
 genuine popular sovereignty. 
 
 I believe there is a genuine popular sovereignty. I think a 
 definition of genuine popular sovereignty, in the abstract, 
 would be about this : That each man shall do precisely as he 
 pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclu 
 sively concern him. Applied to government, this principle 
 would be, that a general government shall do all those things 
 which pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do 
 precisely as they please in respect to those matters which ex- 
 clusively concern them. I understand that this government of 
 the United States, under which we live, is based upon this
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 259 
 
 principle ; and I am misunderstood if it is supposed that I 
 have any war to make upon that principle. 
 
 Now, what is Judge Douglas's popular sovereignty ? It is, 
 as a principle, no other than that, if one man chooses to make 
 a slave of another man, neither that other man nor anybody 
 else has a right to object. Applied to government, as he seeks 
 to apply it, it is this : If, in a new territory into which a few 
 people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making their 
 homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits or 
 to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the 
 persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of per- 
 sons who are afterward to inhabit that territory, or the other 
 members of the families of communities, of which they are but 
 an incipient member, or the general head of the family of 
 States as parent of all however their action may affect one 
 or the other of these, there is no power or right to interfere. 
 That is Douglas's popular sovereignty applied. 
 
 He has a good deal of trouble with popular sovereignty. 
 His explanations explanatory of explanations explained are in- 
 terminable. The iribst lengthy, and, as I suppose, the most 
 maturely considered of his long series of explanations, is his 
 great essay in Harper's Magazine. I will not attempt to en- 
 ter on any very thorough investigation of his argument, as 
 there made and presented. I will, nevertheless, occupy a good 
 portion of your time here in drawing your attention to certain 
 points in it. Such of you as may have read this document 
 will have perceived that the Judge, early in the document, 
 quotes from two persons as belonging to the Republican party, 
 without naming them, but who can readily be recognized as 
 being Gov. Seward of New-York and myself. It is true, that 
 exactly fifteen months ago this day, I believe, I for the tiivt 
 time expressed a sentiment upon this subject, and in such a 
 manner that it should get into print, that the public might see 
 it beyond the circle of my hearers ; and my expression of it at 
 that time is the quotation that Judge Douglas makes. He 
 has not made the quotation with accuracy, but justice to him 
 requires me to say that it is sufficiently accurate not to change 
 its sense. 
 
 The sense of that quotation condensed is this that this sla- 
 very element is a durable element of discord among us, and 
 that we shall probably not have perfect peace in this country
 
 260 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 with it until it either masters the free principle in our govern- 
 ment, or is so far mastered by the free principle as for the pub- 
 lic mind to rest in the belief that it is going to its end. This 
 sentiment, which I now express in this way, was, at no great 
 distance of time, perhaps in different language, and in connec- 
 tion with some collateral ideas, expressed by Gov. Seward. 
 Judge Douglas has been so much annoyed by the expression of 
 that sentiment that he has constantly, I believe, in almost all 
 his speeches since it was uttered, been referring to it. I find 
 he alluded to it in his speech here, as well as in the copyright 
 essay. I do not now enter upon this for the purpose of ma- 
 king an elaborate argument to show that we were right in the 
 expression of that sentiment. In other words, I shall not stop 
 to say all that might properly be said upon this point ; -but I 
 only ask your attention to it for the purpose of making one or 
 two points upon it. 
 
 If you will read the copyright essay, you will discover that 
 Judge Douglas himself says a controversy between the Amer- 
 ican colonies and the government of Great Britain began on 
 the slavery question, in 1099, and confmued from that time 
 until the Revolution ; and, while he did not say so, we all 
 know that it has continned with more or less violence ever 
 since the Revolution. 
 
 Then we need not appeal to history, to the declarations of 
 the framers of the government, but we know from Judge 
 Douglas himself that slavery began to be an element of discord 
 among the white people of this country as far back as 1690, 
 or one hundred and sixty years ago, or five generations of men 
 counting thirty years to a generation. Now, it would seem 
 to me that it might have occurred to Judge Douglas, or any- 
 body who had turned his attention to these facts, that there 
 was something in the nature of that thing, slavery, somewhat 
 durable for mischief and discord. 
 
 There is another point I desire to make in regard to this 
 matter, before I leave it. From the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion down to 1820 is the precise period of our history when we 
 had comparative peace upon this question the precise period 
 of time when we came nearer to having peace about it than 
 any other time of that entire hundred and sixty 3- ears, in which 
 he says it began, or of the eighty years of our own Constitu- 
 tion. Then it would be worth our while to stop and examine
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 261 
 
 into the probable reason of our coming nearer to having peace 
 then than at any other time. This was the precise period of 
 time in which our fathers adopted, and during which they 
 followed, a policy restricting the spread of slavery, and the 
 whole Union was acquiescing in it. The whole country looked 
 forward to the ultimate extinction of the institution. It was 
 when a policy had been adopted and was prevailing, which led 
 all just and right-minded men to suppose that slavery was 
 gradually coming to an end, and that they might be quiet about 
 it, watching it as it expired. I think Judge Douglas might 
 have perceived that, too, and whether he did or not, it is 
 worth the attention of fair-minded men, here and elsewhere, 
 to consider whether that is not the truth of the case. If he 
 had looked at these two facts, that this matter had been an 
 element of discord for one hundred and sixty years among this 
 people, and that the only comparative peace we have had 
 about it was when that policy prevailed in this government, 
 which he now wars upon, he might then perhaps have been 
 brought to a more just appreciation of what I said fifteen 
 months ago that " a house divided against itself cannot 
 stand. I believe that this government cannot endure perma- 
 nently half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to 
 fall. I do not expect the Union to dissolve ; but I do expect 
 it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or 
 all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the 
 further spread of it, and place it where the public mind will 
 rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction ; 
 or its advocates will push it forward, until it shall become alike 
 lawful in all the States, old as well as new. North as well as 
 South." That was my sentiment at that time. In connec- 
 tion with it, I said, " we are now far into the fifth year, 
 since a policy was inaugurated with the avowed object and 
 confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. 
 Under the operation of the policy, that agitation has not only 
 not ceased, but has constantly augmented." I now say to 
 you here that we are advanced still farther into the sixth year 
 since that policy of Judge Douglas that Popular Sovereignty 
 of his, for quieting the slavery question was made the na- 
 tional policy. Fifteen months more have been added since I 
 uttered that sentiment, and I call upon you, and all other 
 right-minded raen, to say whether that fifteen months have be- 
 lied or corroborated my words
 
 262 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 While I am here upon this subject, I cannot but express 
 gratitude that this true view of this element of discord among 
 us as I believe it is is attracting more and more attention. 
 I do not believe that Gov. Seward uttered that sentiment be- 
 cause I had done so before, but because he reflected upon this 
 subject and saw the truth of it. Nor do I believe, because 
 Gov. Seward or I uttered it, that Mr. Hickman of Pennsyl- 
 vania, in different language, since that time, has declared his 
 belief in the utter antagonism which exists between the prin- 
 ciples of liberty and slavery: You see we are multiplying. 
 Now, while I am speaking of Hick'man, let me say, I know 
 but little about him. I have never seen him, and know 
 scarcely anything about the man ; but I will say this much of 
 him : Of all the anti-Lecompton Democracy that have been 
 brought to my notice, he alone has the true, genuine ring of 
 the metal. And now, without endorsing anything else he has 
 said, I will ask this audience to give three cheers for Hickman. 
 [The audience responded with three rousing cheers for Hick- 
 man. J 
 
 Another point in the copyright essay to which I would ask 
 your attention, is rather a feature to be extracted from the 
 whole thing, than from any express declaration of it at any 
 point. It is a general feature of that document, and indeed, 
 of all of Judge Douglas's discussions of this question, that the 
 territories of the United States and the States of the Union 
 are exactly alike that there is no difference between them at all 
 that the Constitution applies to the territories precisely as 
 it does to the States and that the United States government, 
 under the Constitution, may not do in a State what it may not 
 do in a territory, and what it must do in a State, it must do 
 in a territory. Gentlemen, is that a true view of the case? 
 It is necessary for this squatter sovereignty ; but is it true t 
 
 Let us consider. What does it depend upont It depends 
 altogether upon the proposition that the States must, without 
 the interference of the general government, do all those things 
 that pertain exclusively to themselves that are local in their 
 nature, that have no connection with the general government. 
 After Judge Douglas has established this proposition, which 
 nobody disputes or ever has disputed, he proceeds to assume, 
 without proving it, that slavery is one of those little, unim- 
 portant, trivial matters, which are of just about as much con-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 263 
 
 sequence as the question would be to me, whether my neighbor 
 should raise horned cattle or plant tobacco ; that there is no 
 moral question about it, but that it is altogether a matter of 
 dollars and cents ; that when a new territory is opened for 
 settlement, the first man who goes into it may plant there a 
 thing which, like the Canada-thistle, or some other of those 
 pests of the soil, cannot be dug out by the millions of men 
 who will come thereafter ; that it is one of those little things 
 that it is so trivial in its nature that it has no effect upon any- 
 body save the few men who first plant upon the soil ; that it 
 is not a thing which in any way affects the family of commu- 
 nities composing these States, nor any way endangers the gen- 
 eral government. Judge Douglas ignores altogether the very 
 well-known fact, that we have never had a serious menace to 
 our political existence, except it sprang from this thing, which 
 he chooses to regard as only upon a par with onions and po- 
 tatoes. 
 
 Turn it, and contemplate it in another view. He says, that 
 according to his popular sovereignty, the general government 
 may give to the territories governors, judges, marshals, secre- 
 taries, and all the other chief men to govern them, but they 
 must not touch upon this other question. Why? The ques- 
 tion of who shall be governor of a territory for a year or two, 
 and pass away, without his track being left upon the soil, or 
 an act which he did for good or for evil being left behind, is a 
 question of vast national magnitude. It is so much opposed 
 in its nature to locality, that the nation itself must decide it ; 
 while this other matter of planting slavery upon a soil a 
 thing which, once planted, cannot be eradicated by the suc- 
 ceeding millions who have as much right there as the first 
 comers, or if eradicated, not without infinite difficulty and a 
 long struggle he considers the power to prohibit it, as one of 
 those little, local, trivial things, that the nation,, ought not to 
 Fay a word about ; that it affects nobody save the few men 
 who are there. 
 
 Take these two things and consider them*together, present 
 the question of planting a State with the institution of slavery 
 by the side of a question of who shall be governor of Kansas 
 for a year or two, and is there a man here is there a man on 
 earth, who would not say the governor question is the little 
 one, and the slavery question is the great one 1 I ask any
 
 264 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 honest Democrat if the small, the local, and the trivial and 
 temporary question is not, who shall be governor ? While the 
 durable,- the important, and the mischievous one is, shall this 
 soil be planted with slavery ? 
 
 This is an idea, I suppose, which has arisen in Judge 
 Douglas's mind from his peculiar structure. I suppose the 
 institution of slavery really looks small to him. Pie is so put 
 up by nature that a lash upon his back would hurt him, but a 
 lash upon anybody else's back does not hurt him. That is 
 the build of the man, and consequently he looks upon the 
 matter of slavery in this unimportant light. 
 
 Judge Douglas ought to remember when he is endeavoring 
 to force this policy upon the American people, that while he 
 is put up in that way a good many are not. He ought to 
 remember that there was once in this country a man by the 
 name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a Democrat a man 
 whose principles and policy are not very prevalent among Dem- 
 ocrats to-day, it is true ; but that man did not take exactly 
 this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery of which 
 our friend Judge Douglas does. In contemplation of this 
 thing, we all know he was led to exclaim, " I tremble for my 
 country when I remember that God is just !" We know how 
 he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself. There 
 was danger to this country danger of the avenging justice of 
 God in that little unimportant popular sovereignty question of 
 Judge Douglas. He supposed thei-e was a question of God's 
 eternal justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, 
 or any man, and that those who did so brave the arm of Je- 
 hovah that when a nation thus dared the Almighty, every 
 friend of that nation had cause to dread his wrath. Choose 
 ye between Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view 
 of this element among us. 
 
 There is another little difficulty about this matter of treat- 
 ing the territories and States alike in all things, to whicli I 
 ask your attention, and I shall leave this branch of the case. 
 If there is no difference between them, why not make the ter- 
 ritories States at once? What is the reason that Kansas was 
 not fit to come into the Union when it was organized into a 
 territory, in Judge Douglas's view ? Can any of you tell any 
 reason why it should not have come into the Union at once? 
 They are fit, as he thinks, to decide upon the slavery question 
 the largest and most important with which they could pos-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 265 
 
 sibly deal what could they do by coming into ;the Union that 
 they are not fit to do, according to his view, by staying out 
 of it? Oh, they are not fit to sit 'in Congress and decide 
 upon the rates of postage, or questions of ad valorem or spe- 
 cific duties on foreign goods, or live-oak timber contracts ; they 
 are not fit to decide these vastly important matters, which are 
 national in their import, but they are fit, " from the jump," 
 to decide this little negro question. But, gentlemen, the 
 case is too plain ; I occupy too much time on this head, 
 and I pass on. 
 
 Near the close of the copyright essay, the Judge, I think, 
 comes very near kicking his own fat into the fire. I did not 
 think, when I commenced these remarks, that I would read 
 from that article, but I now believe I will : 
 
 "This exposition of the history of these measures, show 
 conclusively that the authors of the Compromise Measures of 
 1850 and of the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, as well as the 
 members of the Continental Congress of 1774, and the 
 founders of our system of government subsequent to the Revo- 
 lution, regarded the people of the territories and colonies as 
 political communities which were entitled to a free and exclu- 
 sive power of legislation in their provisional legislatures, where 
 their representation could alone be preserved, in all cases of 
 taxation and internal polity." 
 
 When the Judge saw that putting in the word " slavery" 
 would contradict his own history, he put in what he knew 
 would pass as synonymous with it: " internal polity." When- 
 ever we find that in one of his speeches, the substitute is used 
 in this manner ; and I can tell you the reason. It would be 
 too bald a contradiction to say slavery, but " internal polity" 
 is a general phrase, which would pass in some quarters, and 
 which he hopes will pass with the reading community for the 
 same thing. 
 
 "This right pertains to the people collectively, as a law- 
 abiding and peaceful community, and not in the isolated indi- 
 viduals who may wander upon the public domain in violation 
 of the law. It can only be exercised where there are inhabi- 
 tants sufficient to constitute a government, and capable of per- 
 forming its various functions and duties, a fact to be ascer- 
 tained and determined by" who do you think? Judge 
 Douglas says " By Congress!" 
 
 12
 
 266 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 " Whether the number shall be fixed at ten, fifteen or 
 twenty thousand inhabitants, does not affect the princi- 
 ple." 
 
 Now I have only a few comments to make. Popular 
 sovereignty, by his own words, does not pertain to the few 
 persons who wander upon the public domain in violation of 
 law. We have his words for that. When it does pertain to 
 them, is when they are sufficient to be formed into an or- 
 ganized political community, and he fixes the minimum for 
 that at 10,000, and the maximum at 20,000. Now I would 
 like t6 know what is to be done with the 9,000 ? Are they 
 all to be treated, until they are large enough to be organized 
 into a political community, as wanderers upon the public land 
 in violation of law ? And if so treated and driven out, at 
 what point of time would there ever be ten thousand ? If 
 they were not driven out, but remained there as trespassers 
 upon the public land in violation of the law, can they esta,b- 
 lish slavery there ? No the Judge says popular sovereignty 
 don't pertain to them then. Can they exclude it thent No, 
 popular sovereignty don't pertain to them then. I would like 
 to know, in the case covered by the essay, what condition the 
 people of the territories are in before they reach the number 
 of ten thousand 1 
 
 But the main point I wish to ask attention to is, that the 
 question as to when they shall have reached a sufficient num- 
 ber to be formed into a regular organized community, is to bo 
 decided " by Congress." Judge Douglas says so. Well, gen- 
 tlemen, that is about all we want. No, that is all the South- 
 erners want. That is what all those who are for slavery want. 
 They do not want Congress to prohibit slavery from coming 
 into the new territories, and they do not want popular sov- 
 ereignty to hinder it ; and as Congress is to say when they are 
 ready to be organized, all that the South has to do is to get 
 Congress to hold off. Let Congress hold off untfl they are 
 ready to be admitted as a State, and the South has all it 
 wants in taking slavery into and planting it in all the territories 
 that we now have, or hereafter may have. In a word, the 
 whole thing, at a dash of the pen, is at last put in the power 
 of Congress; for if they do not have this popular sovereignty 
 until Congress organizes them, I ask if it at last does not come 
 from Congress? If, at last, it amounts to anythhig at all,
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 267 
 
 Congress gives it to them. I submit this rather for }our re- 
 flection than for comment. After all that is said, at last by a 
 dash of the pen, everything that has gone before is undone, 
 and he puts the whole question under the control of Congress. 
 After fighting through more than three hours, if you under- 
 take to read it, he at last places the whole matter under the 
 control of that power which he had been contending against, 
 and arrives at the result directly contrary to what he had been 
 laboring to do. He at last leaves the whole matter to the 
 control of Congress. 
 
 There are two main objects, as I understand it, of this Har- 
 per's Magazine essay. One was to show, if possible, that the 
 men of our revolutionary times were in favor of his popular 
 sovereignty ; and the other was to show that the Dred Scott 
 decision had not entirely squelched out of this popular sov- 
 ereignty. I do not propose, in regard to this argument drawn 
 from the history of former times, to enter into a detailed ex- 
 amination of the historical statements he has made. I have 
 the impression that they are inaccurate in a great many in- 
 stances. Sometimes in positive statement, but very much 
 more inaccurate by the suppression of statements that really 
 belong to the history. But I do not propose to affirm that this 
 is so to any very great extent ; or to enter into a very minute 
 examination of his historical statements. I avoid doing so 
 upon this principle that if it were important for me to pass 
 out of this lot in the least period of time possible, and I came 
 to that fence and saw, by a calculation of my known strength 
 and agility that I could clear it at a bound, it would be folly 
 for me to stop and consider whether I could or not crawl 
 through a crack. So I say of the whole history, contained in' 
 his essay, where he endeavored to link the men of the Revo- 
 lution to popular sovereignty. It only requires an effort to 
 leap out of it a single bound to be entirely successful. If 
 you read it over you will find that he quotes here and there 
 from documents of the revolutionary times, tending to show 
 that the people of the colonies were desirous of regulating 
 their own concerns in their own way, that the British govern- 
 ment should not interfere ; that at one time they struggled with 
 the British government to be permitted to exclude the African 
 slave-trade ; if not directly, to be permitted to exclude it in- 
 directly by taxation sufficient to discourage and destroy it.
 
 268 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 From these and many things of this sort, Judge Douglas argues 
 that they were in favor of the people of our own territories 
 excluding slavery if they wanted to, or planting it there if they 
 wanted to, doing just as they pleased from the time they set- 
 tled upon the territory. Now, however his history may apply, 
 and whatever of his argument there may be that is sound and 
 accurate or unsound and inaccurate, if we can find out what 
 these men did themselves do upon this very question of slavery 
 in the territories, does it not end the whole thing? If after 
 all this labor and effort to show that the men of the Revolu- 
 tion were in favor of his popular sovereignty and his mode of 
 dealing with slavery in the territories, we can show that these 
 very men took hold of that subject, and dealt with it, we can 
 see for ourselves how they dealt with it. It is not a matter 
 of argument or inference, but we know what they thought 
 about it. 
 
 It is precisely upon that part of the history of the country, 
 that one important omission is made by Judge Douglas, fie 
 selects parts of the history of the United States upon the sub- 
 ject of slavery, and treats it as the whole, omitting from his 
 historical sketch the legislation of Congress in regard to the 
 admission of Missouri, by which the Missouri Compromise 
 was established, and slavery excluded, from a country half as 
 large as the present United States. All this is left out of his 
 history, and in nowise alluded to by him, so far as I can re- 
 member, save once, when he makes a remark, that upon his 
 principle the Supreme Court were authorized to pronounce a 
 decision that the act called the Missouri Compromise was un- 
 constitutional. All that history has been left out. But this 
 part of the history of the country was not made by the men 
 of the Revolution. 
 
 There was another part of our political history made by the 
 very men who were the actors in the Revolution, which has 
 taken the name of the Ordinance of '87. Let me bring that 
 history to your attention. In 1784, I believe, this same Mr. 
 Jefferson drew up an ordinance for the government of the 
 country upon which we now stand ; or rather a frame or draft 
 of an ordinance for the government of this country, here in 
 Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, us who live in Illinois, our 
 neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan. In that ordinance, 
 drawn up not only for the government of that territory, but
 
 ABKAHAM LINCOLN. 269 
 
 for the territories south of the Ohio river, Mr. Jefferson ex- 
 pressly provided for the prohibition of slavery. Judge Doug- 
 las says, and perhaps is right, that that provision was lost 
 from that ordinance. I believe that is true. When the vote 
 was taken upon it, a majority of all present in the Congress 
 of the Confederation voted for it ; but there were so many 
 absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear ma- 
 jority necessary, and it was lost. But three years after that 
 the Congress of the Confederation were together again, and 
 they adopted a new ordinance for the government of this 
 northwest territory, not contemplating territory south of the 
 river, for the States owning that territory had hitherto re- 
 frained from giving it to the general government ; hence they 
 made the ordinance to apply only to what the government 
 owned. In that, the provision excluding slavery was inserted 
 and passed unanimously, or at any rate it passed and became a 
 part of the law of the land. Under that ordinance we live. 
 First here in Ohio you were a territory, then an enabling act 
 was passed, authorizing you to form a constitution and State 
 government, provided it was republican and not in conflict 
 with the ordinance of '87. When you framed your constitu- 
 tion and presented it for admission, I think you will find the 
 legislation upon the subject will show that, " whereas you had 
 formed a constitution that was republican, and not in conflict 
 with the ordinance of '87," therefore, you were admitted upon 
 equal footing with the original States. The same process ir 
 a lew years was gone through with in Indiana, and so with 
 Illinois, and the same substantially with Michigan and Wis- 
 consin. 
 
 Not only did that ordinance prevail, but it was constantly 
 looked to whenever a step was taken by a new territory to 
 become a State. Congress always turned their attention to it, 
 and in all their movements upon this subject, they traced their 
 course by that ordinance of '87. When they admitted new 
 States, they advertised them of this ordinance as a part of the 
 legislation of the country. They did so, because they had 
 ti'aced the ordinance of '87 throughout the history of this 
 country. Begin with the men of the .Revolution, and go 
 down for sixty entire years, and until the last scrap of that 
 territory comes into the Union in the form of the State of 
 Wisconsin everything was made to conform with the ordi-
 
 270 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 nance of '87, excluding slavery from that vast extent of 
 country. 
 
 I omitted to mention in the right place that the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States was in process of being framed when 
 that ordinance was made by the Congress of the Confedera- 
 tion ; and one of the first acts of Congress itself, under the 
 new Constitution itself, was to give force to that ordinance by 
 putting power to carry it out in the hands of the new officers 
 under the Constitution, in the place of the old ones, who had 
 been legislated out of existence by the change in the govern- 
 ment from the Confederation to the Constitution. Not only 
 so, but I believe Indiana once or twice, if not Ohio, petitioned 
 the general government for the privilege of suspending that 
 provision and allowing them to have slaves. A report made 
 by Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, himself a slaveholder, was di- 
 rectly against it, and the action was to refuse them the privi- 
 lege of violating the ordinance of '87. 
 
 This period of history, which I have run over briefly, is, I 
 presume, as familiar to most of this assembly as any other part 
 of the history of our country. I suppose that few of my hear- 
 ers are not as familiar with that part of history as I am, and 
 I only mention it to recall your attention to it at this time. 
 And hence I ask, how extraordinary a thing it is that a man 
 who has occupied a position upon the floor of the Senate of the 
 United States, who is now in his third term, and who looks to 
 see the government of this whole country fall into his own 
 hands, pretending to give & truthful and accurate history of 
 the slavery question in this country, should so entirely ignore 
 the whole of that portion of our history the most important 
 of all. Is it not a most extraordinary spectacle, that a man 
 should stand up and ask for any confidence in his statements, 
 who sets out as he does with portions of history, calling u*pon 
 the people to believe that it is a true ajid fair representation, 
 when the leading part, and controlling feature, of the whole 
 history is carefully suppressed ? 
 
 But the mere leaving out is not the most remarkable fea- 
 ture of this most remarkable essay. His proposition is to es- 
 tablish that the- leading men uf the Revolution were for his 
 great principle of non-intervention by the government in the 
 question of slavery in the territories ; while history shows that 
 they decided in the cases actually brought before them, in ex-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 271 
 
 actly the contrary way, and he knows it. Not only did they 
 so decide at that time, but they stuck to it during sixty years, 
 through thick and thin, as long as there was one of the revo- 
 lutionary heroes upon the stage of political action. Through 
 their whole course, from first to last, they clung to freedom. 
 And now he asks the community to believe that the men of 
 the Revolution were in favor of his great principle, when we 
 have the naked history that they themselves dealt with .this 
 very subject-matter of his principle, and utterly repudiated his 
 principle, acting upon a precisely contrary ground. It is as 
 impudent and absurd as if a prosecuting attorney should stand 
 up before a jury, and ask them to convict A. as the murderer 
 of B. , while B. was walking alive before them. 
 
 I say again, if Judge Douglas asserts that the men of the 
 Revolution acted upon principles by which, to be consistent 
 with themselves, they ought to have adopted his popular sov- 
 ereignty, then, upon consideration of his own argument, he had 
 a right to make you believe that they understood the princi- 
 ples of government, but misapplied them that he has arisen 
 to enlighten the world as to the just application of this princi- 
 ple. He has a right to try to persuade you that he under- 
 stands their principles better than they did, and, therefore, he 
 will apply them now, not as (hey did, but as they ought to have 
 done. He has a right to go before the community, and try to 
 convince them of this ; but he has no right to attempt to impose 
 upon any one the belief that these men themselves approved 
 of his great principle. There are two ways of establishing 
 a proposition. One is, by trying to demonstrate it upon rea- 
 son ; and the other is, to show that great men in former 
 times have thought so and so, and thus to pass it by the 
 weight of pure authority. Now, if Judge Douglas will de- 
 monstrate somehow that this is popular sovereignty the right 
 of one man to make a slave of another, without any right in 
 that other, or any one else to object demonstrate it as Euclid 
 demonstrated propositions there is no objection. But when 
 he comes forward, seeking to carry a principle by bringing to 
 it the authority of men who themselves utterly repudiate that 
 principle, Ijask that he shall not be permitted to do it. 
 
 I see, in the Judge's speech here, a short sentence in these 
 words : " Our fathers, when they formed this government un- 
 der which we live, understood this question just as well and
 
 272 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 even better than we do now." That is true ; I stick to that. 
 I will stand by Judge Douglas in that to the bitter end. And 
 now, Judge Douglas, come and stand by me, and truthfully 
 show how they acted, understanding it better than we do. All 
 I ask of you, Judge Douglas, is to stick to the pi-oposition 
 that the men of the Revolution understood this subject better 
 than we do now, and with that better understanding they acted bet- 
 ter than you are trying to act now. 
 
 I wish to say something now in regard to the Dred Scott 
 decision, as dealt with by Judge Douglas. In that '' memor- 
 able debate " between Judge Douglas and myself, last year, 
 the Judge thought lit to commence a process of catechising 
 me, and at Freeport I answered his questions, and propounded 
 some to him. Among others propounded .to him was one that 
 I have here now. The substance, as I remember it, is, " Can 
 the people of a United States territory, under the Dred Scott 
 decision, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of 
 the United States, exclude slavery from its limits, prior to the 
 formation of a State constitution ?" He answered that they 
 could lawfully exclude slavery from the United States terri- 
 tories, notwithstanding the Dred Scott decision. There was 
 something about that answer that has probably been a trouble 
 to the Judge ever since. 
 
 The Dred Scott decision .expressly gives every citizen of 
 the United States a right to carry his slaves into the United 
 States territories. And now there was some inconsistency in 
 saying that the decision was right, and saying, too, that the 
 people of the territory could lawfully drive slavery out again. 
 When all the trash, the words, the collateral matter, was 
 cleared away from it all the chaff was fanned out of it, it 
 was a bare absurdit} 7 no less than that a thing may be lawfully 
 driven away from where it has a lawful right to be. Clear it of 
 all the verbiage, and that is the naked truth of his proposition 
 that a thing may be lawfully driven from the place where it 
 has a lawful right to stay. Well, it was because the Judge 
 couldn't help seeing this, that he has had so much trouble 
 with it ; and what I want to ask your especial attention to, 
 just now, is to remind you, if you have not noticed the fact, 
 that the Judge does not any longer say that the people can 
 exclude slavery. He does not say so in the copyright essay ; 
 he did not say so in the speech that he made here ; and, so far as
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 273 
 
 1 know, since his re-election to the Senate, he has never said, 
 as he did at Freeport, that the people of the territories can 
 exclude slavery. He desires that you, who wish the territo- 
 ries to remain free, should believe that he stands by that posi- 
 tion, but he does not say it himself. He escapes to some ex- 
 tent the absurd position I have stated by changing his lan- 
 guage entirely. What he says now is something different in 
 language, and we will consider whether it is not different in 
 sense, too. It is now that the Dred Scott decision, or rather 
 the Constitulion under that decision, does not carry slavery 
 into the territories beyond the power of the people of the ter- 
 ritories to control it as other property. He does not say the peo- 
 ple can drive it out, but they can control it as other property. 
 The language is different ; we should consider whether the 
 sense is different. Driving a horse out of this lot is too plain 
 a proposition to be mistaken about ; it is putting him on the 
 other side of the fence. Or it might be a sort of exclusion of 
 him from the lot if you were to kill him and let the worms 
 devour him ; but neither of these things is the same as " con- 
 trolling him as other property." That would be to feed him, 
 to pamper him, to ride him, to use and abuse him, to make 
 the most money out of him " as other property ;" but please 
 you, what do the men who are in favor of slavery want more 
 than this? What do they really Want, other than that 
 slavery, being in the territories, shall be controlled as other 
 property ? 
 
 If they want anything else, I do not comprehend it. I ask 
 your attention to this, first, for the purpose of pointing out the 
 change of ground the Judge has made ; and, in the second 
 place, the importance of the change that that change is not 
 such as to give you gentlemen who want his popular sover- 
 eignty the power to exclude the institution or drive it out at 
 all. I know the Judge sometimes squints at the argument 
 that in controlling it as other property by unfriendly legisla- 
 tion they may control it to death, as you might in the case of 
 a horse, perhaps, feed him so lightly and ride him so much 
 that he' would die. But when you come to legislative control, 
 there is something more to be attended to. I have no doubt, 
 myself, that if the territories should undertake to control slave 
 property as other property that is, control it in such a way 
 that it would be tho most valuable as property, and make it bear
 
 274 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 its just proportion in the way of burdens as property really 
 deal with it as property the Supreme Court of the United 
 States will say, " God speed you and amen." But I under- 
 take to give the opinion, at least, that if the territories attempt 
 by any direct legislation to drive the man with his slave out 
 of the territory, or to decide that his slave is free because of 
 his being taken in there, or to tax him to such an extent that 
 he cannot keep him there, the Supreme Court will unhesita- 
 tingly decide all such legislation unconstitutional, as long as 
 that Supreme Court is constructed as the Dred Scott Supreme 
 Court is. The first two things they have already decided, ex- 
 cept that there is a little quibble among lawyers between the 
 words dicta and decision. They have already decided a negro 
 cannot be made free by territorial legislation. 
 
 What is that Dred Scott decision ? Judge Douglas labors 
 to show that it is one thing, while I think it is altogether dif- 
 ferent. It is a long opinion, but it is all embodied in this 
 short statement : " The Constitution of the United States 
 forbids Congress to deprive a man of his property, without 
 due process of law ; the right of property in slaves is distinctly 
 and expressly affirmed in that Constitution ; therefore, if Con- 
 gress shall undertake to say that a man's slave is no longer his 
 slave, when he crosses a certain line into a territory, that is 
 depriving him of his property without due process of law, and 
 is unconstitutional." There is the whole Dred Scott, decision. 
 They add that if Congress cannot do so itself, Congress can- 
 not confer any power to do so, and hence any effort by .the 
 territorial legislature to do either of these things is absolutely 
 decided against. It is a foregone conclusion by that court. 
 
 Now, as to this indirect mode by " unfriendly legislature," 
 all lawyers here will readily understand that such a proposi- 
 tion cannot be tolerated for a moment, because a legislature 
 cannot indirectly do that which it cannot accomplish direct- 
 ly. Then I say any legislature to control this property, as 
 property, for its benefit as property, would be hailed by this 
 Dred Scott Supreme Court and fully sustained ; but any legis- 
 lation driving slave property out, or destroying it as property, 
 directly or indirectly, will, most assuredly, by that court, bo 
 held unconstitutional. 
 
 Judge Douglas says if the Constitution carries slavery into 
 the territories, beyond the power of the people of the territo-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 275 
 
 ies to control it as other property, then it follows logically 
 that every one who swears to support the Constitution of the 
 United States, must give that support to that property which 
 it needs. And if the Constitution carries slavery into the 
 territories, beyond the power of the people to control it as 
 other property, then it also carries it into the States, because 
 the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Now, gsn- 
 tlcmen, if it were not for my excessive mcfdesty I would say 
 that I told -that very thing to Judge Douglas quite a year ago. 
 This argument is here in print, and if it were not for my 
 modesty as I said, I might call your attention to it. If you 
 read it, you will find that I not only made that argument, but 
 made it better than he has made it since. 
 
 There is, however, this difference. I say now, and said 
 then, there is no sort of question that the Supreme Court has 
 decided that it is the right of the slaveholder to take his slave 
 and hold him in the territory ; and saying this, Judge Doug- 
 las himself admits the conclusion. He says if that is so, this 
 consequence will follow ; and because this consequence would 
 follow, his argument is, the decision cannot, therefore, be that 
 way "that would spoil my Popular Sovereignty, and" it can- 
 not be possible that this great principle has been squelched out 
 in this extraordinary way. It might be, if it were not for the 
 extraordinary consequences of spoiling my humbug." 
 
 Another feature of the Judge's argument about the Dred 
 Scott case is, an effort to show that that decision, deals alto- 
 gether in declarations of negatives ; that the Constitution does 
 not affirm anything as expounded by the Dred Scott decision, 
 but it only declares a want of power a total absence of 
 power, in reference to the territories. It seems to be his pur- 
 pose to make the whole of that decision to result in a mere 
 negative declaration of a want of power in Congress to do 
 anything in relation to this matter in territories. I know the 
 opinion of the Judges states that there is a total absence of 
 power ; but that is, unfortunately, not all it states ; for the 
 Judges add that the right of property in a slave is distinctly 
 and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. It does not stop 
 at saying that the riht of property in a slave is recognized in 
 the Constitution, is declared to exist somewhere in the Con- 
 stitution, but says it is affiiined in the Constitution. Its lan- 
 guage is equivalent to saying that it is embodied and so
 
 276 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 woven into that instrument that it cannot be detached with- 
 out breaking the Constitution itself. In a word, it is part of 
 the Constitution. 
 
 Douglas is singularly unfortunate in his effort to make out 
 that decision to be altogether negative, when the express lan- 
 guage at the vital part is that this is distinctly affirmed in the 
 Constitution. I think myself, and I repeat it here, that this 
 decision does not merely carry slavery into the territories, but 
 by its logical conclusion it carries it into the States in which 
 we live. One provision of that Constitution is, that it shall 
 be the supreme law of the land I do not quote the language 
 any constitution or law of any State to the contrary, not- 
 withstanding. -This Dred Scott decision says that the right of 
 property in a slave is affirmed in that Constitution, which is 
 the supreme law of the land, any State constitution or law 
 notwithstanding. Then I say that to destroy a thing which 
 is distinctly affirmed and supported by the supreme law of the 
 land, even by a State constitution or law, is a violation of that 
 supreme law, and there is no escape from it. In my judg- 
 ment there is no avoiding that result, save that the American 
 people shall see that constitutions are better construed than 
 our Constitution is construed in that decision. They must 
 take care that it is more faithfully and truly carried out than 
 it is there expounded. 
 
 I must hasten to a conclusion. Near the beginning of my 
 remarks, 1 said that this insidious Douglas popular sovereign- 
 ty is the measure that now threatens the purpose of the 
 liepublican party, to prevent slavery from being nationalized 
 in the United States. I propose to ask your attention for a 
 little while to some propositions in affirmance of that state- 
 ment. Take it just as it stands, and apply it as a principle ; 
 extend and apply that principle elsewhere, and consider where 
 it will lead you. I now put this proposition, that Judge 
 Douglas' popular sovereignty applied will re-open the African 
 slave-trade ; and I will demonstrate it by any variety of ways 
 in which you can turn the subject or look at it. 
 
 The Judge says that the people of the territories have the 
 right, by his principle, to have slaves, if they want them. 
 Then I say that the people in Georgia have the right to buy 
 slaves in Africa, if they want them, and I defy any man on 
 earth to show any distinction between the two thing? to
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 277 
 
 show that the one is either more wicked or more unlawful ; 
 to show, on original principles, that one is better or worse 
 than the other ; or to show by the Constitution, that one 
 differs a whit from the other. He will tell me, doubtless, that 
 there is no constitutional provision against people taking 
 slaves into the new territories, and I tell him that there is 
 equally no constitutional provision against buying slaves in 
 Africa. He will tell you that a people, in the exercise of 
 popular sovereignty, ought to do as they please about that 
 thing, and have slaves if they want them ; and I tell you that 
 the people of Georgia are as much entitled to popular sover- 
 eignty and to buy slaves in Africa, if they want them, as the 
 people of the territory are to have slaves if they want them. 
 I ask any man, dealing honestly with himself, to point out a 
 distinction. 
 
 I have recently seen a letter of Judge Douglas', in which, 
 without stating that to be the object, he doubtless endeavors 
 to make a distinction between the two. He says he is un- 
 alterably opposed to the repeal of the laws against the African 
 slave-trade. And why ? He then seeks to give a reason that 
 would not apply to his popular sovereignty in the territories. 
 What is that reason ? "The abolition of the African slave- 
 trade is a compromise of the Constitution !" I deny it. 
 There is no truth in the proposition that the abolition of the 
 African slave-trade is a compromise of the Constitution. No 
 man can put his finger on anything in the Constitution, or on 
 the line of history, which shows it. It is a mere barren as- 
 sertion, made simply for the purpose of getting up a distinc- 
 tion between the revival of the African slave-trade and his 
 "great principle." 
 
 At the time the Constitution of the United States was 
 adopted it was expected that the slave-trade would be abol- 
 ished. I should assert, and insist upon that, if Judge Doug- 
 las denied it. But I know that it was equally expected that 
 slavery would be excluded from the territories, and I can show 
 by history, that in regard to these two things, public opinion 
 was exactly alike, while in regard to positive action, there was 
 more done in the Ordinance of '87 to resist the spread of 
 slavery than was ever done to abolish the foreign slave-trade. 
 Lest I be misunderstood, I say again that at the time of the 
 formation of the constitution, public expectation was that the
 
 278 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 slave-trade would be abolished, but no niore so than the spread 
 of slavery in the territories should be restrained. They stand 
 alike, except that in the ordinance of '87 there was a mark 
 left by public opinion, showing that it was more committed 
 against the spread of slavery in the territories than against the 
 foreign slave-trade. 
 
 Compromise ! What word of compromise was there about 
 it. Why, the public sense was then in favor of the abolition 
 of the slave-trade ; but there was at the time a very great com- 
 mercial interest involved in it, and extensive capital in that 
 branch of trade. There were doubtless the incipient stages of 
 improvement in the South in the Avay of farming, dependent 
 on the slave-trade, and they made a proposition to Congress 
 to abolish the trade after allowing it twenty years, a sufficient 
 time for the capital and commerce engaged in it to be trans- 
 ferred to other channels. They made no provision that it 
 should be abolished in twenty years ; I do not doubt that they 
 expected it would be ; but they made no bargain about it. 
 The public sentiment left no doubt in the minds of any that it 
 would be done away. I repeat, there is nothing in the history 
 of those times in favor of that matter being a compromise of the 
 Constitution. It was the public expectation at the time, 
 manifested in a thousand ways, that the spread of slavery 
 should also be restricted. 
 
 Then I say if this principle is established, that there is no 
 wrong in slavery, and whoever wants it has a right to have it, 
 is a matter of dollars and cents, a sort of question as to how 
 they shall deal with brutes, that between us and the^iegro 
 here there is no sort of question, but that at the South the 
 question is between the negro and the crocodile. That is all. 
 It is a mere matter of policy ; there is a perfect right accord- 
 ing to interest to do just as you please when this is done, 
 where this doctrine prevails, the miners and sappers will have 
 formed public opinion for the slave-trade. They will be ready 
 for Jeff. Davis and Stephens, and other leaders of that com- 
 pany, to sound the bugle for the revival of the slave-trade, for 
 the second Dred Scott decision, for the flood of slavery to be 
 poured over the free States, while we shall be here tied down 
 and helpless, and run over like sheep. 
 
 It is to be part and parcel of this same idea, to say to men 
 who want to adhere to the Democratic party, who have always
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 279 
 
 belonged to that party, and are only looking about for some 
 excuse to stick to it, but nevertheless hate slavery, that Doug- 
 las's popular sovereignty is as good a way as any to oppose 
 slavery. They allow themselves to be persuaded easily, in ac- 
 cordance with their previous dispositions, into this belief, that 
 it is about as good a way of opposing slavery as any, and we 
 can do that without straining our old party ties or breaking 
 up old political associations. We can do so without being 
 called negro-worshippers. We can do that without being sub- 
 jected to the jibes and sneers that are so readily thrown out in 
 place of argument, where no argument can be found. So let 
 us stick to this popular sovereignty this insidious popular 
 sovereignty. Now let me call your attention to one thing 
 that has really happened, which shows this gradual and steady 
 debauching of public opinion, this course of preparation for the 
 'revival of the slave-trade, for the territorial slave-code, and the 
 new Dred Scott decision, that is to carry slavery into the free 
 States. Did you ever, five years ago, hear of anybody in the 
 world saying that the negro had no share in the Declaration 
 of National Independence ; that it did not mean negroes at 
 all : and when " all men" were spoken of, negroes were not 
 included ? 
 
 I am satisfied that five years ago that proposition was not 
 put upon paper by any living being anywhere. I have been 
 unable at any time to find a man in an audience who would 
 declare that he had ever known of anybody saying so five years 
 ago. But last year there was not a Douglas popular sover- 
 eign In Illinois who did not say it Is there one in Ohio but 
 declares his firm belief that the Declaration of Independence 
 did not mean negroes at all 1 I do not know how this is ; I 
 have not been here much ; but I presume you are very much 
 alike everywhere. Then I suppose that all now express the 
 belief that the Declaration of Independence never did mean 
 negroes. I call upon one of them to 'say that he said it five 
 years ago. 
 
 If you think that now, and did not think it then, the next 
 thing that strikes me is to remark that there has been a change 
 wrought in you, and a very significant change it is, being no 
 less than changing the negro, in your estimation, from the rank 
 of a man to that of a brute. They are taking him down, and 
 placing him, when spoken of, among reptiles and crocodiles, 
 as Judge Douglas himself expresses it.
 
 280 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Is not this change wrought in your minds a very important 
 change ? Public opinion in this country is everything. In a 
 nation like ours this popular sovereignty and squatter sover- 
 eignty have already wrought a change in the public mind to the 
 extent I have stated. There is no man in this crowd who can 
 contradict it. 
 
 Now, if you are opposed to slavery honestly, as much as 
 anybody, I ask you to note that fact, and the like of which is 
 to follow, to be plastered on, layer after layer, until very soon 
 you are prepared to deal with the negro everywhere as with 
 the brute. If public sentiment has not been debauched al- 
 ready to this point, a new turn of the screw in that direction 
 is all that is wanting ; and this is constantly being done by 
 the teachers of this insidious popular sovereignty. You need 
 but one or two turns further until your minds, now ripening 
 under these teachings, will be ready for all these things, and 
 you will receive and support, or submit to, the slave trade, re- 
 vived with all its horrors, a slave code enforced in our terri- 
 tories, and a new Dred Scott decision to bring slavery up into 
 the very heart of the free North. This, I must say, is but 
 carrying out those words prophetically spoken by Mr. Clay, 
 many, many years ago I believe more than thirty years, when 
 he told an audience that if they would repress all tendencies 
 to liberty and ultimate emancipation, they must go back to the 
 era of our independence and muzzle the cannon which thun- 
 dered its annual joyous return on the Fourth of July ; they 
 must blow out the moral lights around us ; they must pene- 
 trate the human soul and eradicate the love of liberty ; but 
 until they did the- c e things, and others eloquently enumerated 
 by him, they could not repress all tendencies to ultimate eman- 
 cipation. 
 
 I ask attention to the fact that in a pre-eminent degree 
 these popular sovereigns are at this work ; blowing out the 
 moral lights around us ; teaching that the negro is no longer a 
 man but a brute ; that the Declaration has nothing to do with 
 him ; that he ranks with the crocodile and the reptile ; that 
 man, with body and soul, is a matter of dollars and cents. I 
 suggest to this porfion of the Ohio Republicans, or Democrats, 
 if there be any present, the serious consideration of this fact, 
 that there is now going on among you a steady process of de- 
 bauching public opinion on this subject. With this, my 
 friends, I bid you adieu.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 281 
 
 SPEECH OF ME. LINCOLN, 
 
 AT CINCINNATI, OHIO, September, 1859. 
 
 MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF OHIO : This is the 
 first time in my life that I have appeared before an audience 
 in so great a city as this. I therefore though I am no longer 
 a young man make this appearance under some degree of 
 embarrassment. But I have found that when one is embar- 
 rassed, usually the shortest way to get through with it is to 
 quit talking or thipking about it, and go at something else. 
 
 I understand that you have had recently with you my very 
 distinguished friend, Judge Douglas, of Illinois, and I under- 
 stand, without having had an opportunity (not greatly sought 
 to be sure) of seeing a report of the speech that he made here, 
 that he did me the honor to mention my humble name. I 
 suppose that he did so for the purpose of making some objec- 
 tion to some sentiment at some time expressed by me. I 
 should expect, it is true, that Judge Douglas had reminded 
 you, or informed you, if you had never before heard it, that I 
 had once in my life declared it as my opinion that this govern- 
 ment cannot " endure permanently half slave and half free ; 
 that a house divided against itself cannot stand," and, as I 
 had expressed it, I did not expect the house to fall ; that I did 
 not expect the 'Union to be dissolved ; but that I did expect 
 that it would cease to be divided ; that it would become all 
 one thing or all the other ; that either the opposition of slavery 
 would arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the 
 public mind would rest in the belief that it was in the course 
 of ultimate extinction ; or the friends of slavery will push it 
 forward until it becotnes alike lawful in all the States, old or 
 new, free as well as slave. I did, fifteen months ago, express 
 that opinion, and upon many occasions Judge Douglas has de- 
 nounced it, and has greatly, intentionally or unintentionally, 
 misrepresented my purposfe in the expression of that opinion . 
 
 I presume, without having seen a report of his speech, that 
 he did so here. I presume that he alluded also to that opinion 
 in different language, having been expressed at a subsequent 
 time by Governor Seward of New-York, and that he took the 
 two in a lump and denounced them ; that he tried to point out
 
 282 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 that there was something couched in this opinion which led 
 to the making of an entire uniformity of the local institutions 
 of the various States of the Union, in utter disregard of the 
 different States, which in their nature would seem to require 
 a variety of institutions, and a variety of laws, conforming to 
 the differences in the nature of the different States. 
 
 Not only fo ; I presume he insisted that this was a declara- 
 tion of war between the free and slave States that it was the 
 sounding to the onset of continual war between the different 
 States, the slave and free States. 
 
 This charge, in this form, was made by Judge Douglas, on, 
 I believe, the 9th of July, 1858, in Chicago, in my hearing. 
 On the next evening, I made some reply to it. I informed 
 him that many of the inferences he drew from that expression 
 of mine were altogether foreign to any purpose entertained by 
 me, and in so far as he should ascribe these inferences to me, 
 as my purpose, he was entirely mistaken ; and in so far as he 
 might argue that whatever might be my purpose, actions, con- 
 forming to my views, would lead ;o these results, he might 
 argue and establish if he could ; but, so far as purposes were 
 concerned, he was totally mistaken as to me. 
 
 When I made that reply to him when I told him, on the 
 question of declaring war between the different States of the 
 Union, that I had not said that I did not expect any peace 
 upon this question until slavery was exterminated ; that I had 
 only said I expected peace when that institution was put where 
 the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in course 
 of ultimate extinction ; that I believed from the organization 
 of our government, until a very recent period of time, the in- 
 stitution had been placed and continued upon such a basis ; 
 that we had had comparative peace upon that question 
 through a portion of that period of time, only because the 
 public mind rested in that belief in regard to it, and that when 
 we returned to that position in relation to that matter, I sup- 
 posed we should again have peace as we previously had. I 
 assured him, as I now assure you, that I neither then had, nor 
 have, nor never had, any purpose in any way of interfering 
 with the institution of slavery, where it exists. I believe we 
 have no power, under the Constitution of the United States, 
 or rather under the form of government under which we live, 
 to interfere with the institution of slavery, or any other of the
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 283 
 
 institutions of our sister States, be they free or slave States. I 
 declared then, and I now re-declare, that I have as little incli- 
 nation to interfere with the institution of slavery where it 
 now exists, through the instrumentality of the general govern- 
 ment, or any other instrumentality, as I believe we have no 
 power to do so. I accidentally used this expression : I had no 
 purpose of entering into the slave States to disturb the insti- 
 tution of slavery ! So, upon the first occasion that Judge 
 Douglas got an opportunity to reply to me, he passed by the 
 whole body of what I had said upon that subject, and seized 
 upon the particular expression of mine, that I had no purpose 
 of entering into the slave States to disturb the institution of 
 slavery. " Oh, no," said he, " he (Lincoln) won't enter into 
 the slave States to disturb the institution of slavery ; he is too 
 prudent a man to do such a thing as that ; he only means 
 that he will go on to the line between the free and slave 
 States, and shoot over at them. This is all he means to do. 
 He means to do them all the harm he can, to disturb them all 
 he can, in such a waj> as to keep his own hide in perfect safety. " 
 
 Well, now, I did not think, at that time, that that was 
 either a very dignified or very logical argument ; but so it 
 was. I had to get along with it as well as I could. 
 
 It has occurred to me here to-night, that if I ever do shoot 
 over the line at the people on the other side of the line into a 
 slave State, and purpose to do so, keeping my skin safe, that 
 1 have now about the best chance I shall ever have. I should 
 not wonder that there are some Kentuckians about this au- 
 dience ; we are close to Kentucky ; and whether that be so or 
 not, we are on elevated ground, and by speaking distinctly. I 
 should not wonder if some of the Kentuckians would hear me 
 on the other side of the river. For that reason I propose to 
 address a portion of what I have to say to the Kentuckians. 
 
 I say, then, in the first place, to the Kentuckians, that I am 
 what they call, as I understand it, a "Black Republican." I 
 think slavery is wrong, morally and politically. I desire that 
 it should be no further spread in these United States, and I 
 should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole 
 Union. While I say this for myself, I say to you Ken- 
 tuckians, that I understand you differ radically with me upon 
 this proposition ; that you believe slavery is a good thing ; 
 that slavery is right ; that it ought to be extended and" per-
 
 284 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 petuated in this Union. Now, there being this broad differ- 
 ence between us, I do not pretend in addressing myself to 
 you, Ke-ntuckians, to attempt proselyting you ; that would be 
 a vain effort. I do not enter upon it. I only propose to try 
 to show you that you ought to nominate for the next Presi- 
 dency, at Charleston, my distinguished friend, Judge Douglas. 
 In all that there is a difference between you and him, I un- 
 derstand he is sincerely for you, and more wisely for you, than 
 you are for yourselves. I will try to demonstrate that propo- 
 sition. Understand now, I say that I believe he is as sin- 
 cerely for you, and more wisely for you, than you are for 
 yourselves. 
 
 What do you want more than anything else to make suc- 
 cessful your views of slavery to advance the outspread of it, 
 and to secure and perpetuate the nationality of it? What do 
 you want more than anything else ? What is needed abso- 
 lutely f What is indispensable to you ? Why ! if I may be 
 alloAved to answer the question, it is to retain a hold upon the 
 North it is to retain support and strength from the free 
 States. If you can get this support and strength from the 
 free States you can succeed. If you do not get this support 
 and this strength from the free States, you are in the minority, 
 and you are beaten at once. 
 
 If that proposition be admitted and it is undeniable then 
 the next thing I say to you is, that Douglas of all the men in 
 this nation is the only man that affords you any hold upon the 
 free States ; that no other man can give you any strength in 
 the free States. This being so, if you doubt the other branch 
 of the proposition, whether he is for you whether he is really 
 for you, as I have expressed it, I propose asking your atten- 
 tion for a while to a few facts. 
 
 The issue between you and me, understand, is, that I think 
 slavery is wrong, and ought not to be outspread, and you 
 think it is right and ousht to be extended and perpetuated. 
 [A voice, " Oh, Lord."] That is my Kentuckian I am talk- 
 ing to now. 
 
 I now proceed to try to show you that Douglas is as sin- 
 cerely for you and more wisely for you than you are for your- 
 selves. 
 
 In the first place we know that in a government like this, 
 hi a government of the people, where the voice of all the men
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 285 
 
 of that country, substantially, enters into the execution or 
 administration rather of the government, in such a govern- 
 ment, what lies at the bottom of all of it, is public opinion. 
 I lay down the proposition, that Judge Douglas is not only 
 the man that promises you in advance a hold upon the North, 
 and support in the North, but that he constantly moulds pub- 
 lic opinion to your ends ; that in every possible way he can, he 
 constantly moulds the public opinion of the North to your 
 ends ; and if there are a few things in which he seems to be 
 against you a few things which he says that appear to be 
 against you, and a few that he forbears to say which you 
 would like to have him say you ought to remember that the 
 saying of the one, or the forbearing to say the other, would 
 lose his hold upon the North, and, by consequence, would lose 
 his capacity to serve you. 
 
 Upon this subject of moulding public opinion, I call your 
 attention to the fact for a well-established fact it is that the 
 Judge never says your institution of slavery is wrong ; he 
 never says it is right, to be sure, but he never says it is wrong. 
 There is not a public man in the United States, I believe, with 
 the exception of Senator Douglas, who has not, at some time 
 in his life, declared his opinion whether the thing is right or 
 wrong ; but Senator Douglas never declares it is wrong. He 
 leaves himself at perfect liberty to do all in your favor which 
 he would be hindered from doing if he were to declare the 
 thing to be wrong. On the contrary, he take? all the chances 
 that he has for inveigling the sentiment of the North, opposed 
 to slavery, into your support, by never saying it is right. 
 This you ought to set down to his credit. You ought to give 
 him full credit for this much, little though it be, in comparison 
 to the whole which he does for you. 
 
 Some other things I will ask your attention to. He said 
 upon the floor of the United States Senate, and he has re- 
 peated it as I understand a great many times, that he does not 
 care whether slavery is " voted up or voted down." This 
 again shows you, or ought to show you, if you would reason 
 upon it, that he does not believe it to be wrong, for a man 
 may say, when he sees nothing wrong in a thing, that he does 
 not care whether it be voted up or voted down ; but no man 
 can logically say that he cares not whether a thing goes up or 
 goes down, wkich to him appears to be wrong. You there-
 
 286 LIFE A:ND SPEECHES OF 
 
 fore have a demonstration in this, that to Judge Douglas's 
 mind your favorite institution which you would have spread 
 out, and made perpetual, is no wrong. 
 
 Another thing he tells you, in a speech made at Memphis, in 
 Tennessee, shortly after the canvass in Illinois, last year. He 
 there distinctly told the people, that there was a " line draAvn 
 by the Almighty across this continent, on the one side of 
 which the soil must always be cultivated by slaves ;" that he 
 did not pretend to know exactly where that line was, but that 
 there was such a line. I want to ask your attention to that 
 proposition again ; that there is one portion of this continent 
 where the Almighty has designed the soil shall always be cul- 
 tivated by slaves ; that its being cultivated by slaves at that 
 place is right ; that it has the direct sympathy and authority 
 of the Almighty. Whenever you can get these Northern au- 
 diences to adopt the opinion that slavery is right on the other 
 side of the Ohio ; whenever you can get them, in pursuance of 
 Douglas's views, to adopt that sentiment, they will very 
 readily make the other argument, which is perfectly logical, 
 that that which is right on that side of the Ohio, cannot be 
 wrong on this, and that if you have that property on that side 
 of the Ohio, under the seal and stamp of the Almighty, when 
 by any means it escapes over here, it is wrong to have consti- 
 tutions and laws " to devil" you about it. So Douglas is 
 moulding the public opinion of the North, first to say that the 
 thing is right in your State over the Ohio river, and hence to 
 say that that which is right there is not wrong here, and that 
 all laws and constitutions here, recognizing it as being wrong, 
 are themselves wrong, and ought to be repealed and abrogated. 
 lie will tell you, men of Ohio, that if you choose here to have 
 laws against slavery, it is in conformity to the idea that your 
 climate is not suited to it, that your climate is not suited to 
 slave labor, and therefore you have constitutions and laws 
 against it. 
 
 Let us attend to that argument for a little while and see if 
 it be sound. You do not raise sugar-cane (except the new- 
 fashioned sugar-cane, and you won't raise that long), but they do 
 raise it in Louisiana. You don't raise it in Ohio because you 
 can't raise it profitably, because the climate don't suit it. 
 They do raise it in Louisiana because there it is profitable. 
 Now, Douglas will tell you that is precisely the slavery ques-
 
 ABRAHAM- LINCOLN. 287 
 
 tion. That they do have slaves there because they are profi- 
 table, and you don't have them here because they are not 
 profitable. If that is so, then it leads to dealing with the one 
 precisely as with the other. Is there then anything in the 
 constitution or laws of Ohio against raising sugar-cane? Have 
 you found it necessary to put any such provision in your law ? 
 Surely not ! No man desires to raise sugar-cane in Ohio ; but, 
 if any man did desire to do so, you would say it was a tyran- 
 nical law that forbids his doing so, and whenever you 
 shall agree with Douglas, whenever your minds are brought to 
 adopt his arguments, as surely you will have reached the 
 conclusion, that although slavery is not profitable in Ohio, 
 if any man wants it, it is wrong to him not to let him have 
 it. 
 
 In this matter Judge Douglas is preparing the public mind 
 for you of Kentucky, to make perpetual that good thing in 
 your estimation, about which you and I differ. 
 
 In this connection let me ask your attention to another 
 thing. I believe it is safe to assert that five years ago, no living 
 man had expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in 
 the Declaration of Independence. Let me state that again : 
 five years ago no living man had expressed the opinion that 
 the negro had no share in the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence. If there is in this large audience any man who ever 
 knew of that opinion being put upon paper as much as five 
 years ago, I will be obliged to him now or at a subsequent time 
 to show it. 
 
 If that be true, I wish you then to note the next fact ; that 
 within the space of five years Senator Douglas, in the argu- 
 ment of this question, has got his entire party, so far as I 
 know, without exception, to join in saying that the negro has 
 no share in the Declaration of Independence. If there be 
 now in all these United States one Douglas man that does not 
 say this, I have been unable upon any occasion to scare him 
 up. Now, if none of you said this five years ago, and all of 
 you say it now, that is a matter that you Kentuckians ought to 
 note. That is a vast change in the Northern public senti- 
 ment upon that question. 
 
 Of what tendency is that change? The tendency of that 
 change is to bring the public mind to the conclusion that when 
 men are spoken of, the negro is not meant ; that when negroes
 
 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 are spoken of, brutes alone are contemplated. That change ir 
 public sentiment has already degraded the black man in th< 
 estimation of Douglas and his followers from the condition o 
 a man of some sort, and assigned to him the condition o 
 a brute. Now, you Kentuckians ought to give Douglas credil 
 for this. That is the largest possible stride that can be made 
 in regard to the perpetuation of your thing of slavery. 
 
 A voice " Speak to Ohio men and not to Kentuckians !" 
 
 Mr. Lincoln I beg permission to speak as I please. 
 
 In Kentucky, perhaps, in many of the slave States certain- 
 ly, you are trying to establish the rightfulness of slavery by 
 reference to the Bible. You are trying to show that slavery 
 existed in the Bible times by Divine ordinance. Now, Doug- 
 las is wiser than you, for your own benefit, upon that subject. 
 Douglas knows that whenever you establish that slavery waf 
 right by the Bible, it will occur that that slavery was the 
 slavery of the white man of men without reference to color 
 and he knows very well that you may entertain that idea in 
 Kentucky as much as you please, but you will never win any 
 Northern support upon it. He makes a wiser argument for 
 you ; he makes the argument that the slavery of the black man, 
 the slavery of the man who has a skin of a different color 
 from your own, is right. He thereby brings to your support 
 Northern voters who could not for a moment be brought by 
 your own argument of the Bible-right of slavery. Will you 
 not give him credit for that ? Will you not say that in this 
 matter he is more wisely for you than you are for yourselves? 
 
 Now, having established with his entire party this doctrine 
 having been entirely successful in that branch of his effortf 
 in your behalf, he is ready for another. 
 
 At this same meetirg at Memphis, he declared that, whib 
 in all contests between the negro and the white man, he WF 
 for the white man, in all questions between the negro and tl 
 crocodile he was for the negro. He did not make that declar 
 tion accidentally at Memphis. He made it a great many tin 
 in the canvass in Illinois last year (though I don't know tl 
 it was i-eported in any of his speeches there), but he frequen 
 made it. I believe he repeated it at Columbus, and I f\\o\ 
 not wonder if lie repeated it here. It is, then, a deliber 
 way of expressing himself upon that subject. It is a matter 
 mature deliberation with him thus to express himself up
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 289 
 
 , that point of his case. It, therefore, requires some deliberate 
 
 - attention. 
 
 t The first inference seems to be, that if you do not enslave 
 ; the negro you are wronging the white man in some way or 
 
 - other ; and that whoever is opposed to the negro being 
 
 enslaved, is, in some way or other, against the white man. Is 
 not that a falsehood ? If there was a necessary conflict be- 
 tween the white man and the negro, I should be for the white 
 man as much as Judge Douglas ; but I say there is no such 
 necessary conflict. I say that there is room enough for us all 
 to be free, and that it not only does not wrong the white man 
 that the negro should be free, but it positively wrongs the mass 
 of the white men that the negro should be enslaved ; that the 
 mass of white men are really injured by the- effects of slave 
 
 > labor in the vicinity of the fields of their own labor. 
 
 But I do not desire to dwell upon this branch of the ques- 
 tion more than to say that this assumption of his is false, and 
 I do hope that that fallacy will not long prevail in the minds 
 of intelligent white men. At all events, you ought to thank 
 Judge Douglas for it. It is for your benefit it is made. 
 
 The other branch of it is, that in a struggle between the 
 negro and the crocodile, he is for the negro. Well, I don't 
 know that there is any struggle between the negro and croco- 
 dile, either. I suppose that if a crocodile (or as we old Ohio 
 river boatmen used to call them, alligator?) should come 
 across a white man he would kill him if he could, and so he 
 would a negro. But what, at last, is this proposition 1 I be- 
 
 lieve that it is a sort of proposition in proportion, which may 
 be stated thus: " As the negro is to the white man, so is the 
 crocodile to the negro ; and as the negro may rightfully treat 
 the crocodile as a beast or reptile, so the white man may right- 
 
 i fully treat the negro as a beast or a reptile." That is really 
 the " knip" of all that argument of his. 
 
 Now, my brother Kentuckians, who believe in this, you 
 ought to thank Judge Douglas for having put that in a much 
 more taking way than any of yourselves have done. 
 
 Again, Douglas's great principle, " popular sovereignty," as 
 ae calls it, gives you, by natural consequence, the revival of 
 he slave-trade whenever you want it. If you question this, 
 'i^ten awhile, consider awhile, what I shall advance in support 
 of that proposition. 
 
 13
 
 290 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 He says that it is the sacred right of the man who goes into 
 the territories to have slavery if he wants it. Grant that 
 for argument's sake. Is it not the sacred right of the man 
 who don't go there equally to buy slaves in Africa, if he wants 
 them'? Can you point out the difference? The man who 
 voes into the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, or any other 
 new territory, with the sacred right of taking a slave there 
 n 1'ich belongs to him, would certainly have no more right to take 
 one there than I would, who own no slave, but who would desire 
 to buy one and take him there. You will not say you, the 
 friends of Judge Douglas that the man who does not own a 
 slave, has an equal right to buy one and take him to the terri- 
 tory, as the other does ? 
 
 A voice " I want to ask a question. Don't foreign nations 
 interfere with the slave-trade ?" 
 
 Mr. Lincoln Well ! I understand it to be a principle of 
 Democracy to whip foreign nations whenever they interfere 
 with us. 
 
 Voice " I only asked for information. I am a Republican 
 myself." 
 
 Mr. Lincoln You and I will be on the best terms in the 
 world, but I do not wish to be diverted from the point I was 
 trying to press. 
 
 I say that Douglas's popular sovereignty, establishing his 
 sacred right in the people, if you please, if carried to its logi- 
 cal conclusion, gives equally the sacred right to the people of 
 the States or the territories themselves to buy slaves, where- 
 evcr they can buy them cheapest ; and if any man can show 
 a distinction, I should like to hear him try it. If any man 
 can show how the people of Kansas have a better right to 
 slaves because they want them, than the people of Georgia 
 have to buy them in Africa, I want him to do it. I think it 
 cannot be done. If it is " popular sovereignty" for the peo- 
 ple to have slaves because they want them, it is popular 
 sovereignty for them to buy them in Africa, because they de- 
 sire to do so. 
 
 I know that Douglas has recently made a little effort not 
 seeming to notice that he had a different theory has made an 
 effort to get rid of that. He has written a letter, addressed 
 to somebody I believe who resides in Iowa, declaring his oppo- 
 sition to the repeal of the laws that prohibit the African slave-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 291 
 
 trade. He bases his opposition to such repeal upon the 
 ground that these laws are themselves one of the compromises 
 of the Constitution of the United States. Now it would be 
 very interesting to see Judge Douglas or any of his friends 
 turn to the Constitution of the United States and point out 
 that compromise, to show where there is any compromise in 
 the Constitution, or provision in the Constitution, express or 
 implied, by which the administrators of that Constitution are 
 under any obligation to repeal the African slave-trade. I 
 know, or at least I think I know, that the framers of that 
 Constitution did expect that the African slave-trade would be 
 abolished at the end of twenty years, to "which time their pro- 
 hibition against its being abolished extended. I think there is 
 abundant contemporaneous history to show .that the framera 
 of the Constitution expected it to be abolished, But while 
 they so expected, they gave nothing for that expectation, and 
 they put no provision in the Constitution requiring it should 
 be so abolished. The migration or importation of such per- 
 sons as the States shall see fit to admit shall not be prohibited, 
 but a certain tax might be levied upon such importation. But 
 what was to be done after that time? The Constitution is as 
 silent about that as it is silent, personally, about myself. 
 There is absolutely nothing in it about that subject there is 
 only the expectation of the framers of the Constitution that 
 the slave-trade would be abolished at the end of that time, 
 and they expected it would be abolished, owing to public sen 
 timent, before that time, and they put that provision in, in 
 order that it should not be abolished before that time, for rea- 
 sons which I suppose they thought to be sound ones, but 
 which I will not now try to enumerate before you. 
 
 But while they expected the slave-trade would be abolished 
 at that time, they expected that the spread of slavery into the 
 new territories should also be restricted. It is as easy to 
 prove that the framers of the Constitution of the United 
 States expected that slavery should be prohibited from ex- 
 tending into ihe new territories, as it is to prove that it was 
 expected that the slave-trade should be abolished. Both these 
 things were expected. One was no more expected than the 
 other, and one was no more a compromise of the Constitution 
 than the other. There was nothing said in the Constitution 
 in regard to the spread of slavery into the territories. I grant
 
 292 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 that, but there was something very important said about it by 
 the same generation of men in the adoption of the old ordi- 
 nance of '87,4hrough the influence of which you here in Ohio, 
 our neighbors in Indiana, we in Illinois, our neighbors in Mi- 
 chigan and Wisconsin are happy, prosperous, teeming million;* 
 of free men. That generation of men, though not to the full 
 extent members of the Convention that framed the Constitu- 
 tion, were to some extent members of that Convention, hold- 
 ing seats at the same time in one body and the other, so that 
 if there wag any compromise on either of these subjects, the 
 strong evidence is that that compromise was in favor of the 
 restriction of slavery from the new territories. 
 
 But Douglas says that he is unalterably opposed to the re- 
 peal of those laws ; because, in his view, it is a compromise of 
 the Constitution. You Kentuckians, no doubt, are somewhat 
 oifended with that ! You ought not to be! You ought to be 
 patient! You ought to know that if he said less than that, he 
 would lose the power of " lugging" the Northern States to 
 your support. Really, what you would push him to do would 
 take from him his entire power to serve you. And you ought 
 to remember how long, by precedent, Judge Douglas holds 
 himself obliged to stick by compromises. You ought to re- 
 member that by the time you yourselves think you are ready 
 to inaugurate measures for the revival of the African slave- 
 trade, that sufficient time will have arrived, by precedent, for 
 Judge Douglas to break through that compromise. He says 
 now nothing more strong than he ?aid in 1849, when he de- 
 clared in favor of the Missouri compromise that precisely 
 four years and a quarter after he declared that compromise to 
 be a sacred thing, which " no ruthless hand would ever dare 
 to touch," he, himself, brought forward the measure ruth- 
 lessly to destroy it. By a mere calculation of time it will 
 only be four years more until he is ready to take back his pro- 
 fession about the sacred ness of the compromise abolishing the 
 slave-trade. Precisely as soon as you are ready to have his 
 services in that direction, by fair calculation, you may be sure 
 of having them. 
 
 But you remember and set down to Judge Douglas's debt, 
 or discredit, that he, last year, said the people of territories 
 can, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, exclude your slaves 
 from those territories ; thtit he declared by " unfriendly legis-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 293 
 
 lation," the extension of your property into the new territories 
 may be cut oft' in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. 
 
 lie assumed that position at Freeport, on the 27th of August, 
 1858. He said that the people of the territories can exclude 
 slavery in so many words. You ought, however, to bear in 
 mind that he has never said it since. You may hunt in every 
 speech that he has since made, and he has never used that ex- 
 pression once. He has never seemed to notice that he is 
 stating his views differently from what he did then ; but, by 
 some sort of accident, he has always really stated it differenlly. 
 He has always since then declared that " the Constitution does 
 not carry slavery into the territories of the United States be- 
 yond the power of the people legally to control it, as other 
 property." Now, there is a difference in the language used 
 upon that former occasion and in this latter day. There may 
 or may not be a difference in the meaning, but it is worth 
 while considering whether there is not also a difference in 
 meaning. 
 
 What is it to exclude "? Why, it is to drive it out. It is in 
 some way to put it out uf the territory. It is to force it across 
 the line, or change its character, so that as property it is out 
 of existence. But what is the controlling it ''as other pro- 
 perty T' Is controlling it as other property the same thing as 
 destroying it, or driving it away ? I should think not. I 
 should think the controlling of it as other property would be 
 just about what you in Kentucky should want. I understand 
 the controlling of property means the controlling of it for the 
 benefit of the owner of it. While I have no doubt the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States would say "God speed" to 
 any of the territorial legislatures that should thus control slave 
 property, they would sing quite a different tune, if by the pre- 
 tence of controlling it they were to undertake to pass laws 
 which virtually excluded it, and that upon a very well known 
 principle to all lawyers, that what a legislature cannot directly 
 do, it cannot do by indirection ; that as the legislature has not 
 the power to drive slaves out, they have no power by indirec- 
 tion, by tax, or by imposing burdens in any way on that pro- 
 perty, to effect the same end, and that any attempt to do so 
 would be held by the Dred Scott court unconstitutional. 
 
 Douglas is not willing to stand by his first proposition that
 
 294 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 they can exclude it, because we have seen that that proposi- 
 tion amounts to nothing more or less than the naked absurdity, 
 that you may lawfully drive out that which has a lawful right 
 to remain. lie admitted at first that the slave might be law- 
 fully taken into the territories under the Constitution of the 
 United States, and yet asserted that he might be lawfully 
 driven out. That being the proposition, it is the absurdity I 
 have stated. He is not willing to stand in the face of that 
 direct, naked, and impudent absurdity; he has, therefore, 
 modified his language into that of being " controlled as other 
 property." 
 
 The Iventuckians don't like this in Douglas! I will tell 
 you where it will go. He now swears by the court. He was 
 once a leading man in Illinois to break down a court, because 
 it had made a decision he did not like. But he now not only 
 swears by the court, the courts having got to working for you, 
 but he denounces all men that do not swear by the courts, as 
 unpatriotic, as bad citizens. When one of these acts of un- 
 friendly legislation shall impose such heavy burdens as to, in 
 effect, destroy property in slaves in a territory, and show 
 plainly that there can be no mistake in the purpose of the 
 Legislature to make them so burdensome, this same Supreme 
 Court will deride that law to be unconstitutional, and he will 
 be ready to say for your benefit, " I swear by the court ; I 
 give it up ;" and while that is going on he has been getting 
 all his men to swear by the courts, and to give it up with 
 him. In this again he serves you faithfully, and as I say, 
 more wisely than you serve yourselves. 
 
 Again : I have alluded in the beginning of these remarks 
 to the fact, that Judge Douglas has made great complaint of 
 my having expressed the opinion that this government " can- 
 not endure permanently half slave and half free." He has 
 complained of Seward for using different language, and de- 
 claring that there is an "irrepressible conflict" between the 
 principles of free, and slave labor. [A voice " He says it i* 
 not original with Seward. That it is original with Lincoln."] 
 I will attend to that immediately, sir. Since that time, Hick- 
 man, of Pennsylvania, expressed the same sentiment. He has 
 never denounced Mr. Hickman : why ? There is a little 
 chance, notwithstanding that opinion in the mouth of Hick- 
 man, that he may yet be a Douglas man. That is the dif
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 295 
 
 ference ! It is not unpatriotic to hold that opinion, if a man 
 is a Douglas man. 
 
 But neither I nor Seward, nor Hickman, is entitled to the 
 enviable or unenviable distinction of having first expressed 
 that idea. The same idea was expressed by the Richmond 
 Enquirer, in Virginia, in 1856 quite two years before it was 
 expressed by the first of us. And while Douglas was plu- 
 ming himself, that in his conflict with my humble self, last 
 year, he had "squelched out" that fatal heresy, as he de- 
 lighted to call it, and had suggested that if he only had had a 
 chance to be in New- York and meet Seward, he would have 
 " squelched " it there also, it never occurred to him to breathe 
 a word against Pryor. I don't think that you can discover 
 that Douglas ever talked of going to Virginia to " squelch " 
 out that idea there. No. More than that, that same 
 Roger A. Pryor was brought to Washington city and made 
 the editor of the par excellence Douglas paper, after making 
 use of that expi-ession, which, in us, is so unpatriotic and 
 heretical. From all this, my Kentucky friends may see that 
 this opinion is heretical in his view only when it is expressed 
 by men suspected of a desire that the country shall all become 
 free, and not when expressed by those fairly known to enter- 
 tain the desire that the whole country shall become slave. 
 When expressed by that class of men, it is in nowise offensive 
 to him. In this, again, my friends of Kentucky, you have 
 Judge Douglas with you. 
 
 There is another reason why you Southern people ought to 
 nominate Douglas at your Convention at Charleston. That 
 reason is the wonderful capacity of the man ; the power he 
 has of doing what would seem to be impossible. Let me call 
 your attention to one of these apparently impossible things. 
 
 Douglas had three or four very distinguished men of the 
 most extreme anti-slavery views of any men in the Republican 
 party, expressing their desire for his re-election to the Senate 
 last year. That would, of itself, have seemed to be a little 
 wonderful ; but that wonder is heightened when we see that 
 Wise, of Virginia, a man opposed to them, a man who believes 
 in the Divine right of slavery, was also expressing his desire 
 that Douglas should be re-elected ; that another man that may 
 be said to be kindred to Wise, Mr. Breckinridge, the Vice- 
 Prssident, and of your own State, was also agreeing with the
 
 296 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 anti-slavery men in the North, that Douglas ought to be re- 
 elected. Still, to heighten the wonder, a Senator from Ken- 
 tucky, who I have always lo\ed with an affection as tender 
 and endearing as I have ever loved any man ; who was op- 
 posed to the anti-slavery men for reasons which seemed suffi- 
 cient to him, and equally opposed to Wise and Breckinridge, 
 was writing letters into Illinois to secure the re-election of 
 Douglas. Now that all these conflicting elements should be 
 brought, while at daggers' point, with one another, to support 
 him, is a feat that is worthy for you to note and consider. It 
 is quite probable that each of these classes of men thought, 
 by the re-election of Douglas, their peculiar views would gain 
 something ; it is probable that the anti-slavery men thought 
 their views would gain something ; that AVi*e and Breckin- 
 ridge thought so too, as regards their opinions ; that Mr. 
 Crittenden thought that his views would gain something, al- 
 though he was opposed to both these other men. It is proba- 
 ble that each and all of them thought I hat they were using 
 Douglas, and it is yet an unsolved problem whether he was not 
 u.sing them all. If he was, then it is for you to consider 
 whether that power to perform wonders, is one for you lightly 
 to throw away. 
 
 There is one other thing that I will say to you in this rela- 
 tion. It is but my opinion : I give it to you without a fee. It 
 is my opinion that it is for you to take him or be defeated ; and 
 that if you do take him you may be beaten. You will surely 
 be beaten if you do not take him. We, the Republicans and 
 others forming the opposition of the country, intend to " stand 
 by our guns," to be patient and firm, and in the long run to 
 beat you whether you take him or not. We know that before 
 we fairly beat you, we have to beat you botli together. We 
 know that you are " all of a feather," and that we have to 
 beat you altogether, and we expect to do it. We don't in- 
 tend to be very impatient about it. We mean to be as delib- 
 erate and calm about it as it is possible to be, but as firm and 
 resolved as it is possible for men to be. When we do as we 
 say, beat you, you perhaps want to know what we will do 
 with you. 
 
 I will tell you, so far as I am authorized to speak for the 
 opposition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat 
 you, as near as we possibly can, as Washington, Jeft'erson, and
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 297 
 
 Madiscn treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in 
 no way to interfere with your institution ; to abide by all and 
 every compromise of the Constitution, and, in a word, coming 
 back to the original proposition, to treat you, so far as degen- 
 erated men (if we have degenerated) may, according to the 
 examples of those noble fathers Washington, Jefferson, and 
 Madison. We mean to remember that you are as good as 
 we ; that there is no difference between us other than the dif- 
 ference of circumstances. We mean to recognize and bear in 
 mind always that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as 
 other people, or as we claim to have, and treat you accord- 
 ingly. We mean to marry your girls when we have a chance 
 the white ones I mean, and I have the honor to inform you 
 that I once did have a chance in that way. 
 
 I have told you what we mean to do. I want to know, 
 now, when that thing takes place, what do you mean to do. 
 I often hear it intimated that you mean to divide the Union 
 whenever a Republican, or anything like it, is elected President 
 of the United States. [A voice "That is so."] "That is 
 so." one of them says ; I wonder if he is a Kentuckian ? [A 
 voice "He is a Douglas man."] Well, then, I want to know 
 what you are going to do with your half of it ? Are you go- 
 ing to split the Ohio down through, and push your half off a 
 piece ? Or are you going to keep it right alongside of us 
 outrageous fellows ? Or are you going to build up a wall 
 some way between your country and ours, by which that mov- 
 able property of yours can't come over here any more, to the 
 danger of your losing it 1 Do you think you can better your- 
 selves on that subject, by leaving us here under no obligation 
 whatever to return those specimens of your movable property 
 that come hither 1 ? You have divided the Union because we 
 would not do right with you, as you think, upon that subject ; 
 when we cease to be under obligations to do anything for you, 
 how much better off do you think you will be? Will you 
 make war upon us and kill us all ? Why, gentlemen, I think 
 you are as gallant and as brave men as live ; that you can 
 fight as bravely in a good cause, man for man, as any other 
 people living ; that you have shown yourselves capable of this 
 upon various occasions ; but man for man, you are not better 
 than we are, and there are not so many of you as there are of 
 us. You will never make much of a hand at whipping ua.
 
 298 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 If we were fewer in numbers than you, I think that you could 
 whip us ; if we were equal it would likely be a drawn battle ; 
 but being inferior in numbers, you will make nothing by at- 
 tempting to master us. 
 
 But perhaps I have addressed myself as long, or longer, to 
 the Kentuckians than I ought to have done. Inasmuch as I 
 have said that whatever course you take we intend in the end 
 to beat you. I propose to address a few remarks to our 
 friends, by way of discussing with them the best means of 
 keeping that promise, that I have in good faith made. 
 
 It may appear a little episodical for me to mention the 
 topic of which I shall speak now. It is a favorable proposi- 
 tion of Douglas's that the interference of the general govern- 
 ment, through the ordinance of '87, or through any other act 
 of the general government, never ha made or ever can make 
 a Free State ; that the ordinance of '87 did not make Free 
 States of Ohio, Indiana or Illinois. That these States are 
 free upon his "great principle" of popular sovereignty, be- 
 cause the people of those several States have chosen to make 
 them so. At Columbus, and probably here, he undertook to 
 compliment the people, that they themselves have made the 
 State of Ohio free, and that the ordinance of '87 was not en- 
 titled in any degree to divide the honor with them. I have 
 no doubt that the people of the State of Ohio did make her 
 free according to their own will and judgment, but let the 
 facts be remembered. 
 
 In 1802, I believe, it was you who made your first Con- 
 stitution, with the cause prohibiting slavery, and you did it I 
 suppose very nearly unanimously ; but you should bear in 
 mind that you speaking of you as one people that you did 
 so, unembarrassed by the actual presence of the institution 
 among you ; that you made it a Free State, not with the em- 
 barrassment upon you of already having among you many 
 slaves, which if they had been here, and you had sought to 
 make a Free State, you would not know what to do with. If 
 they had been among you, embarrassing difficulties, most 
 probably, would have induced you to tolerate a slave constitu- 
 tion instead of a free one, as indeed these very difficulties have 
 constrained every people on this continent who have adopted 
 slavery. 
 
 Pray what was it that made you free? What kept you
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 299 
 
 free ? Did you not rind your country free when you came to 
 decide that Ohio should be a Free State? It is important to 
 inquire by what reason you found it so? Let us take an 
 illustration between the States of Ohio and Kentucky. Ken- 
 tucky is separated by this river Ohio, not a mile wide. A 
 portion of Kentucky, by reason of the course of the Ohio, is 
 further north than this portion of Ohio in which we now 
 stand. Kentucky is entirely covered with slavery Ohio is 
 free from it. What made that difference ? Was it climate? 
 No ! A portion of Kentucky was further north than this por- 
 tion of Ohio. Was it soil ? No ? There is nothing in the 
 soil of the one more f.ivorable to slave labor than the other. 
 It was not climate or soil that caused one side of the line to 
 be entirely covered with slavery and the other side free of it. 
 What was it ? Study over it. Tell us, if you can, in all the 
 range of conjecture, if there be any thing you can conceive of 
 that made that difference, other than that there was no Jaw 
 of any sort keeping it out of Kentucky, while the ordinance 
 of '87 kept it out of Ohio. If there is any other reason than 
 this, I confess that it is wholly beyond my power to conceive 
 of it. This, then, I offer to combat the idea that that ordin- 
 ance has never made any State free. 
 
 I don't stop at this illustration. I come to the State of In- 
 diana : and what I have said as between Kentucky and Ohio, 
 I repeat as between Indiana and Kentucky; it is equally ap- 
 plicable. One additional argument is applicable also to 
 Indiana. In her territorial condition she more than once 
 petitioned Congress to abrogate the ordinance entirely, or at 
 least so far as to suspend its operation for a time, in order 
 that they should exercise the "popular sovereignty" of hav- 
 ing slaves if they wanted them. The men then controlling 
 the general government, imitating the men of the Revolution, 
 refused Indiana that privilege. And so we have the evidence 
 that Indiana supposed she could have slaves, if it were not for 
 that ordinance ; that she besought Congress to put that bar- 
 rier out of the way ; that Congress refused to do so, and it all 
 ended at last in Indiana being a free State. Tell me not, 
 then, that the ordinance of '87 had nothing to do with 
 making Indiana a free State, when we find some men chafing 
 against and only restrained by that barrier. 
 
 Come down again to our State of Illinois. The great
 
 300 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 northwest territory, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michi- 
 gan, and Wisconsin, was acquired fir.-.t, I believe, by the Brit- 
 ish government, in part at least, from the French. Before 
 ihe establishment of our independence it became a part of 
 Virginia, enabling Virginia after to transfer it to the general 
 government. There were French settlements in what is now 
 Illinois, and at the same time there were French settlements 
 in what is now Missouri in the tract of country that was not 
 purchased till about 1803. In these French settlements negro 
 slavery had existed for many years perhaps more than a 
 hundred, if not as much as two hundred years at Kaskaskia, 
 in Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, 
 in Missouri. The number of slaves was not very great, but 
 there was about the same number in each place. They were 
 there when we acquired the territory. There was no effort 
 made to break up the relation of master and slave, and even 
 the ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy 
 slavery in Illinois ; nor did the ordinance apply to Missouri 
 at all. 
 
 What I want to ask your attention to, at this point, is that 
 Illinois and Missouri came into the Union about the same 
 time, Illinois in the latter part of 1818, and Missouri, after a 
 struggle, I believe sometime in 1820. They had been filling 
 up with American people about the same period of time ; 
 their progress enabling them to come into the Union about the 
 same time. At the end of ten years, in which they had been 
 so preparing (for it was about that period of time), the num- 
 ber of slaves in Illinois had actually decreased ; while in Mis- 
 souri, beginning with very few, at the end of that ten years 
 there werev^bout ten thousand. This being so, and it being 
 remembered that Missouri and Illinois are, to a certain ex- 
 tent, in the same parallel of latitude that the northern half 
 of Missouri and the southern half of Illinois are in the same 
 parallel of latitude so that climate would have the same 
 effect upon one as upon the other, and that in the soil there 
 is no material difference, so far as bears upon the question of 
 slavery being settled upon one or the other there being none 
 of those natural causes to produce a difference in filling them, 
 and yet there being a broad difference in their filling up, 
 we are led again to inquire what was the cause of that 
 difference ?
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 301 
 
 It is most natural to say that in Missouri there was no law 
 to keep that country from filling up with slaves, while in Illi- 
 nois there was the ordinance of '87. The ordinance being 
 there, slavery decreased during that ten years the ordinance 
 not being in the other, it increased from a few to ten thou- 
 sand. Can any body doubt the reason of the difference ? 
 
 I think all these facts most abundantly prove that my friend 
 Judge Douglas's proposition, that the ordinance of '87, or the 
 national restriction of slavery, never had a tendency to make 
 a free State, is a fallacy a proposition without the shadow or 
 substance of truth about it. 
 
 Douglas sometimes says that all the States (and it is part of 
 this same proposition I have been discussing) that have be- 
 come free, have become so upon his " great principle ;" that 
 the State of Illinois itself came into the Union as a slave 
 State, and that the people, upon the " great principle " of 
 popular sovereignty, have since made it a free State. Allow 
 me but a little while to state to you what facts there are to 
 justify him in saying that Illinois came into the Union as a 
 slave State. 
 
 I have mentioned to you that there were a few old French 
 slaves there. They numbered, I think, one or two hundred. 
 Besides that, there had been a territorial law for indenturing 
 black persons. Under that law, in violation of the ordinance 
 of '87, but without any enforcement of the ordinance to over- 
 throw the system, there had been a small number of slaves in- 
 troduced as indentured persons. Owing to this the clause for the 
 prohibition of slavery was slightly modified. Instead of run- 
 ning like yours, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, 
 except for crime, of which the party shall have been duly con- 
 victed, should exist in the State, they said that neither slavery 
 nor involuntary servitude should thereafter be introduced, and 
 that the children of indentured servants should be born free ; 
 and nothing was said about the few old French slaves. Out 
 of this fact, that the clause for prohibiting slavery was modified 
 because of the actual presence of it, Douglas asserts again and 
 again that Illinois came into the Union as a slave State. How 
 far the facts sustain the conclusion that he draws, it is for in- 
 telligent and impartial men to decide. I leave it with you 
 with these remarks, worthy of being remembered, that that 
 little thing, those few indentured servants being there, was of
 
 302 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 itself sufficient to modify a constitution made by a people ar- 
 dently desiring to have a free constitution ; showing the power 
 of the actual presence of the institution of slavery to prevent 
 any people, however anxious to make a free State, from 
 making it perfectly so. 
 
 I have been detaining you longer perhaps than I ought 
 to do. 
 
 I am in some doubt whether to introduce another topic upon 
 which I could talk awhile. [Cries of" Go on," and " Give 
 us it."] It is this, then : Douglas's popular sovereignty, as a 
 principle, is simply this : If one man chooses to make a slave 
 of another man, neither that man or anybody else has a 
 right to object. Apply it to a government, as he seeks to 
 apply it, and it is this: if in a new territory, into which a 
 tew people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making 
 their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their 
 limits, or to establish it there, however one or the other may 
 affect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater num- 
 ber of persons who are afterward to inhabit that territory, or 
 the other members of the family of communities, of which they 
 are but an incipient member, or the general head of the family 
 of States as parent of all however their action may affect 
 one or the other of these, there is no power or right to inter- 
 fere. That is Douglas's popular sovereignty applied. Now, 
 I think that there is a real popular sovereignty in the world. 
 I think a definition of popular sovereignty, in the abstract, 
 would be about this that each man shall do precisely as he 
 pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclu- 
 sively concern him. Applied in government, this principle 
 would be, that a general government shall do all those things 
 which pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do pre- 
 cisely as they please in respect to those matters which exclu- 
 sively concern them. 
 
 Douglas looks upon slavery as so insignificant that the 
 people must decide that question for themselves, and yet they 
 are not fit to decide who shall be their governor, judge or 
 secretary, or who shall be any of their officers. These are 
 vast national matters, in his estimation, but the little matter 
 in his estimation is that of planting slavery there. That is 
 purely of local interest, which nobody should be allow i-d to 
 say a word about
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 303 
 
 Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not till, 
 human comforts and necessities are drawn. There is a differ- 
 ence of opinion about the elements of labor in society. Some 
 men assume that there is a necessary connection between capi- 
 tal and labor, and that connection draws within it the whole 
 of the labor of the community. They assume that nobody 
 works unless capital excites them to work. They begin next 
 to consider what is the best way. They say there are but 
 two ways ; one is to hire men and to allure them to labor by 
 their consent ; the other is to buy the men and drive them to 
 it, and that is slavery. Having assumed that, they proceed 
 to discuss the question of whether the laborers themselves are 
 better off in the condition of slaves or of hired laborers, and 
 they usually decide that they are better oft' in the condition of 
 slaves.- 
 
 In the first place, I say that the whole thing is a mistake. 
 That there is a certain relation between capital and labor, I 
 admit. That it does exist, and rightfully exist, I think is 
 true. That men who are industrious, and sober, and honest 
 in the pursuit of their own interests, should after a while ac- 
 cumulate capital, and after that should be allowed to enjoy it in 
 peace, and also, if they should choose, when they have ac- 
 cumulated it, to use it to save themselves from actual labor 
 and hire other people to labor for them, is right. In doing so 
 they do not wrong the n.an they employ, for they find men 
 who have not of their own land to work upon, or shops to 
 work in, and who are benefited by working for others, hired 
 laborers, receiving their capital for it. Thus a few men that 
 own capital, hire a lew others, and these establish the relation 
 of capital and labor rightfully. A relation of which I make 
 no complaint. But I insist that that relation after all does 
 not embrace more than one-eighth of the labor of the country. 
 
 [The speaker proceeded to argue that the hired laborer, 
 with his ability to become an employer, must have every pre- 
 cedence over him who labors under the inducement of force, 
 lie continued :] 
 
 I have taken upon myself in the name of some of you to 
 say, that we expect upon these principles to ultimately beat 
 them In order to do so, I think we want and must have a 
 national policy in regard to the institution of slavery, that ac- 
 knowledges and dials with that institution as being wrorij.
 
 304 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Whoever desires the prevention of the spread of slavery and 
 the nationalization of that institution, yields all, when he 
 yields to any policy that either recognizes slavery as being 
 right, or as being an indifferent thing. Nothing will make 
 you successful but setting up a policy which shall treat the 
 thing as being wrong. AVhen I say this, I do not mean to 
 pay that this general government is charged with the duty of 
 redressing or preventing all the wrongs in the world ; but I do 
 think that it, is charged with preventing and redressing all 
 wrongs which are wrongs to itself. This government is ex- 
 pressly charged with the duty of providing for the general 
 welfare. We believe that the spreading out and perpetuity 
 of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We 
 believe nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has 
 ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself. The 
 only thing which has ever menaced the destruction of the 
 government under which we live, is this very thing. To re- 
 press this thing, we think, is providing for the general welfare. 
 Our friends in Kentucky differ from us. We need not make 
 our argument for them, but we who think it is wrong in all 
 its relations, or in some of them at least, must decide as to our 
 own actions, and our own course, upon our own judgment. 
 
 I say that we must not interfere with the institution of 
 slavery in the States where it exists, because the Constitution 
 forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so. 
 We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law because 
 the Constitution requires us, as I understand it, not to with- 
 hold such a law. But we must prevent the out-spreading of 
 the institution, because neither the Constitution nor general 
 welfare requires us to extend it. We must prevent the revival 
 of the African slave-trade, and the enacting by Congress of a 
 territorial slave code. We must prevent each of these 
 things being done by either congresses or courts. The people 
 of these United States are the rightful masters of both con- 
 gresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution. Jput to 
 overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. 
 
 To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We 
 must hold conventions ; we must adopt platforms, if we con- 
 form to ordinary custom ; we must nominate candidates, and 
 we must carry election?. In all these things, I think that we 
 ought to keep in view our real purpose, and in none do any-
 
 ABKAHAM LINCOLN. 305 
 
 thing that stands adverse to our purpose. If we shall adopt a 
 platform that fails to recognize or express our purpose, or elect 
 a man that declares himself inimical to our purpose, we not 
 only take nothing by our success, but we tacitly admit that we 
 act upon no other principle than a desire to have " the loaves 
 and fishes," by which, in the end, our apparent success is 
 really an injury to us. 
 
 I know that this is very desirable with me, as with every- 
 body else, that all the elements of the Opposition shall unite 
 in the next Presidential election, and in all future time. I am 
 anxious that that should be, but there are things seriously to 
 be considered in relation to that matter. If the terms can be 
 arranged, I am in favor of the Union. But suppose we shall 
 take up some man and put him upon one end or the other of 
 the ticket, who declares himself against us in regard to the 
 prevention cf the spread of slavery who turns up his nose and 
 says he is tired of hearing anything more about it, who is more 
 against us than against the enemy, what will be the issue 1 
 Why, he will get no slave States after all he has tried that 
 already until being beat is the rule for him. If we nominate 
 him upon that ground, he will not carry a slave State, and not 
 only so, but that portion of our men who are highstrung upon 
 the principle we really fight for, will not go for him, and he 
 won't get a single electoral vote anywhere, except, perhaps, 
 in the State of Maryland. There is no use in saying to us that 
 we are stubborn and obstinate, because we won't do some such 
 thing as this. We cannot do it. We cannot get our men to 
 vote it. I speak by the card, that we cannot give the State 
 of Illinois in such case by fifty thousand. We would be flatter 
 down than the '' Negro Democracy" themselves have the heart 
 to wish to see us. 
 
 After saying this much, let me say a little on the other side. 
 There are plenty of men in the slave States that are altogether 
 good enough for me to be either President or Vice-President, 
 provided they will profess their sympathy with our purpose, 
 and will place themselves on the ground that our men, upon 
 principle, can vote for them. There ai'e scores of them, good 
 men in their character for intelligence and talent and integrity. 
 If such a one will place himself upon the right ground, I am 
 for his occupying one place upon the next Republican or Op- 
 position ticket. I will heartily go for him. But, unless he
 
 306 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 does so place himself, I think it a matter of perfect nonsense to 
 attempt to bring about a union upon any other basis ; that if 
 a union be made, the elements will scatter so that there can be 
 no success for such a ticket, nor anything like success. The 
 good old maxims of the Bible are applicable, and truly appli- 
 cable, to human affairs ; and in this, as in other thing?, we 
 may say here, that he who is not for us is against us ; he who 
 gathereth not with us scattereth. I should be glad to have 
 some of the many good, and able, and noble men of the South 
 to place themselves where we can confer upon them the high 
 honor of an election upon one or the other end of our ticket. 
 It would do my soul good to do that thing. It would enable 
 us to teach them that, inasmuch as we select one of their own 
 number to carry out our principles, we are free from the charge 
 that we mean more than we say. 
 
 But, my friends, I have detained you much longer than I 
 expected to do. I believe I may do myself the compliment to 
 say that you have stayed and heard me with great patience, 
 for which I return you my most sincere thanks. 
 
 SPEECH OF MR. LINCOLN, 
 
 AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW- YORK, February 27, 1860. 
 
 MR. PRESIIJEVT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW-YORK : 
 The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old 
 and familiar ; nor is there anything new in the general use I 
 shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be 
 in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and 
 observations following that presentation. 
 
 In his speech, last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported 
 in The New- York Times, Senator Douglas said : 
 
 " Our fathers, when they framed the government under 
 which we live, understood this question just as well as, and even 
 better than, we do now." 
 
 I fully endorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this dis- 
 course. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an 
 agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 307 
 
 that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It 
 simply leaves the inquiry : " What was the understanding 
 those fathers had of the question mentioned"?" 
 
 What is the frame of government under which we live ? 
 
 The answer must be: "The Constitution of the United 
 States." That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 
 1787 (and under which the present government first went into 
 operation), and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the 
 first ten of which were framed in 1789. 
 
 Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution ? I 
 suppose the " thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument 
 may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the 
 present government. It is almost exactly true to say they 
 framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly repre- 
 sented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that 
 time. Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessi- 
 ble to quite all, need not now be repeated. 
 
 I take these " thirty-nine," for the present, as being 
 " our fathers who framed the government under which we 
 live." 
 
 What is the question which, according to the text, those 
 fathers understood just as well, and even better than we do 
 now ? 
 
 It is this : Does the proper division of local from federal 
 authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our federal 
 government to control as to shivery in our federal terri- 
 tories ? 
 
 Upon this, Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans 
 the negative. This affirmative and denial form an issue ; and 
 this issue this question is precisely what the text declares 
 our fathers understood better than we. 
 
 Let us now inquire whether the " thirty-nine," or any of 
 them, ever acted upon this question ; and if they did, how 
 they acted upon it how they expressed that better under- 
 standing. . 
 
 In 1784 three years before the Constitution the United 
 States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other 
 the Congress of the Confederation had before them the ques- 
 tion of prohibiting slavery in that territory ; and four of the 
 " thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution were in 
 that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Koger
 
 308 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Sherman, Thomas MifnMn, and Hugh Williamson, voted for 
 the prohibition thus showing that, in their understanding, no 
 line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, 
 properly -forbade the federal government to control as to 
 slavery in federal territory. The other of the four James 
 McHenry voted against the prohibition, showing that, for 
 some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it. 
 
 In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Con- 
 vention was in session framing it, and while the northwestern 
 territory still was the only territory owned by the United 
 States the same question of prohibiting slavery in the terri- 
 tory again came before the Congress of the Confederation ; 
 and three more of the " thirty-nine" who afterward signed the 
 Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on the ques- 
 tion. They were William Blount, William Few, and Abra- 
 ham Baldwin ; and they all voted for the prohibition thus 
 showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local 
 from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbids the 
 federal government to control as to slavery in federal terri- 
 tory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part of 
 what is now well known as the Ordinance of '87. 
 
 The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, 
 stems not to have been directly before the Convention which 
 framed the original Constitution ; and hence it is not recorded 
 that the " thirty-nine" or any of them, while engaged on that 
 instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question. 
 
 In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Consti- 
 tution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, 
 including the prohibition of slavery in the northwestern ter- 
 ritory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the 
 " thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the 
 House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through 
 all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed 
 both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to 
 a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of 
 the " thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constitu- 
 tion. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Win. S. 
 Johnson, Roger Sherman^ Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, 
 William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Pat- 
 ter.-on, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Reed, Pierce 
 Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 309 
 
 This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing lo- 
 cal from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, 
 properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal 
 territory ; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their 
 oath to support the Constitution, would have ccfnstrained them 
 to oppose the prohibition. 
 
 Again, George Washington, another of the " thirty-nine," 
 was then President of the United States, and, as such, ap- 
 proved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a 
 law, and thus shoeing that, in his understanding, no line divi- 
 ding local from federal authority, nor anything in the Consti- 
 tution, forbade the federal government to control as to 
 slavery in federal territory. 
 
 No great while after the adoption of the original Constitu- 
 tion, North Carolina ceded to the federal government the 
 country now constituting the State of Tennessee ; and a few 
 j'ears later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the 
 States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession 
 it was made a condition by the ceding States that the feder- 
 al government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded coun- 
 try. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded 
 country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking 
 charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery 
 within them. But they did not interfere with it take con- 
 trol of it even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Con- 
 gress organized the territory of Mississippi. In the act of or- 
 ganization they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the ter- 
 ritory, from any place without the United States, by tine, and 
 giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed both 
 branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Con- 
 gress were three of the " thirty-nine" who framed the original 
 Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Head, and 
 Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, voted for it. Cer- 
 tainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon rec- 
 ord, if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from 
 federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly 
 forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in fed- 
 eral territory. 
 
 In 1803, the federal government purchased the Louisiana 
 country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from cer- 
 tain of our own States ; but this Louisiana country was ac-
 
 310 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 quired from a foreign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a 
 territorial organization to that part of it which now consti- 
 tutes the State f Louisiana. New-Orleans, lying within that 
 part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were 
 other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was 
 extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. 
 Congress did not, in the territorial act, prohibit slavery ; 
 but they did interfere with it take control of it in a more 
 marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Missis- 
 sippi. The substance of the provision therein made, in rela- 
 tion to slaves, was : 
 
 First. That no slaves should be imported into the territory 
 from foreign parts. 
 
 Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had 
 been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 
 1798. 
 
 Third. That no slave should be carried into it, except by 
 the owner, and for his own use as a settler ; the penalty in all 
 the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and free- 
 dom to the slave. 
 
 This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the 
 Congress which passed it, there were two of the " thirty- 
 nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. 
 As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both 
 voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without 
 recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it 
 violated either the line proper dividing local from federal au- 
 thority or any provision of the Constitution. 
 
 In 1819-'20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many 
 votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Con- 
 gress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two 
 of the " thirty-nine" Kufus King and Charles Pinckney 
 were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for 
 slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. 
 Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and 
 against all compromises. By this Mr. King showed that, in 
 his understanding, no line dividing local from federal author- 
 ity, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress 
 prohibiting slavery in federal territory ; while Mr. Pinckney, 
 by his votes, showed that in his understanding there was some 
 sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 311 
 
 The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the " thirty- 
 nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have 
 been :ible to discover. 
 
 To enumerate the persons who thus acted as being four in 
 1784. three in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two 
 in 1804, and two in 181 9-' 20 there would be thirty-one of 
 them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger 
 Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read, each 
 twice, and Abraham Baldwin four times. The true number 
 of those o^ the " thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have 
 acted upon the question, which, by the text they understood 
 better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to 
 have acted npon it in any way. 
 
 Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our " thirty-nine" 
 fathers who framed the government under which we live, who 
 have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, 
 acted upon the very question which the text affirms they 
 " understood just as well, and even better than we do now ;" 
 and twenty-one of them a clear majority of the whole 
 " thirty-nine" so acting upon it as to make them guilty of 
 gross political impropriety, and wilful perjury, if, in their 
 understanding, any proper division between local and federal 
 authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made 
 themselves and sworn to support, forbade the federal govern- 
 ment to control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus 
 the twenty one acted ; and as actions speak louder than words, 
 so actions under such responsibility speak still louder. 
 
 Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional pro- 
 hibition of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in 
 which they acted upon the question. But for what reasons 
 they so voted is not known. They may have done so be- 
 cause they thought a proper division of local from federal 
 authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, 
 stood in the way ; or they may, without any such question, 
 have voted against the prohibition on what appeared to them 
 to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has 
 sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote 
 for what he understands to be an constitutional measure, 
 however expedient he may think it ; but one may and ought 
 to vote against a measure which he deems unconstitutional, if, 
 at the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, there-
 
 312 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 fore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted 
 against the prohibition, as having done so because, in their 
 understanding, any proper division of local from federal au- 
 thority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the federal 
 government to control as to slavery in federal territory. 
 
 The remaining sixteen of the " thirty-nine," so far sis I have 
 discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the 
 direct question of federal control of slavery in the federal ter- 
 ritories. 15ut there is much reason to believe that their 
 understanding upon that question would not have appeared 
 different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been 
 manifested at all. 
 
 For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have pur- 
 posely omitted whatever understanding may have been mani- 
 fested, by any person, however distinguished, otfier than the 
 thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution ; and, 
 tor the same reason, I have also omitted whatever under- 
 standing may have been manifested by any of the ' thirty- 
 nine" even, on any other phase of the general question of 
 ^avery. If we should look into their acts and declarations 
 on those other phases, as the foreign slave-trade, and the 
 morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us 
 that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in fed- 
 eral territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would 
 probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that 
 sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of 
 those times as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and 
 Gouverneur Morris while there was not' one row known to 
 have been otherwise, unless it may be John Kutledge, of 
 South Carolina. 
 
 The sum of the whole is, that of our " thirty-nine" fathers 
 who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one a clear 
 majority of the whole certainly understood that no proper 
 division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the 
 Constitution, forbade the federal government to control slavery 
 in the federal territories, while all the rest probably had the 
 fame understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the under- 
 standing of our fathers who framed the original Constitution ; 
 and the text affirms that they understood the question better 
 than we. 
 
 J3ut, so far, I have been considering the understanding of
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 313 
 
 the question manifested by the framers of the original Consti- 
 tution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was pro- 
 vided for amending it ; and, as I have already stated, the 
 present, frame of government under which we live consists of 
 that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and 
 adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of 
 f-lavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us 
 to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as 
 I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory 
 articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme 
 Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth 
 amendment, which provides that ."no person shall be deprived 
 of property without due process of law ;" while Senator 
 Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the 
 tenth amendment, providing that " the powers not granted by 
 the Constitution arc reserved to the States respectively, and to 
 the people." 
 
 Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by 
 the first Congress which sat under the Constitution the iden- 
 tical Congress which passed the act already mentioned, 
 enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the northwestern terri- 
 tory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the 
 identical, same individual men who, at the same session, and 
 at the same time within the session, had under consideration, 
 and in progress toward maturity, these constitutional amend- 
 ments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the 
 nation then owned. The constitutional amendments were 
 introduced before, and passed after the act enforcing the 
 Ordinance of '87 ; so that during the whole pendency of the 
 act to enforce^ the Ordinance, the constitutional amendments 
 were also pending. 
 
 That Congress, consisting in all ofseventy-six members, in- 
 cluding sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as 
 before stated, were pre-eminently our fathers who framed that 
 part of the government under which we live, which is now 
 claimed as forbidding the federal government to control slavery 
 in the federal territories. 
 
 It is not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to 
 affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately 
 framed and carried to maturity at the same time, are abso- 
 lutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affir- 
 14
 
 314 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 ination become impudently absurd when coupled with the 
 other affirmation, from the same month, that those who did 
 the two things alleged to be inconsistent understood whether 
 they really were inconsistent better than we better than he 
 who aifirms that they are inconsistent ? 
 
 It is surely safe to assume that the " thirty-nine" framers of 
 the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the 
 Congress, which framed the amendments thereto, taken to- 
 gether, do certainly include those who may be fairly called 
 ' our fathers who framed the governments under which we 
 live." And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any 
 one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his un- 
 derstanding, any proper division of local from federal author- 
 ity, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the federal gov- 
 ernment to control as to slavery in the federal territories. 
 I go a step further. 1 defy any one to show that any living 
 man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the 
 present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning 
 of the last half of the present century), declare that, in his 
 understanding, any proper division of local from federal author- 
 ity, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the federal gov- 
 ernment to control as to slavery in the federal territories. To 
 those who now so declare, I give, not only " our fathers who 
 framed the government under which we live," but with them 
 all other living men within the century in which it was framed, 
 among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the 
 evidence of a single man agreeing with them. 
 
 Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misun- 
 derstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow im- 
 plicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to 
 discard all the lights of current experience to reject all prog- 
 ress all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would 
 supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we 
 ehould do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so 
 clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and 
 weighed, cannot stand ; and most surely not in a case whereof 
 we ourselves declare they understood the question better than 
 we. 
 
 If any man, at this day, sincerely believes that a proper 
 division of local from federal authority, or any part of the 
 Constitution, forbids the federal government to control as to
 
 ABRAHAM LIXCOLN. 315 
 
 slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to 
 enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument 
 which he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who 
 have less access to history and less leisure to study it, into 
 the iiil^e belief that " our fathers who framed the government 
 under which we live,". were of the same opinion thus substi- 
 tuting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair 
 argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes "our 
 fathers, -who framed the government under which we live," 
 used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to 
 have led them to understand that a proper division of local 
 from federal authority or some part of the Constitution, forbids 
 the federal government to control as to slavery in the federal 
 territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same 
 time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, 
 he understands their principles better than they did them- 
 selves ; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility 
 by asserting that they " understood the question just as well, 
 and even better, than we do now r ." 
 
 But enough. Let all who believe that " our fathers, who 
 framed the government under which we live, understood this 
 question just as well, and even better than we do now," speak 
 as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Re- 
 publicans ask all Kepublicans desire in relation to slavery. 
 As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an 
 evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only 
 because of, and so far as its actual presence among us makes 
 that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guaran- 
 tees those fathers gave it, be, not grudgingly, but fully and 
 fairly maintained. For this Kepublicans contend, and with 
 this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content. 
 
 And now, if they would listen as I suppose they will not 
 I would address a few words to the Southern people. 
 
 I would say to them : You consider yourselves a reasonable 
 and a just people ; and I consider that in the general qualities 
 of reason and justice you are riot inferior to any other people. 
 Still, when you speak of us Kepublicans, you do so only to de- 
 nounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than out- 
 laws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but 
 nothing like it to "Black Kepublicans." In all your conten- 
 tions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional
 
 316 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 condemnation of " Black Republicanism" as the first thing to 
 be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be 
 an indispensable pre-requi?ite license, so to speak -among 
 you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. 
 
 Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to 
 consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to your- 
 selves 1 
 
 Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be 
 patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. 
 
 You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an 
 issue ; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce 
 your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no 
 existence in your section gets no votes in your section-. The 
 fact is substantially true ; but does it prove the issue ? If it 
 does, then in case we should, without change of principle, be- 
 gin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be 
 sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion ; and yet, are 
 you willing to abide by it ? If you are, you will probably 
 goon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get 
 votes in your section this very year. Y^ou will then begin to 
 discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch 
 the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section is a 
 fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault 
 in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so vintil 
 you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or prac- 
 tice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, 
 the fault is ours ; but this brings you to where you ought to 
 have started to the discussion of the right or wrong of our 
 principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong 
 your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, 
 then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly 
 opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the ques- 
 tion of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong 
 your section ; and so meet it as if it were possible that some- 
 thing may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge 1 
 No? Then you really believe that the principle which our 
 fathers who framed the government under which we live 
 thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and endorse it again and 
 again, upon their official oaths, is, in fact so clearly wrong as 
 to demand your condemnation without a moment's con- 
 sideration.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 317 
 
 Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning 
 against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell 
 Address. Less than eight years before "Washington gave that 
 warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved 
 and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition of 
 slavery in the northwestern territory, which act embodied the 
 policy of the government upon that subject, up to and at the 
 very moment he penned that warning ; and about one year 
 after he penned it he wrote Lafayette that, he considered that 
 prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection 
 his hope that we should some time have a confederacy of free 
 States. 
 
 Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since 
 arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in 
 your hands against us, or in our hands against you ? Could 
 Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that 
 sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who 
 repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and 
 we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to 
 the right application of it. 
 
 15ut you say you are conservative eminently conservative 
 while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the 
 sort. What is conservatism ? Is it not adherence to the old 
 and tried, against the new and untried ? We stick to, con- 
 tend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy 
 which was adopted by our fathers who framed the govern- 
 ment under which we live ; while you with one accord reject, 
 and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon sub- 
 stituting something new. True, you disagree among your- 
 selves as to what that substitute shall be. You have con- 
 siderable variety of new propositions and plans, but you are 
 unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the 
 fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade ; 
 some for a Congressional slave-code for the territories ; some 
 for Congress forbidding the territories to prohibit shivery 
 within their limits ; some for maintaining slavery in the terri- 
 tories through the judiciary ; some for the " gurreat pur- 
 rinciple" Hhat " if one man would enslave another, no third 
 mau should object," fantastically called " popular sovereignty ;" 
 but never a man among you in favor of federal prohibition ot' 
 slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of our
 
 318 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 fathers who framed the government under which we live. Not 
 one of your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate 
 in the century within which our government originated. Con- 
 sider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for your- 
 selves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are 
 based on the most clear and stable foundations. 
 
 Again, you say we have made the slavery question more 
 prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit 
 that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. 
 It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the 
 fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation ; and 
 thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would 
 you have that question reduced to its former proportions ? 
 Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, 
 under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of 
 the old times, re-adopt the precepts and policy of the old 
 times. 
 
 You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. 
 We deny it ; and what is your proof ? Harper's Ferry ! 
 John Brown ! ! John Brown was no Eepublican ; ,and you 
 have failed to implicate a single llepublican in his Harper's 
 Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in 
 that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do 
 know it, you are inexcusable to not designate the man, and 
 prove the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable 
 to assert it, and especially to persist in the assertion after you 
 have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be 
 told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to 
 be true, is simply malicious slander. 
 
 Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or 
 encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair ; but still insist that our 
 doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such result?. 
 We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrine, and 
 make no declarations, which were not held to and made by 
 our fathers who framed the government under which we live. 
 You never dealt fairly by us in this affair. When it oc- 
 curred, some important State elections were near at hand, and 
 you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the 
 Uame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those 
 elections. The elections came, and your expectations were 
 not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 319 
 
 himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not 
 mucli inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republi- 
 can doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a con- 
 tinual protest against any interference whatever with your 
 slave?, or with you about your slaves. Surely, this does nol 
 encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with our 
 fathers, who framed the government under which we live, de- 
 clare our belief that slavery is wrong ; but the slaves do not 
 hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the 
 slaves wonld scarcely know there is a Republican party. I 
 believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for 
 your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your 
 political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the 
 other with sympathy with black republicanism ; and then, to 
 give point to the charge } defines black republicanism to simply 
 be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves. 
 
 Slave insurrections are no more common now than they 
 were before the Republican party was organized. What in- 
 duced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, 
 in which, at least, three times as many lives were lost as at 
 Harper's Ferry 1 You can scarcely stretch your very elastic 
 fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was got up by black 
 republicanism. In the present state of things in the United 
 States, I do net think a general, ar even a very extensive 
 slave insurrection, is possible. The indispensable concert of 
 action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of 
 rapid communication ; nor can incendiary free men, black or 
 white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in 
 parcels ; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indis- 
 pensable connecting trains. 
 
 Much is said by Southern people about the affection of 
 slaves for their masters and mistresses ; and a part of it, at 
 least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be de- 
 vised and communicated, to twenty individuals before some 
 one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, 
 would divulge it. This is the rule ; and the slave revolution 
 in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring 
 under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder-plot of British 
 history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. 
 In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret ; 
 and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed
 
 320 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the 
 calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open 
 or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts ex- 
 tending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural 
 results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I 
 think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever 
 much fear?, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike 
 disappointed. 
 
 In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, 
 " It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipa- 
 tion and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as 
 that the evil will wear off insensibly ; and their places be, pan 
 passit, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, 
 it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the 
 prospect held up." 
 
 Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power 
 of emancipation is in the federal government. lie spoke of 
 Virginia ; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of 
 the slaveholding States only. 
 
 The federal government, however, as we insist, 'has the 
 power of restraining the extension of the institution the 
 power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on 
 any American soil which is now free from slavery. 
 
 John Brown's effort wa$ peculiar. It was not a slave in- 
 surrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a 
 revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. 
 In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ig- 
 norance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That 
 affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, 
 related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. 
 An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he 
 fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. 
 He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than in his 
 own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon, and 
 John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry, were, in their phi- 
 losophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on 
 old England in the one case, and on New England in the 
 other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things. 
 
 And how much would it avail you, if you could, by 
 the use of John Brown, Helper's book, and the like, break up 
 the Republican organization 7 Human action can be modified
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 321 
 
 to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There 
 is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, 
 which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot 
 destroy that judgment and feeling that sentiment by break- 
 ing up the political organization which rallies around it. You 
 can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been 
 formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire, but if you 
 could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment 
 which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot- 
 box, into some other channel? What would that other chan- 
 nel probably be ? Would the number of John Browns be 
 lessened or enlarged by the operation ? 
 
 But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a 
 denial of your constitutional rights. 
 
 That has a somewhat reckless sound ; but it would be pal- 
 liated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere 
 force of numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written 
 down in 'the Constitution. But we are proposing no such 
 thing. 
 
 When you make these declarations, you nave a specific and 
 well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right 
 of yours to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold 
 them there as property. But no such right is specifically 
 written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally 
 silent about any such right. We, on the contraiy, deny that 
 such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by 
 implication. 
 
 Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will destroy 
 the government, unless you be allowed to construe and en- 
 force the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute 
 between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. 
 
 This, plainly stated, is your language to us. Perhaps you 
 will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed constitu- 
 tional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving 
 the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the 
 courts have decided the question for you in a sort of way. 
 The courts have substantially said, it is your constitutional 
 right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold 
 them there as property. 
 
 When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean 
 it was made in a divided court by a bare majority of the 
 14*
 
 322 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the 
 reasons for making it ; that it is so made as that its avowed 
 supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and 
 that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact 
 the statement in the opinion that " the right of property in a 
 slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution." 
 
 An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right 
 of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed 
 in it. Bear in mind the Judges do not pledge their judicial 
 opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitu- 
 tion ; but they pledge their \eracity that it is distinctly and 
 expressly affirmed there " distinctly" that is, not mingled 
 with anything else " expressly" that is, in words meaning 
 just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of 
 no other meaning. 
 
 If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such 
 right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be 
 open to others to show that neither the word " slave" nor 
 ' slavery" is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word 
 " property" even, in any connection with language alluding 
 to the things slave, or slavery, and that wherever in that in- 
 strument the slave is alluded to, he is called a " person ;" and 
 wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded 
 to, it is spoken of as " service or labor due," as a " debt" pay- 
 able in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by 
 contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves 
 and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on. 
 purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there 
 could be property in man. 
 
 To show all this is easy and certain. 
 
 When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought 
 to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will 
 withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclu- 
 sion based upon it ? 
 
 And then it is to be remembered that " our fathers, who 
 framed the government under which we live" the men who 
 made the Constitution decided this same constituiional ques- 
 tion in our favor, long ago decided it without a division 
 among themselves, when making the decision ; without divis- 
 ion among themselves about the meaning of it after it was 
 made, and so far as any evidence is left, without basing it 
 upon any mistaken statement of facts.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 323 
 
 Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves 
 justified to break up this government, unless such a court de- 
 cision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive 
 and final rule of political action 1 
 
 But you will not abide the election of a Republican Presi- 
 dent. In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the 
 Union ; and then, you say, the great crime of having de- 
 stroyed it will be upon us ! 
 
 That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and 
 mutters through his teeth, " Stand and deliver, or I shall kill 
 you, and then you will be a murderer !" 
 
 To be sure, what the robber demanded of me my money 
 was my own ; and I had a clear right to keep it ; but it 
 was no more my own than my vote is my own ; and the threat 
 of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of de- 
 struction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be dis- 
 tinguished in principle. 
 
 A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly de- 
 sirable that all parts of this great confederacy shall be at peace, 
 and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do 
 our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us 
 do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the 
 Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly 
 consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate 
 view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say 
 and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy 
 with u?, let us determine, if we can^what will satisfy them ? 
 
 Will they be satisfied if the territories be unconditionally 
 surrendered to them 1 We know they will not. In all their 
 present complaints against us, the territories are scarcely men- 
 tioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will 
 it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with 
 invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We ?o 
 know because we know we never had anything to do with in- 
 vasions and insurrections ; and yet this total abstaining does 
 not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation. 
 
 The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this : 
 We must not only let them alone, but we must, somehow, 
 convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by 
 experience, is ne easy task. We have been BO ti-ying to con- 
 vince them, froai the vary beginning of our organization, but
 
 324 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have 
 constantly protected our purpose to let them alone ; but this 
 has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing \o 
 convince them is the fact that they hare never detected a man 
 of us in any attempt to disturb them. 
 
 These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, 
 what Avill convince them'? This, and this only : ceasa to call 
 slavery ivrong, and join them in calling it right. And this 
 must be clone thoroughly done in acts as well as in icords. 
 Silence will not be tolerated we must place ourselves avow- 
 edly with them. Douglas's new sedition law must be enacted 
 and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is 
 wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in 
 private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with 
 greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free-State consti- 
 tutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all 
 taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to be- 
 lieve that all their troubles proceed from us. 
 
 I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in 
 this way. Most of them would probably say to us, " Let us 
 alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about sla- 
 very." But we do let them alone have never disturbed them 
 so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. 
 They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease say- 
 ing. 
 
 I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded 
 the overthrow of our Free-State constitutions. Yet those 
 constitutio.is declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn 
 emphasis, than do all other sayings against it ; and when all 
 these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of 
 these constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to 
 resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do 
 not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what 
 they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop 
 nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, 
 that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they can- 
 not cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal 
 right, and a social blessing. 
 
 Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground, save 
 our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all 
 words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 325 
 
 wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is 
 right, we cannot justly object to its nationality its universal- 
 ity ; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension 
 its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if 
 we thought slavery right ; all we ask, they could as readily 
 grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and 
 our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends 
 the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they 
 are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being 
 right ; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to 
 them ? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against 
 our own ? In view of our moral, social, and political respon- 
 sibilities, can we do this 1 
 
 Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it 
 alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity 
 arising from its actual presence in the nation ; but can we, 
 while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the na- 
 tional territories, and to overrun us here in these free States ? 
 
 If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our 
 duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of 
 those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industri- 
 ously plied and belabored contrivances such as groping for 
 s-ome middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as 
 the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor 
 a dead man such as a policy of " don't care" on a question 
 about which all true men do care such as Union appeals bo- 
 seeching true Union men to yield to disunionists, reversing the 
 divine rule, and callinsr, not the sinners, but the righteous to 
 repentance such as invocations to Washington, imploring 
 men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Wash- 
 ington did. 
 
 Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusa- 
 tions against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruc- 
 tion to the government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us 
 have faith that richt makes might, and in that faith, let us, to 
 thg end, dare to do our duty, as we understand it.
 
 326 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 THE WAR WITH MEXICO, 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 January 12th, 1848. 
 
 On the resolutions referring the President's Message to the 
 various Standing Committees 
 
 Mr. LINCOLN addressed the Committee as follows : 
 
 MR. CHAIRMAN: Some, if not all, the gentlemen on the 
 other side of the House, who have addressed the Commit teo 
 wiihin the last two days, have spoken rather complainingly, 
 if I have rightly understood them, of the vote given a week 
 or ten days ago, declaring that the war with Mexico was un- 
 necessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the Presi- 
 dent. I admit that such a vote should not be given in mere 
 party wantonness, and that the one given is justly censurable, 
 if it have no other or better foundation. I am one of thoso 
 who joined in that vote ; and I did so under my best impres- 
 sion of the truth of the case. How I got this impression, and 
 how it may possibly be removed, I will now try to show. 
 When the war began., it was my opinion that all those who, 
 because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too 
 much, could not conscientiously approve the conduct of the 
 President (in the beginning of it), should, nevertheless, as 
 good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at 
 least till the war should be ended. Some leading Democrats, 
 including Ex- President Van Buren, have taken this same view, 
 as I understand them ; and I adhered to it and acted upon it, 
 until since I took my seat here ; and I think I should still 
 adhere to it, were it not that the President and his friends 
 would not allow it to be so. Besides, the continual ctf'ort of 
 the President to argue every silent vote given for supplies into 
 an endorsement of the justice and wisdom of his conduct, be- 
 sides that singularly candid paragraph in his late message, in 
 which he tells us that Congress, with great unanimity (only 
 two in the Seriate, and fourteen in the House dissenting), had 
 declared that " by the act of the Republic of Mexico a state
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 327 
 
 of war exists between that government, and the United States ;" 
 when the same journals that informed him of this, also in- 
 formed him that, when that declaration stood disconnected 
 from the question of supplies, sixty-seven in the House, and 
 not fourteen, merely, voted against it ; besides this open at- 
 tempt to prove, by telling the truth, what he could not prove 
 by telling the whole truth, demanding of all who will not sub- 
 mit to be misrepresented, in justice to themselves, to speak 
 out. Besides all this, one of my colleagues [Mr. RICIIARD- 
 SON] at a very early day in the session, brought in a set of 
 resolutions, expressly endorsing the original justice of the war 
 on the part of the President. Upon these resolutions when 
 they shall be put upon their passage, I shall be compelled to 
 vote ; so that I cannot be silent, if I would. Seeing this, I 
 went about preparing myself to give the vote understandingly, 
 when it should come. I carefully' examined the President's 
 messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved 
 upon the point. The result of this examination was to make 
 the impression, that, taking for true all the President states as 
 facts, he falls far short of proving his justification ; and that the 
 President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had 
 not been for the small matter that the truth would not permit 
 him. Under the impression thus made, I gave the vote before 
 mentioned, I propose now to give concisely the process of the 
 examination 1 made, and how I reached the conclusion I 
 did. 
 
 The President, in his rirst message of May, 1846, declares 
 that the soil was ours, on which hostilities were commenced 
 by Mexico ; and he repeats that declaration, almost in the 
 same language, in each successive annual message thus show- 
 ing that he esteems that point a highly essential one. In the 
 importance of that point, I entirely agree with the President. 
 To my judgment, it is the very point upon which he should be 
 justified or condemned. In his message of December, 184G, 
 it seems to have occurred to him, as is certainly true, that 
 title, ownership to soil, or anything else, is not a simple fact, 
 but is a conclusion following one or more simple facts ; and 
 that it was incumbent upon him to present the facts from 
 which he concluded the soil was ours on which the first blood 
 of the war was shed. 
 
 Accordingly, a little below the middle of page twelve., in the
 
 328 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 rnopsagc last referred to, he enters upon that task, forming an 
 issue and introducing testimony, extending the whole to a lit- 
 tle below the middle of page fourteen. Now I propose to try 
 to show that the whole of this issue and evidence is from 
 beginning to end, the fheerest deception. The issue, as he 
 presents it, is in these words, " But there are those who, 
 conceding all this to be true, assume the ground that the true 
 western boundary of Texas is the Nueces, instead of the Uio 
 Grande ; and that, therefore, in marching our army to the 
 cast bank of the latter river, we passed the Texan line and 
 invaded the territory of Mexico." Now, this issue is made 
 up of two affirmatives, and no negative. The main deception 
 of it is, that it assumes as true that one river or the other is 
 necessarily the boundary, and cheats the superficial thinker 
 entirely out of the idea that possibly the boundary is some- 
 where between the two, and not actually at either. A further 
 deception is, that it will be in evidence, which a true issue 
 would exclude. A true issue made by the President would 
 be about as follows : " I say the soil was ours on which the 
 first blood was shed ; there are those who say it ivas not." 
 
 I now proceed to examine the President's evidence as appli- 
 cable to such an issue. When that evidence is analyzed, it is 
 all included in the following propositions: 
 
 1. That the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Lou- 
 isiana as we purchased it of France in 1803. 
 
 2. That the Republic of Texas always claimed the Rio 
 Grande as her western boundary. 
 
 3. That by various acts she had claimed it on paper. 
 
 4. That Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas recognized 
 the Rio Grande as her boundary. 
 
 5. That Texas before, and the United States after annex- 
 ation, had exercised jurisdiction beyond the Nueces, between the 
 two rivers. 
 
 6. That our Congress understood the boundary of Texas to 
 extend beyond the Nueces 
 
 Now for each of these in its turn : 
 
 His first item is, that the Rio Grande was the western 
 boundary of Louisiana as we purchased it from France in 
 1803 ; and seeming to expect this to be disputed, he argues 
 over the amount of nearly a page to prove it true ; at the end 
 of which he lets us know that, by the treaty of 1819, we sold
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 329 
 
 to Spain the whole country from the Rio Grande eastward to 
 the Sabirie. Now, admitting, for the present, that the Rio 
 Grande was the boundary of Louisiana, what, under heaven, 
 had that to do with the present boundary between us and 
 Mexico? How, Mr. Chairman, the line that once divided 
 your land from mine can still be the boundary between us after 
 I have sold the land to you, is to me, beyond all comprehen- 
 sion. And how any man, with an honest purpose only of 
 proving the truth, could even have thought of introducing such 
 a fact to prove sucli an issue, is equally incomprehensible. The 
 outrage upon common rights -of seizing as our own what we 
 have once sold, merely because it icas ours before we sold it, 
 is only equalled by the outrage on common sense of any at- 
 tempt to justify it. 
 
 The President's next piece of evidence is, that " the Re- 
 public of Texas always claimed this river [Rio Grande] as her 
 western boundary." That is not true in fact. Texas has 
 claimed it, but she has not always claimed it. There is, at 
 least, one distinguished exception. Her State constitution 
 the Republic's most solemn and well-considered act that 
 which may, without impropriety, be called her last will and 
 testament, revoking all others makes no such claim. But 
 suppose she had always claimed it ; has not Mexico always 
 claimed the contrary ? So that there is but claim against claim, 
 leaving nothing proved until we get back of the claims, and 
 find which has the better foundation. 
 
 Though not in the order in which the President presents 
 his evidence, I now consider that class of his statements, 
 which are in substance nothing more than Texas has, by va- 
 rious acts of her Convention and Congress, claimed the Rio 
 Grande as her boundary on paper. I mean here what he 
 says about the fixing of the Rio Grande as her boundary in 
 her old constitution (not her State constitution), about form- 
 ing congressional districts, counties, etc. Now, all of this is 
 but naked claim, and what I have already said about claims is 
 strictly applicable to this. If I should claim your land by 
 word of mouth, that certainly would not make it mine ; and 
 if I were to claim it by a deed which I had made myself, and 
 with which you had had nothing to do, the claim would 
 be quite the same in substance, or rather, in utter nothing- 
 ness.
 
 330 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 I next consider the President's statement, that Santa Anna, 
 in his treaty with Texas, recognized the Kio Grande as the 
 western boundary of Texas. Besides the position so often 
 taken, that Santa Anna, while a prisoner-of-war a captive 
 could not bind Mexico by a treaty, which I deem conclusive ; 
 besides this, 1 wish to say something in relation to this treaty, 
 K> called by the President, with Santa Anna. If any man 
 would like to be amused by a sight at that little thing, which 
 the President calls by that big name, we can have it by turn- 
 ing to files' Register, volume 50, page 336. And if any one 
 should suppose that Niles Register is a curious repository of so 
 mighty a document as a solemn treaty between nations, I can 
 only say that I learned to a tolerable degree of certainty, by 
 inquiry at the State Department, that the President himself 
 never saw it anywhere else. 
 
 By-the-way, I believe I should not err if I were to declare, 
 that during the first ten years of the existence of that docu- 
 ment, it was never by anybody called a treaty ; that it was 
 never so called till the President, in his extremity, attempted, 
 by so calling it, to wring something from it in justification of 
 himself in connection with the Mexican wars. 
 
 It has none of the distinguishing features of a treaty. It 
 does not call itself a treaty. Santa Anna doe? not therein 
 assume to bind Mexico ; he assumes only to* act as the Presi- 
 dent, commander-in-chief of the Mexican army and navy, and 
 stipulates that the then present hostilities should cease, and 
 that he would not himself, take up arms, nor influence the Mexi- 
 can people to take up arms, against Texas, during the existence 
 of the war of Independence. Pie did not recognize the inde- 
 pendence of Texas ; he did not assume to put an end to the 
 war, but clearly indicated his expectation of its continuance ; 
 he did not say one word about boundary, and most probably 
 never thought of it. It is stipulated therein that the Mexican 
 forces should evacuate the territory of Texas, passing to the 
 other side of the Rio Grande; and in another article it is stipu- 
 lated, that to prevent collision between the armies, the Texan 
 should not approach nearer than within five leagues of what 
 is not said but dearly, from the object stated, it is of the 
 Rio Grande. Now, if this is a treaty recognizing the l\io 
 Grande as the boundary of Texas, it contains a singular fea- 
 ture of stipulating that Texas shall not go within five leagues 
 of her own boundary.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 331 
 
 Next comes the evidence of Texas before annexation, and 
 the United States afterward, exercising jurisdiction beyond the 
 Nueces, and between the two rivers. This actual exercise of ju- 
 risdiction is the very class or quality of evidence we want. It 
 is excellent, so far as it goes ; but does it go far enough'? He 
 tells us it went beyond the Nueces, but he does not tell us it 
 went to the Rio Grande. He tells us jurisdiction was exer- 
 cised between the two rivers, but he does not tell us it was ex- 
 ercised over all the territory between them. Some simple- 
 minded people think it possible to cross one river and go beyond 
 it, without going all the way to the next ; that jurisdiction may 
 be exercised between two rivers without covering all the coun- 
 try between them. I know a man, not very unlike myself, 
 who exercises jurisdiction over a piece of land between the 
 Wabash and the Mississippi, and yet so far is this from being 
 all there is between those rivers, that it is just one hundred 
 and fifty-two feet long by fifty wide, and no part of it much 
 within a hundred miles of either. He has a neighbor between 
 him and the Mississippi that is, just across the street, in that 
 direction whom, I am sure, he could neither persuade nor 
 force to give up his habitation ; but which, nevertheless, he 
 could certainly annex, if it were to be done by merely stand- 
 ing on his own side of the street and claiming it. or even set- 
 ting down and writing a deed for it. 
 
 But next, the President tells us, the Congress of the United 
 States understood the State of Texas they admitted into the 
 Union, to extend beyond the Nueces. Well, I suppose they 
 did I certainly so understood it but how far beyond ? 
 That Congress did not understand it to extend clear to the Rio 
 Grande is quite certain by the fact of their joint resolutions 
 for admission, expressly leaving all questions of boundary to 
 future adjustment And, it may be added, that Texas herself 
 is proved to have had the same understanding of it that our 
 Congress had, by the fact of the exact conformity of her new 
 constitution to those resolutions. 
 
 I am now through the whole of the President's evidence; 
 and it is a singular fact, that if any one should declare the 
 President sent the army into a settlement of Mexican people, 
 who had never submitted, by consent or force, to the authority 
 of Texas or the United States, and that there, and thereby, the 
 first blood of the war was shed, there is not one word in all
 
 332 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the President has said which would cither admit or deny the 
 declaration. In this strjinge omission chiefly consists the de- 
 ception of the President's evidence; an omission which, it 
 does seem to me, could scarcely have occurred but by design. 
 Mv way of living leads me to be about the courts of justice; 
 and there I have sometimes seen a g.ood lawyer, struggling 
 for his client's neck, in a desperate case, employ every artifice 
 to work around, befog, and cover up with many words, some 
 position pressed upon him by the prosecution, which he dared 
 not admit, and yet could not deny. Party bias may help to 
 make it appear so ; but, with all the allowance I can make for 
 such a bias, it still does appear to me that just such, and from 
 just such necessity, is the President's struggles in this case. 
 Sometime after my colleague [Mr. .Richardson] introduced 
 the resolutions I have mentioned, I introduced a preamble, 
 resolution, and interrogatories, intended to draw the President 
 out, if possible, on this hitherto untrodden ground. To show 
 their relevancy, I propose to state rny understanding of the true 
 rule for ascertaining the boundary between Texas and Mexico. 
 It is, that wherever Texas was exercising jurisdiction was hers ; 
 and u-herecer Jlfexicowas exercising jurisdiction was hers ; and 
 that whatever separated the actual exercise of jurisdiction of 
 the one from that of the other, was the true boundary between 
 them. If, as is probably true, Texas was exercising jurisdic- 
 tion along the western bank of the Nueces, and Mexico was 
 exercising it along the eastern bank of the Kio Grande, then 
 neither river was the boundary, but the uninhabited country 
 between the two was. The extent of our territory in the re- 
 gion depended, not upon any treaty-fixed boundary (tor no treaty 
 had attended it), but on revolution. Any people, anywhere, 
 being inclined, and having the power, have the right to rise 
 up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one 
 that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred 
 right a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the 
 world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole 
 people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. 
 Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and 
 make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. 
 More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may 
 revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with or 
 near about them, who may oppose their movements. Such
 
 ABKAHAM LINCOLN. 333 
 
 minority was precisely the case of the Tories in our own Kev- 
 olution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines or 
 old laws ; but to break up both, and make new ones. As 
 to the country now in question, we bought it of France in 
 ISO-'J, and sold it to Spain in 1819, according to the Presi- 
 dent's statement. After this, all Mexico, including Texas, 
 revolutionized against Spain; and still later, Texas revolu- 
 tionized against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she car- 
 ried her revolution, by obtaining the actual, willing or unwil- 
 ling, submission of the people, so far the country was hers, 
 and no farther. 
 
 Now, sir, for the purpose of obtaining the very best evidence 
 as to whether Texas had actually carried her revolution to the 
 place where the hostilities of the present war commenced, let 
 the President answer the interrogatories I proposed, as before 
 mentioned, or some other similar ones. Let him answer fully, 
 fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts, and not 
 with argument. Let him remember he sits where Washing- 
 ton sat ; and, so remembering, let him answer as Washington. 
 As a nation should not, and the Almighty will not, be evaded, 
 so let him attempt no evasion, no equivocation. And if, so 
 answering, he can show that the soil was ours where the first 
 blood of the war was shed that it was not within an inhabit- 
 ed country, or, if within such, that the inhabitants had sub- 
 mitted themselves to the civil authority of Texas, or of the 
 United States, and that the same is true of the site of Fort 
 Brown then am I with him for his justification. In that 
 case I shall be most happy to reverse the vote I gave the other 
 day. I have a selii.sh motive for desiring that the President 
 may do this ; I expect to give some votes, in connection with' 
 the war, which, without his so doing, will be of doubtful pro- 
 priety, in my own judgment, which will be free from the doubt 
 if he does so. But if he cannot or will not do this if, on any 
 pretence, or no pretence, he shall refuse or omit it then I 
 should be fully convinced of what I more than suspect already, 
 that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong ; that he feels 
 the blood of this war, like the blo-od of Abel, is crying to 
 Heaven against him ; that he ordered Gen. Taylor into the 
 midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, purposely to bring on a 
 war ; that originally having some strong motive what, I will 
 not stop now to give my opinion concerning to involve the
 
 334 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing 
 the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory, 
 this attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood that 
 serpent's eye" that charms to destroy he plunged into it, and 
 has swept on and em, till, disappointed in his calculation of 
 the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds 
 himself, he knows not where. How like the half insane 
 mumbling of a fever dream, is the whole war part of the 
 late message! At one time telling us that Mexico has 
 nothing whatever that we can get but territory : at another, 
 showing us how we can support the war by levying contribu- 
 tions on Mexico. At ono time urging the national honor, 
 the security of the future, the prevention of foreign interference, 
 and even the good of Mexico herself, as among the objects of 
 the two ; at another, telling us that, " To reject indemnity by 
 refusing to accept a cession of territory, would be to abandon 
 all our just demands and to wage the war, bearing all its ex- 
 penses, without a. purpose or definite object." 
 
 So, then, the national honor, security of the future, and 
 everything but territorial indemnity, may be considered the no 
 purposes and indefinite objects of the war, but, having it now 
 settled that territorial indemnity is the only object, we are 
 urged to seize by legislation here, all that he was content to 
 take a few months ago, and the whole province of Lower Cali- 
 fornia to boot, and to still carry on the war to take all we 
 are fighting for, and still fight on. Again, the President is re- 
 solved, under all circumstances, to have full territorial indemni- 
 ty for the expenses of the war, but he forgets to tell us how 
 we are to get the excess, after those expenses shall have sur- 
 passed the value of the whole of the Mexican territory. So, 
 again, he insists that the separate national existence of Mexico 
 shall be maintained ; but he does not tell us how this can be 
 done after we shall have taken all her territory. Lest the 
 questions I here suggest, be considered speculative merely, let 
 me be indulged a moment in trying to show they are not. 
 
 The Avar has gone on some twenty months ; for the ex- 
 penses of which, together with an inconsiderable old score, 
 the President now claims about one half of the Mexican ter- 
 ritory, and that by far the better half, go far as concerns our 
 ability to make anything out of it. It is comparatively unin- 
 habited ; so that we could establish land offices in it, ard raise
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 335 
 
 pome money in that way. But the other half is already in- 
 habited, as I understand it, tolerably densely for the nature of 
 the country ; and all its lands, or all that are valuable, already 
 appropriated as private property. How, then, are we to make 
 anything out of these lands with this incumbrance on them, or 
 how remove the incumbrance? I suppose no one will say 
 we should kill the people, or drive them out, or make slaves 
 of them, or even confiscate their property 1 How, then, can 
 we make much out of this part of the territory ? If the prose- 
 cution of the war has, in expenses, already equalled the letter 
 half of the country, how long its future prosecution will be in 
 equalling the less valuable half is not a speculative, but a practi- 
 cal question, pressing closely upon us ; and yet it is a question 
 which the President seems never to have thought of. 
 
 As to the mode of terminating the war and securing peace, 
 the President is equally wandering and indefinite. First, it is 
 to be done by a more vigorous prosecution of the war in the 
 vital parts of the enemy's country ; and, after apparently talk- 
 ing himself tired on this point, the President drops down into 
 a half despairing tone, and tells us, that " with a people dis- 
 tracted and divided by contending factions, and a government 
 subject to constant changes, by successive revolutions, the con- 
 tinued success of our arms may fail to obtain a satisfactory peace." 
 Then he suggests the propriety of wheedling the Mexican peo- 
 ple to desert the counsels of their own leaders, and, trusting 
 in our protection, to set up a government from which we can 
 secure a satisfactory peace, telling us that * l this may become the 
 only mode of obtaining such a peace." But soon he falls into 
 doubt of this too, and then drops back on the already half- 
 abandoned ground of "more vigorous prosecution." All this 
 shows that the President is in no wise satisfied with lib own 
 positions. First, he takes up one, and, in attempting to ai'gue 
 us with it, he argues himself out of it ; then seizes another and 
 goes through the sume process ; and then, confused at being 
 able to think of nothing new, he snatches up the old one 
 again, which he has some time before cast otf. His mind, 
 tasked beyond his power, is running hither and thither like 
 some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no posi- 
 tion on which it can settle down and be at ease. 
 
 Again, it is a singular omission in this message, that it no- 
 where intimates when the President expects the war to terrni
 
 336 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 nate. At its beginning, General Scott was, by this same Pres- 
 ident, driven into disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that 
 peace could not be conquered in less than three or four months. 
 Hut now, at the end of twenty months, during which time 
 our arms have given us the most splendid successes every de- 
 partment, and every part, land and water, officers and pri- 
 vates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, 
 mid hundreds of things which it had ever before been thought 
 that man could not do ; after all this, this same President 
 gives us a long message without showing us that, as to the end, 
 he has himself even an imaginary conception. As 1 have be- 
 foio said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, 
 confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he 
 may be able to show there is not something about his con- 
 science more painful than all his mental perplexity ! 
 
 INTEBNAL IMPBO VEMENT S. 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 June 2Qth, 1848. 
 
 IN Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on 
 the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill, 
 Mr. LINCOLN said : 
 
 MR. CHAIRMAN : I wish at all times and in no way to prac- 
 tise any fraud upon the House or the Committee, and I also 
 desire to do nothing which may be very disagreeable to any 
 of the members. I therefore state, in advance, that my object 
 in taking the floor is to make a speech on the general subject 
 of internal improvements, and if I am out of order in doing 
 so, I give the Chair an opportunity of so deciding, and I will 
 take my seat. 
 
 THE CHAIR: Twill not undertake to anticipate what the 
 gentleman may say on the subject of internal improvements. 
 He. will, therefore, proceed in his remarks, and if any question 
 of order shall be made, the Chair will Jhcn decide it
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 337 
 
 Mr. LINCOLN : At an early day of this session the President 
 sent us what may be properly called an internal-improvement 
 veto message. The late Democratic Convention which sat at 
 Baltimore, and which nominated Gen. Cass for the Presiden- 
 cy, adopted a set of resolutions, now called the Democratic 
 platform, among which is one in these words : 
 
 " That the Constitution does not confer upon the general 
 government the power to commence and carry on a' general 
 system of internal improvements." 
 
 General Cass, in his letter accepting the nomination, adds 
 this language : 
 
 " I have carefully read the resolutions of the Democratic 
 National Convention, laying down the platform of our political 
 faith, and I adhere to them as firmly as I approve them cor- 
 dially." 
 
 These things, taken together, show that the question of in- 
 ternal improvements is now more distinctly made has become 
 more intense, than at any former period. It can no longer bo 
 avoided. "The veto message and the Baltimore resolutions I 
 understand to be, in substance, the same thing ; the latter 
 being the mere general statement, of which the former is the 
 amplification the bill of particulars. While I know there 
 are many Democrats, on this floor and elsewhere, who disap- 
 prove that message, I understand that all who shall vote for 
 Gen. Cass will thereafter be counted as having approved it, as 
 having endorsed all its doctrines. I suppose all, or nearly all, 
 the Democrats will vote for him. Many of them will do so, 
 not because they like his position on this question, but because 
 they prefer him, being wrong in this, to another whom they 
 consider further wrong on other questions. In this way the 
 internal improvement Democrats are to be, by a sort of forced 
 consent carried over, and arrayed against themselves on this 
 measure of policy. General Cass, once elected, will not 
 trouble himself to make a constitutional argument, or, per- 
 haps, any argument at all, when he shall veto a river or har- 
 bor bill. He will consider it a sufficient answer to all Demo- 
 cratic murmurs, to point to Mr. Folk's message and the 
 " Democratic platform." This being the case, the question 
 of improvements is very near a final crisis ; and the friends of 
 the policy must now battle, and battle manfully, or surrender 
 all. In this view, humble as I am, I wish to review, and con- 
 15
 
 338 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 test, as well I may, the general positions of this veto message. 
 W hen I say general positions, I mean to exclude from conside- 
 ration so much as relate to the present embarrassed state of the 
 treasury, in consequence of the Mexican war. 
 
 Those general positions are : That internal improvements 
 ought not to be made by the general government. 
 
 1. Because they would overwhelm the treasury. 
 
 2. Because while their burdens would be general, their bene- 
 fit? would be local and partial, involving an obnoxious ine- 
 quality ; and 
 
 3. Because they would be unconstitutional. 
 
 4. Because the States may do enough by the levy and col- 
 lection of tonnage duties ; or, if not, 
 
 5. That the Constitution may be amended. 
 
 " Do nothing at all, lest you do something wrong," is the 
 sum of these positions is the sum of this message and this, 
 with the exception of what is said about constitutionality, ap- 
 plying as forcibly to making improvements by State authority, 
 as by the national authority. So that we must abandon the 
 improvements of the country altogether, by any and every 
 authority, or we must resist and repudiate the doctrines of the 
 message. Let us attempt the latter. 
 
 The first position is, that a system of internal improvement 
 would overwhelm the treasury. 
 
 That in such a system there is a tendency to undue expan- 
 sion, is not to be denied. Such tendency is found in the na- 
 ture of the subject. A member of Congress will prefer voting 
 for a bill which contains an appropriation for his district, to 
 voting for one which does not ; and when a bill shall be ex- 
 panded till every district is provided for, that it will be too 
 greatly expanded is obvious. But is thi? any more true in 
 Congress than in a State legislature 1 If a member of Con- 
 gress must have an appropriation for his district, so a member 
 of a legislature must have one for his county ; and if one will 
 overwhelm the national treasury, so the others will overwhelm 
 the State treasury. Go where we will, the difficulty is the 
 same. Allow it to drive us from the halls of Congress, and it 
 will just as easily drive us from the State legislatures. Let us, 
 then, grapple with it, and test its strength. Let us, judging 
 the future by the past, ascertain whether there may not be, in 
 the discretion of Congress, a sufficient power to limit and re-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 339 
 
 strain this expansive tendency within reasonable and proper 
 bounds. The President himself values the evidence of the 
 past. He tells us, that at a certain point of our history, more 
 than two hundred millions of dollai*s had been applied for, to 
 make improvements ; and this he does to prove that the treas- 
 ury would be overwhelmed by such a system. Why did he 
 not tell us how much was granted f Would not that have been 
 better evidence ? Let us turn to it, and see what it proves. 
 In the Message the President tells us, that " during the four 
 succeeding years, embraced by the administration of President 
 Adams, the power not only to appropriate money, but to ap- 
 ply it, under the direction and authority of the general govern- 
 ment, as well to the construction of roads as to the improve- 
 ment Of rivers and harbors, was fully asserted and exercised." 
 This, then, was the period of greatest enormity. These, if 
 any, must be the days of the two hundred millions. And how 
 much do you suppose was really expended for improvements 
 during that four years? Two hundred millions? One hun- 
 dred ? Fifty ? Ten ? Five 1 No, sir ; less than two mil- 
 lions. As shown by authentic documents, the expenditures 
 on improvements during 1825, 1826, 1827, and 1828, 
 amounted to $1,879,000 01. These four years were the period 
 of Mr. Adams's administration, nearly and substantially. This 
 fact shows, that when the power to make improvements was 
 " fully maintained and exercised," the Congresses did keep 
 within reasonable limits ; and what has been done, it seems 
 to me, can be done again. 
 
 Now for the second position of the Message, namely, that 
 the burdens of the improvements would be general, while their 
 benefits would be local and partial, involving an obnoxious ine- 
 quality. That there is some degree of truth in this position I 
 will not deny. No commercial object of government patron- 
 age can be so exclusively general as not to be of some peculiar 
 local advantage ; but, on the other hand, nothing is so local as not 
 to be of some general advantage. The navy, as I understand it, 
 was established, and is maintained at a great annual expense, 
 partly to be ready for war, when war shall come, but partly, 
 also, and perhaps chiefly, for the protection of our commerce 
 on the high seas. The latter object is, as far as I can see, in 
 principle, the same as internal improvements. The driving of 
 a pirate from the track of commerce, on the broad ocean, and
 
 340 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 the removing of a snag from its more narrow path in the Mis- 
 sissippi river, cannot, I think, be distinguished in principle. 
 Each is done to save life and properly, and for nothing else. 
 The navy, then, is the most general in its benefits of all this 
 class of objects ; and yet the navy is of some peculiar advan- 
 tage to Charleston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New- York, and 
 Boston, beyond what it is to the interior towns of Illinois. 
 The next most general object I can think of, would be the im- 
 provement of the Mississippi river and its tributaries. They 
 touch thirteen of our States Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ken- 
 tucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, 
 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio. Wisconsin, and Iowa. Now, I sup- 
 pose it will rot be denied, that these thirteen States areji little 
 more interested in improvements on that great river than the 
 remaining seventeen. These instances of the navy and the 
 Mississippi river, show clearly that there is something of local 
 advantage in the most general objects. But the converse is 
 true. Nothing is so lo^al as not be of some general benefit. 
 Take, for instance, the Illinois and Michigan canal consider- 
 ed apart from its effects, it is perfectly local ; every inch of it 
 is within the State of Illinois. That canal was first opened 
 for business last April. In a very few days we were all grat- 
 ified to learn, among other things, that sugar had been carried 
 through the canal from New-Orleans to Buffalo, in New- York. 
 This sugar took this route, doubtless, because it was cheaper 
 than the old route. Supposing the benefit in the reduction of 
 the cost of carriage to be sl>ared between the buyer and seller, 
 the result is, that the New-Orleans merchant sold his sugar a 
 little dearer, and the people of Buffalo sweetened their coffee 
 a little cheaper than before a benefit resulting from the canal, 
 not to Illinois where the canal is, but to Louisiana and New- 
 York, where it is not. In other transactions Illinois will, of 
 course, have her share, and perhaps the larger suare too, in 
 the benefits of the canal ; but the instance of the sugar clearly 
 shows, that the benefits of an improvement are, by no means, 
 confined to the locality of the improvement itself. 
 
 The just conclusion from all this is, that if the nation re- 
 fuse to make improvements of the more general kind, because 
 their benefits may be somewhat local, a State may, for the 
 same reason, refuse to make an improvement of a local kind, 
 because its benefits may be somewhat general. A State may
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 341 
 
 well say to the nation, " If you will do nothing for me, I will 
 do nothing for you." Thus it is seen, that if this argument 
 of " inequality" is sufficient anywhere, it is sufficient every- 
 where, and puts an end to improvement altogether. I hope 
 and believe, that if the nation and the States would, in good 
 faitli. in their respective spheres, do what they could in the 
 way of improvements, what of inequality might 03 produced 
 in one place might be compensated in another, and that the 
 sum of the whole would not be very unequal. But suppose, 
 after all, there should be some degree of inequality : inequal- 
 ity is certainly never to be embraced for its own sake ,- but is 
 every good thing to be discarded which may be inseparably 
 connected with some degree of it ? If so, we m ust discard 
 all government. This capitol is built at the public expense, 
 for thepuh-lic benefit ; but does any one doubt that it is of 
 some peculiar local advantage to the property-holders and 
 business people of Washington * Shall we remove it for this 
 reason? And if so, where shall we set it down, and be free, 
 from the difficulty 1 To make sure of our object shall we 
 locate it nowhere, and have Congress hold- its sessions, as 
 the loafer lodges, "'in spots about *" I make no special allu- 
 sion to the present President when I say there are few stronger 
 cases of " burden to the many, and benefit to the few" of 
 " inequality" than the Presidency itself is by some thought to 
 be. An honest laborer digs coal at about seventy cents a 
 day, while the President digs abstractions at about seventy 
 dollars a day. The coal is clearly worth more than the ab- 
 stractions, and yet what a monstrous unequality in the prices ! 
 Does the President, for this reason, wish to abolish the Presi- 
 dency ? He does not, and he ought not. The true rule in de- 
 termining to embrace or reject anything, is not whether it 
 have any evil in it, but whether it have more of evil than of 
 good. There nre few things wholly evil or wholly good. Al- 
 most everything, especially in governmental policy, is an in- 
 separable compound of the two, so that our best judgment of 
 the preponderance between them is continually demauded. On 
 this principle, the President, his friends, and the world gener- 
 ally, act on most subjects. Why not apply it, then, upon this 
 question ? Why, as to improvements, magnify the evil, and 
 stoutly refuse to see any good in them I 
 
 Mr. Chairman, on the third position of the message (the
 
 342 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 constitutional question) I have not much to say. Being the 
 man I am, and speaking when I do, I feel that any attempt at 
 an original constitutional argument, I should not be, and 
 ou^ht not to be listened to patiently. The ablest and best ot 
 me & n have gone over the whole ground long ago. I shall at- 
 tempt but little more than a brief notice of what some of 
 them have said. In reference to Mr. Jefferson's views, I read 
 from Mr. Folk's veto message : . 
 
 " President Jefferson, in his message to Congress in 18W, 
 recommended an amendment of the Constitution, with a view 
 to apply an anticipated surplus in the treasury ' to the great 
 purposes of public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such 
 other objects of public improvements as it may be thought 
 proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of the fed- 
 eral powers.' * And he adds, " I suppose an amendment to 
 the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because 
 the objects now recommended are not among those .enumer- 
 ated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the publi 
 monies to be applied." In 1825, he repeated, in his published 
 letters, the opinion that no such power has been conferred on 
 Congress. I introduce this, not to controvert, just now, the 
 constitutional opinion, but to show that on the question ol 
 expediency, Mr. Jefferson's opinion was against the present 
 President that this opinion of Mr. Jefferson, in one branch, 
 at least, is, in the hands of Mr. Polk, like Fingal's gun 
 
 " Beats wide, and kicks the owner over." 
 
 But, to the constitutional question : 
 
 In 1826, Chancellor Kent first published his commentaries 
 on American law. He devoted a portion of one of the 
 lectures to the question of the authority of Congress to appro- 
 priate public moneys for internal improvements. He mention- 
 ed that the question had never been brought under judicial 
 consideration, and proceeds to give a brief summary of the 
 discussions it had undergone between the legislative and exec- 
 utive branches of the government. 
 
 He shows that the legislative branch had usually been lor, 
 and executive against the power, till the period ot Mr. J (J. 
 Adams' administration; at which point he considers the exec- 
 utive influence as withdrawn from opposition and added to t 
 support of the power.
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 343 
 
 In 1844 the Chancellor published a new edition of his com- 
 mentaries, in which he adds some notes of what had tran- 
 spired on the question since 1826. I have not time to read 
 the original text or the notes, but the whole may be found on 
 page 207 and the two or three following pages of the first vol- 
 ume of the edition of '44. As to what Chancellor Kent seems 
 to consider the sum of the whole, I read from one of the notes : 
 " Mr. Justice Story, in his commentaries on the Constitution 
 of the United States, vol. ii., page 429-440, and again, page 
 519-538, has stated at large the arguments for and against the 
 proposition that Congress have a constitutional power to lay 
 taxes, and to apply the power to regulate commerce, as a 
 means to encourage and protect domestic manufactures ; and, 
 without giving any opinion of his own on the contested doc- 
 trine, he lias left the reader to draw his own conclusions. I 
 should think, however, from the arguments as stated, that 
 every mind which has taken no part in the discusions, and felt 
 no prejudice or territorial bias on either side of the question, 
 would deem the argument in favor of Congressional power 
 vastly superior." 
 
 It will be seen, that in this extract the power to make im- 
 provements is not directly .mentioned, but by examining the 
 context, both of Kent and of Story, it will appear that the 
 power mentioned in the extract, and the power to make im- 
 provements, are regarded as identical. It is not to be denied 
 that many great and good men have been against the power ; 
 but it is insisted that quite as many, as great and as good, 
 have been jor it ; and it is shown that, on full survey of the 
 whole, Chancellor Kent was of opinion that the arguments of 
 the latter were vastly superior. This is but the opinion of a 
 man, but who was that man? He was one of the ablest and 
 most learned lawyers of his age, or of any age. It is no dis- 
 paragement to Mr. Polk, nor, indeed, to any one who devotes 
 much time to politics, to be placed far behind Chancellor Kent 
 as a lawyer. His attitude was most favorable to correct 
 conclusions. He wrote coolly and in retirement. He was 
 struggling to rear a durable monument of fame, and he well 
 knew that tntth and thoroughly sound reasoning were the only 
 sure foundations. Can the party opinion of a party President 
 on a law question, as this purely is, be at all compared or 
 set in opposition to that of such a man, in such an attitude, as 
 Chancellor Kent?
 
 344 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 This constitutional question will probably never be better 
 settled than it is, until it shall pass under judicial consideration ; 
 but I do think no mafl who is clear on this question of ex- 
 pediency need feel his conscience much pricked on this. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the President seems to think that enough 
 may be done in the way of improvements by means of ton- 
 nage dues, under State authority, with the consent of the gen- 
 eral government. Now, I suppose this matter of tonnage 
 duties is well enough in its own sphere. I suppose it may be 
 efficient, and perhaps sufficient, to make slight improvements 
 and repairs in harbors already in use, and not much out of re- 
 pairs. But if I have any correct general idea of it, it must be 
 wholly inefficient for any generally beneficent purposes of im- 
 provement. I know very little, or rather nothing at all, of 
 of the practical matters of levying and collecting tonnage 
 duties, but I suppose that one of its principles must be, to lay 
 a duty for the improvement of any particular harbor, upon the 
 tonnage coming into that harbor. To do otherwise to collec^ 
 money at one harbor to be expended on improvements on 
 another would be an extremely aggravated form of that 
 inequality which the President so much deprecates. If I be 
 right in this, how could we make any entirely new improve- 
 ments by means of tonnage duties'? How make a road, a 
 canal, or clear a greatly obstructed river ? The idea that we 
 could, involves the same absurdity of the Irish bull about the 
 new boots: " I shall never git 'em on," says Patrick, " till I 
 wears 'em a day or two, and stretch 'em a little." We shall 
 never make a canal by tonnage duties until it shall already 
 have been made awhile, so the tonnage can get into it. 
 
 After all, the President concludes that possibly there may 
 be some great objects of improvement which cannot be effected 
 by tonnage duties, and which, therefore, may be expedient for 
 the general government to take in hand. Accordingly, he 
 suggests, in case any such should be discovered, the propriety 
 of amending the Constitution. Amend it for what? If, like 
 Mr. Jefferson, the President thought improvements expedient, 
 but not constituttional, it would be natural enough for him 
 to recommend such an amendment ; but hear what he says 
 int his very message : 
 
 " In view of these portentous consequences, I cannot but 
 think that this course of legislation should be arrested, even if
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 345 
 
 there were nothing to forbid it in the fundamental laws of our 
 Union." 
 
 For what, then, would Tie have the Constitution amend- 
 ed? With him it is a proposition to remove one impediment, 
 merely to be mot by ft hers, which, in his opinion, cannot be 
 removed to enable Congress to do what, in his opinion, they 
 ouglit not to do if they could. 
 
 [Here Mr. Meade. of Virginia, inquired if Mr. Lincoln 
 underwood the President to be opposed, on grounds of ex- 
 pediency, to any and every improvement.] 
 
 To which Mr. Lincoln answered : In the very part of his 
 message of which I am now speaking, I understand him as 
 giving some vague expressions in favor of some possible ob- 
 jects of improvements ; but, in doing so, I understand to be 
 directly in the teeth of his own argument in the other parts 
 of it. Neither the President, nor any one, can possibly 
 specify an improvement, which shall not be liable to one or 
 the other objections he has urged on the score of expediency. 
 I have shown, and might show again, that no work no ob- 
 ject can be so general as to dispense its benefits with precise 
 equality ; and this inequality is among the '' portentous con- 
 sequences" for which he declare the improvements should be 
 arrested. No, sir ; when the President intimates that some- 
 tiling in the way of improvements may properly be done by 
 the geiu-ral government, he is shrinking from the conclusions 
 to which his own argument would force him. He feels not 
 that the improvements of this broad and goodly land are a 
 mighty interest, and he is unwilling to confess to the people, 
 and perhaps to hi.nself, that he has built an argument which, 
 when pressed to its conclusion, utterly annihilate this interest. 
 
 I have already said that no one who is satisfied of the ex- 
 pediency of making improvement? 1 , need be much uneasy in 
 his conscience about its unconstitutionally. I wish now to 
 submit a few remarks on the general proposition of amending 
 the Constitution. As a general rule, I think we would do 
 much better to let it alone. No slight occasion should tempt 
 us to touch_it. Better not take the first step, which may lead 
 to a habit of altering it. Better, rather, to habituate our- 
 selves to think it unalterable. It can scarcely be made better 
 than it is. New provisions would introduce new difficulties, 
 and thus create and increase still further appetite for change. 
 
 15*
 
 346 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 No, sir ; let it stand as it is. New hands have never touched 
 it. The men who made it have done their work, and have 
 passed away. Who shall improve on what they did ? 
 
 Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of reviewing this message in 
 the least possible time, as well as for the sake of distinctness, 
 I have analyzed its arguments as well as I could, and reduced 
 the m to the propositions I have stated. I have now examined 
 thi'm in detail. I \\ish to detain the committee only a little 
 while longer, with some general remarks on the subject of im- 
 provement. That the subject is a difficult one, cannot be 
 denied. Still, it is no more difficult in Congress than it is in the 
 State legislatures, in the counties, or in the smallest municipal 
 districts which anywhere exist. All can recur to instances 
 of this difficulty in the case of country roads, bridges, and the 
 like. One man is offended because the road passes over his 
 land ; another is offended because it does not pass over his ; 
 one is dissatisfied because the bridge, for which he is taxed, 
 crosses the river on a different road from that which leads 
 from his house to town ; another cannot bear that the county 
 should get in debt for these same roads and bridges ; while not 
 a few struggle hard to have roads located over their lands, 
 and then stoutly refuse to let them be opened, until they are 
 first paid the damages. Even between the different wards 
 and streets of towns and cities, we finJ the same wrangling 
 and difficulty. Now these are no other than the very diffi- 
 culties against which, and out of which, the President con- 
 structs his objections of "inequality," "speculation" and 
 " crushing the treasury." There is but a single alternative 
 about them they are sufficient, or they are not. It" sufficient, 
 they are sufficient out of Congress as well as in it, and there 
 is an end. We must reject them as insufficient, or lie down 
 and do nothing by any authority. Then, difficulty though 
 there be, let us meet arid overcome it. 
 
 " Attempt the end, and never come to doubt ; 
 Nothing eo hard, but search will tind it out." 
 
 Determine that the thing can and shall be done, and then we 
 shall find the way. The tendency to undue expansion is unques- 
 tionably the chief difficulty. How to do something, and still not 
 .do too much, is the desideratum. Let each contribute his mite in 
 the way of suggestion. The late Silas Wright, in a letter to the 
 Chicago Convention, contributed his, which was worth gome-
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 347 
 
 thing; and I now contribute mine, which may be worth noth- 
 ing. At all events it will mislead nobody, and therefore will do 
 no harm. I would not borrow money. I am against an over- 
 whelming, crushing system. Suppose that at each session Con- 
 gress shall first determine hoio much money can, for that year, be 
 spared for improvements ; then apportion that sum to the most 
 important objects. So far all is easy ; but how shall we deter- 
 mine which are the most important ? On this question comes 
 the collision of interests. I shall be slow to acknowledge that 
 your harbor, or your river, is more important than mine, and 
 vice versa. To clear this difficulty, let us have that same sta- 
 tistical information which the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Vin- 
 ton) suggested at the beginning of this session. In that infor- 
 mation we shall have a stern, unbending basis of facts a basis 
 in no wise subject to whim, caprice, or local interest. The 
 pre-limited amount of means will save us from doing too much, 
 and the statistics will save us from doing what we do in wrong 
 places. Adopt and adhere to this course, and, it seems to me, 
 the difficulty is cleared. 
 
 One of the gentlemen from South Carolina (Mr. Rhett) very 
 much deprecates these statistics. He particularly objects, a!s 
 I understand him, to counting all the pigs and chickens in the 
 land. I do not perceive much force in the objection. It is 
 true, that if everything be enumerated, a portion of such sta- 
 tistics may not be very useful to this object. Such products 
 of this country as are to be consumed where they we produced, 
 need no roads and rivers, no means of transportation, and 
 have no very proper connection with this subject. The sur- 
 plus, that which is produce^ in one place to be consumed in an- 
 otlier ; the capacity of each locality to produce a greater sur- 
 plus ; the natural means of transprrtation, and tht-ir suscepti- 
 bility of improvement ; the hindrances, delays, and losses of 
 life and property during transportation, and the causes of each, 
 would be among the most valuable statistics in this connection. 
 From these it would readily apper where a given amount of 
 expenditure would do the most good. These statistics might 
 be equally accessible, as they would be equally useful, to both 
 the nation and the States. In this way, and by these means, 
 let the nation take hold of the larger works, and the States 
 the smaller ones, and thus*, working in a meeting direction, dis- 
 creetly, but steadily and firmly, what is made unequal wi one
 
 348 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ABEAHAM LINCOLN. 
 
 place may be equalized in another, extravagance avoided, and 
 the whole country put on that career of prosperity which 
 shall correspond with its extent of territory, its natural re- 
 sources, and the intelligence and enterprise of its people.
 
 SKETCH 
 
 LIFE OF HANNIBAL HAMLIN, 
 
 REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR VICE-PRESIDENT. 
 
 MR. HAMLIN was born in Paris, county of Oxford, State 
 of Maine, August 27, 1809. His father, Dr. Cyrus Hamlin, 
 was a surgeon and physician, and a native of Massachusetts. 
 He was clerk of the courts for several years, and subsequently 
 sheriff of Oxford county. He was one of the leading influ- 
 ential citizens of his town and county, and died in 1828, aged 
 about fifty-eight years. 
 
 Mr. Hamlin's mother was a daughter of Dea. Elijah Liv- 
 erraore, of the town of Livermore, Oxford county, Maine. 
 She was a very estimable lady, and died in 1851, aged about 
 seventy. Mr. Haman wa fitted for college, but his father 
 dying, he abandoned the idea of a college course, and for a 
 while labored at home upon the old homestead farm. Before 
 commencing the study of law, he worked in a printing office 
 in his native town, and for more than a year conducted the 
 Jeffersonian, since merged in the Oxford Democrat, in connec- 
 tion with the Hon. Horatio King. Subsequently, he studied 
 law with the late Judge Cole, and after completing his course 
 of study, he was admitted to the bar, and removed to Hamp- 
 den, Maine, where he enjoyed an extensive practice until he 
 voluntarily retired from it. His first entrance into public 
 life was in 183G, when he was elected a representative from 
 the town of Hampdea to the Maine legislature. He ira* re-
 
 350 SKETCH OF HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 
 
 elected in 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840, and again in 1847 He 
 was speaker of the house of representatives in 1837, 1839, 
 and 1840. In 1840 he was a candidate for Congress, but 
 owing to the great popularity of General Harrison, and the 
 remarkable success of the Whig party in that campaign, he 
 was defeated by a few hundred votes. Jn 1842 he again run 
 for Congress, and was elected by a large majority, and in 1844 
 he was also elected to the same body, by an increased vote. 
 By the death of the lamented Governor Fairfield, a vacancy 
 was created in the United States Senate, and on the 26th of 
 May, 1848, Mr. Hamlin was elected for four years to fill that 
 vacancy. 
 
 In July, 1851, he was re-elected to the Senate for six years. 
 In 1856, he was elected Governor of Maine, and resigned his 
 seat in the Senate to assume the duties of the office, January 
 7, 1857. On the 16th day of the same month, he was elected 
 by both branches of the legislature to the United States Sen- 
 ate for six years, and resigned the office of Governor, Febru- 
 ary 20, 1857. Until he resigned the position, he was for a 
 long time chairman of the committee on commerce in the 
 Senate. 
 
 The above brief sketch of the early life and public services 
 of Mr. Hamlin, while it may be a matter of interest to the 
 American people, is far from being all they inquire after con- 
 nected with his personal history. Placed as he now is before 
 the people of this great country, as a candidate for the second 
 office in their gift, it is perfectly natural they should desire to 
 know something of his political history and public record. 
 
 Mr. Hamlin's antecedents are democratic. On arriving at 
 his majority, he connected himself with the old Democratic 
 party, and acted with . that political organization until 1856, 
 when, in a brief and eloquent speech in the Senate, he pub- 
 licly withdrew from it, and allied himself to the Republican 
 party. Upon looking over Mr. Hamlin'a public record in
 
 SKETCH OF HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 351 
 
 Congress upon the slavery question, we find nothing inconsis- 
 tent with his present position upon that subject. When he 
 first entered Congress, he manfully battled for the right of 
 petition against the gag rules introduced into that body. He 
 not only voted to receive the petitions of the people, but upon 
 more than one occasion spoke eloquently in favor of this great 
 constitutional right. 
 
 In 1845, while he voted against the joint resolution for the 
 annexation of Texas, yet he was not opposed to the measure 
 provjded it could be brought about by negotiation and treaty, 
 and provided further that at least an equal portion of said 
 domain should be kept free territory, for the benefit of the 
 great laboring interests of the free States. Had his counsels, 
 and the counsels of Colonel Beuton, Silas Wright, and other 
 great lights in the party, been adhered to, the Mexican war 
 and all its evil consequences would have been avoided. 
 
 When the " Two-Million Bill " was before the House in 
 1846-7, proposing to put into the hands of the President a 
 certain amount of money with which to negotiate a treaty of 
 peace with Mexico, Mr. Hamlin stood up side by side with 
 David Wilmot, Preston King, and other influential democrats, 
 in defence of the celebrated "Proviso," known as the "Wil- 
 mot Proviso," prepared by Judge Wilmot, yet actuallg offered 
 by Mr. Hamlin, in the absence of the author. For this pro- 
 viso he uniformly voted and labored until it passed the House. 
 
 In the house of representatives, in Maine, at the session in 
 1847 to which he was elected immediately after his return 
 from Congress he introduced resolutions embodying the same 
 sentiments, advocated them in a masterly speech, and mainly 
 through his influence they passed the house with only six 
 nays, and the senate with only one dissenting vote. 
 
 Following up his record upon this question, we find him 
 voting in the United States Senate in 1848, in favor of the 
 Jefferson Proviso for the restriction of elaveery in the bill for
 
 352 SKETCH OF HANNIBAL HAM LIN. 
 
 the organization of a territorial government for Oregon. Still 
 later, in 18.50, he voted to insert a similar restriction in the 
 bills giving territorial governments to Utah and New-Mexico. 
 The proviso being defeated, he voted against the bills in strict 
 accordance with the instructions of a democratic legislature in 
 Maine. 
 
 In the same year, 1850, Mr. Hamlin made the first speech 
 in the United States Senate in favor of the unconditional ad- 
 mission of California as a free State, and his speech was then 
 considered one of the most able delivered upon that subject. 
 
 He also voted against the bill giving ten millions of dollars 
 to Texas, for the relinquishment of lands to which she never 
 had the slightest title. In 1854, following his own convic- 
 tions of duty, he labored and voted against the repeal of the 
 Missouri compromise, in strict conformity with the resolutions 
 of the then democratic legislature of Maine, and then in the 
 last Congress did all in his power to defeat the perfidious Le- 
 compton Constitution. 
 
 "\\ r e have thus given Mr. Hamlin's record upon some of the 
 great leading questions connected with the subject of shivery 
 during the last fourteen years, showing that upon no occasion 
 has he ever acted or voted in any way not perfectly consistent 
 with this record. Upon other matters, during his long Con- 
 gre.--sional career, his votes have been uniformly consisient and 
 in perfect harmony with the character of the man. Upon all 
 matters of financial policy, while he never has been disposed 
 to withhold justice from honest claimants, he has sternly re- 
 sisted dishonest, fraudulent claims, got up with an intention 
 to rob the treasury. In justice to Mr. Hamlin, we should 
 here say that no man in Congress for the last twenty years 
 has been more faithful, or has labored more untiringly to aid 
 poor but honest claimants upon the bounty of the govern- 
 ment than he. There is scarcely a town in the State of 
 Maine, where you will not find men who have been made in-
 
 SKETCH OF HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 353 
 
 valids in their country's service, widows and orphans, who 
 are now living upon the little bounty obtained for their relief 
 through his prompt and effective influences and labors. No 
 honest complainant, however poor or humble, was ever coldly 
 turned away from the presence of Senator Hamlin. Schemes 
 of public plunder which frequently find their way into Con- 
 gress, never obtain favor with him. 
 
 Another trait of character which has always given him 
 great popularity with the people, is his strict honesty and stern 
 moral integrity. No man can be found who will rise up and 
 say Hannibal Hamlin ever cheated him, politically or in any 
 other way. His whole life has been marked by a strict atten- 
 tion to every public duty incident to his official positions. 
 
 As a public speaker is is superfluous for us to speak of our 
 distinguished Senator. In this respect the whole country is 
 well informed. Few men have a more enviable reputation as 
 forensic debaters. 
 
 Senator Hamlin's sympathies have always been strongly 
 with the masses. This, perhaps, accounts for his great popu- 
 larity with the people. In proof of this we have only to re- 
 fer to his election as Governor of Maine, in 1856. Without 
 solicitation on his part and against his wishes at the largest 
 political convention ever holden in the State, he was on the 
 first ballot unanimously selected the standard bearer of the 
 Republicans in the ensuing contest. 
 
 The Democrat , aided by the straight "Whigs, had carried the 
 State the year before by about five thousand majority, and 
 both branches of the Legislature. 
 
 Senator Hamlin stumped the State from one end to the 
 other. Nothing but the great fight between Douglas and Lin- 
 coln ever exceeded it. It was a splendid hard-fought canvass. 
 
 The Democrats had Judge Wells their standard bearer and 
 all the distinguished men of their party in the field, pitted 
 against Hamlin and his coadjutors. Look at the result. The
 
 354 SKETCH OP HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 
 
 Republicans swept the State and elected their distinguished 
 leader by about twenty thousand majority. So highly were 
 Governor Hamlin's services appreciated in the U. S. Senate 
 the Legislature of Maine, with great unanimity, returned him 
 again to that body for six years. Before he became a mem- 
 ber of Congress, Mr. Hamlm had an extensive practice as a 
 lawyer. Since his election to the Senate he has abandoned 
 it, and now, when not actively engaged in his public duties? 
 may be found, like the great and distinguished Silas Wright, 
 at work with his own hands on his farm, in the rural, quiet 
 town of Hampden, where, at his hospitable home, his numer- 
 ous friends always meet a hearty welcome. 
 
 Such is a brief outline of the life and character of Han- 
 nibal Hamlin. Possessed of great legislative experience, wise 
 in counsel, bold and determined in action, true to his friends 
 and his country, he will be triumphantly elected to the high 
 commendary positionso honorably filled by a long line of illus- 
 trious statesmen in the past.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 
 JAN 3 i,9 
 
 JUHMVEBQ 
 
 REC'OLD-URL 
 
 ttwstfC 
 
 fcWIVERty 
 
 KMITVD-JO 5
 
 rsity ol California. Los Angeles