diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 05:19:36 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 05:19:36 -0700 |
| commit | 18edc5899c6fa0bccf6c2ad7047fbfd425c33e5c (patch) | |
| tree | 2c2f20d8535ef4eeb250e73b63b97612cec300a1 | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2656-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 79757 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2656-h/2656-h.htm | 3928 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2656.txt | 3592 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2656.zip | bin | 0 -> 76917 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/20060816.2656.txt | 3624 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/20060816.2656.zip | bin | 0 -> 76835 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/4linc10.txt | 3707 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/4linc10.zip | bin | 0 -> 75648 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/4linc11.txt | 3777 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/4linc11.zip | bin | 0 -> 78139 bytes |
13 files changed, 18644 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/2656-h.zip b/2656-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c36d639 --- /dev/null +++ b/2656-h.zip diff --git a/2656-h/2656-h.htm b/2656-h/2656-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..db30371 --- /dev/null +++ b/2656-h/2656-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,3928 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?> + +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en"> + <head> + <title> + The Papers and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Volume Four + </title> + <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve"> + + body { margin:5%; background:#faebd7; text-align:justify} + P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 20%;} + div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; } + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;} + pre { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;} + +</style> + </head> + <body> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Papers And Writings Of Abraham Lincoln, +Volume Four, by Abraham Lincoln + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Papers And Writings Of Abraham Lincoln, Volume Four + Constitutional Edition + +Author: Abraham Lincoln + +Commentator: Theodore Roosevelt, Carl Schurz, and Joseph Choate + +Editor: Arthur Brooks Lapsley + +Release Date: July 5, 2009 [EBook #2656] +Last Updated: October 29, 2012 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LINCOLN'S PAPERS *** + + + + +Produced by David Widger + + + + + +</pre> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <h1> + THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN + </h1> + <h2> + VOLUME FOUR + </h2> + <h3> + CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION + </h3> + <h4> + Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley + </h4> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <blockquote> + <p class="toc"> + <big><b>CONTENTS</b></big> + </p> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0002"> <b>THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II</b> </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0003"> LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH DEBATE, AT + CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0004"> Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0005"> FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, OCTOBER 7, + 1858 </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0006"> SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, + 1858. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0007"> Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0008"> LAST DEBATE, AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858 </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0009"> Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY </a> + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h1> + THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN,<br /> Volume Four + </h1> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0002" id="link2H_4_0002"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h1> + THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II + </h1> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0003" id="link2H_4_0003"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH DEBATE, AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. + </h2> + <p> + LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—It will be very difficult for an audience so + large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it + is important that as profound silence be preserved as possible. + </p> + <p> + While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to + know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between + the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this + occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I + thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard + to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of + bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white + and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making + voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to + intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that + there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I + believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of + social and political equality. And in as much 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 + superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I + do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior + position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that + because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want + her for a wife. My 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 a 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 entirely satisfied of its + correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel + Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am + not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the + least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was + no law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to + be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep + them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very + last stand by the law of this State which forbids the marrying of white + people with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this: that I do + not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social + and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, except + in the State Legislature,—not in the Congress of the United States; + and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, + and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger + is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the + Judge be kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight the + measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject. + </p> + <p> + When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to Illinois + in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in which he made what + may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which I understand proved to + be very offensive to him. The Judge was at that time out upon one of his + speaking tours through the country, and when the news of it reached him, + as I am informed, he denounced Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for + having said what he did in regard to that matter. I was traveling at that + time, and speaking at the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent + days, and when I heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and + what Douglas had said back again, I felt that I was in a position where I + could not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter. Consequently, + upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no other + wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by Trumbull against + Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to say nothing about it; + that I did personally know Judge Trumbull; that I believed him to be a man + of veracity; that I believed him to be a man of capacity sufficient to + know very well whether an assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn + from a set of facts, was true or false; and as a conclusion of my own from + that, I stated it as my belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he + would prove everything he had said. I said this upon two or three + occasions. Upon a subsequent occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before + an audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his charge + against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to substantiate + it. This speech was published at length; and subsequently at Jacksonville + Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In the course of his speech, and near + the close of it, he stated in regard to myself what I will now read: + </p> + <p> + "Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his + time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, Lincoln having + indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him + (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders." + </p> + <p> + I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitation + to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally been my + purpose to discuss that matter at all But in-as-much as it seems to be the + wish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once in my + life I will play General Jackson, and to the just extent I take the + responsibility. + </p> + <p> + I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that + portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this matter, + and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at Jacksonville in + answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of this debate with the + complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I cannot now read them, + for the reason that it would take half of my first hour to do so. I can + only make some comments upon them. Trumbull's charge is in the following + words: + </p> + <p> + "Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a + constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the + people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the + plot." + </p> + <p> + I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity of + reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he regards + as sufficient evidence to substantiate this charge. + </p> + <p> + It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon the + floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference among the + senators, in which conference it was determined to have an enabling act + passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution under, and in this + conference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a + provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people after it + should be formed. He then brings forward to show, and showing, as he + deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with that + clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause inserted + into the bill, which would in its nature prevent a reference of the + constitution back for a vote of the people,—if, indeed, upon a mere + silence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to vote + upon it. These are the general statements that he has made. + </p> + <p> + I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he + attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to + examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he + makes is: + </p> + <p> + "Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and that I + struck it out,—is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution + upon them against their will?" + </p> + <p> + His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill, he + argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the + purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would say, in the first + place, that that would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, as + Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial bills have passed without + having such a provision in them. I believe it is true, though I am not + certain, that in some instances constitutions framed under such bills have + been submitted to a vote of the people with the law silent upon the + subject; but it does not appear that they once had their enabling acts + framed with an express provision for submitting the constitution to be + framed to a vote of the people, then that they were stricken out when + Congress did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have been + bills which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when was + that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does the + evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, when we + remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almost + simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a conference among + certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be passed + leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to attend to + the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which it was agreed + they should so frame the bill that there should be no submission of the + constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge does not notice this part + of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that + simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to + be submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty fair + show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter into a plot + to put in force a constitution for Kansas, without giving the people any + opportunity of voting upon it. + </p> + <p> + But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is this: + </p> + <p> + "But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain + a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted." + </p> + <p> + This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I only + want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that these words + were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill from which it is + alleged the provision was stricken out,—a bill which goes by the + name of Toomb's, because he originally brought it forward? I ask why, if + the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take the + exact proposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not stricken + out? Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the Toomb's + bill, and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were stricken out. + Judge Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull says were + stricken out were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision + in the Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We + see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the + words. He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about these + words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to it, only + taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if there be any + issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the question of + fact as to whether these words were stricken out, I have before me what I + suppose to be a genuine copy of the Toomb's bill, in which it can be shown + that the words Trumbull says were in it were, in fact, originally there. + If there be any dispute upon the fact, I have got the documents here to + show they were there. If there be any controversy upon the sense of the + words,—whether these words which were stricken out really + constituted a provision for submitting the matter to a vote of the people,—as + that is a matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull's own + argument. He says that the proposition is in these words: + </p> + <p> + "That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to the + said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their free + acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified + by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall + be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." + </p> + <p> + Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill + when it came back, and he says this was a provision for submitting the + constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument is this: + </p> + <p> + "Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the + election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an election was + to be held?" + </p> + <p> + This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge + at all, but he stands up and says there was no such proposition in that + bill for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people. + Trumbull admits that the language is not a direct provision for submitting + it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another provision. He + asks you how it is possible to ratify the land proposition at the election + for the adoption of the constitution, if there was no election to be held + for the adoption of the constitution. And he goes on to show that it is + not any less a law because the provision is put in that indirect shape + than it would be if it were put directly. But I presume I have said enough + to draw attention to this point, and I pass it by also. + </p> + <p> + Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and at + very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in + a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to be made would + have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thought so then, + what ground is there for anybody thinking otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, + this much may be said in reply: That bill had been in the hands of a party + to which Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of the + committee at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had a + printed copy of the original Toomb's bill. I have not the evidence on that + point except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of + business there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of + altering, were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, + until the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterwards, when it was + reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull in + reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the bearings + of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not + follow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive, + that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that what + Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did? Suppose Trumbull had + been in the plot with these other men, would that let Douglas out of it? + Would it exonerate Douglas that Trumbull did n't then perceive he was in + the plot? He also asks the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose to amend + the bill, if he thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe that + everything Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection with + this question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of + the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his friends. + He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to anything on this + subject would receive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull did + bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the fact that there was no + provision for submitting the constitution about to be made for the people + of Kansas to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture to say that + Judge Douglas made some reply to this speech of Judge Trumbull's, but he + never noticed that part of it at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, + then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not throw + much blame upon him; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact + as to what Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself + been in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it + from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial it + should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, but that + the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at all touch the + question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck that they + discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to be guilty too. + </p> + <p> + Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is, that + when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the fact that the + bill had the provision in it for submitting the constitution to a vote of + the people when it went into his Judge Douglas's hands, that it was + missing when he reported it to the Senate, and that in a public speech he + had subsequently said the alterations in the bill were made while it was + in committee, and that they were made in consultation between him (Judge + Douglas) and Toomb's. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact + of Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill + not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with another + clause and another provision in it, saying that "until the complete + execution of this Act there shall be no election in said Territory,"—which, + Trumbull argued, was not only taking the provision for submitting to a + vote of the people out of the bill, but was adding an affirmative one, in + that it prevented the people from exercising the right under a bill that + was merely silent on the question. Now, in regard to what he says, that + Trumbull shifts the issue, that he shifts his ground,—and I believe + he uses the term that, "it being proven false, he has changed ground," I + call upon all of you, when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's + speech (for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trumbull has + shifted his ground or not. I say he did not shift his ground, but that he + brought forward his original charge and the evidence to sustain it yet + more fully, but precisely as he originally made it. Then, in addition + thereto, he brought in a new piece of evidence. He shifted no ground. He + brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with his former testimony; + but he brought a new piece, tending, as he thought, and as I think, to + prove his proposition. To illustrate: A man brings an accusation against + another, and on trial the man making the charge introduces A and B to + prove the accusation. At a second trial he introduces the same witnesses, + who tell the same story as before, and a third witness, who tells the same + thing, and in addition gives further testimony corroborative of the + charge. So with Trumbull. There was no shifting of ground, nor + inconsistency of testimony between the new piece of evidence and what he + originally introduced. + </p> + <p> + But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last + provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and a + substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is true + that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. Trumbull has + not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it was so stricken + out. He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as Judge Douglas reported it + back. It was amended somewhat in the Senate before it passed, but I am + speaking of it as he brought it back." Now, when Judge Douglas parades the + fact that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he + asserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only said + that he originally put it in, not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull + says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. When it came + back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made by him in + consultation with Toomb's. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as his conclusion, + that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants to contradict + Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not put it in, and not + that he did n't take it out again. It is said that a bear is sometimes + hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I presume it was in this case. I + presume the truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward took it out. + That, I take it, is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing, + Douglas says another thing, and the two don't contradict one another at + all. The question is, what did he put it in for? In the first place, what + did he take the other provision out of the bill for,—the provision + which Trumbull argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a + vote of the people? What did he take that out for; and, having taken it + out, what did he put this in for? I say that in the run of things it is + not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge + Douglas to take that latter clause out again. The question that Trumbull + has made is that Judge Douglas put it in; and he don't meet Trumbull at + all unless he denies that. + </p> + <p> + In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses this + language toward Judge Trumbull. He says: + </p> + <p> + "He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the + record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge." + </p> + <p> + Well, that is a pretty serious statement—Trumbull forges his + evidence from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say that it + is not true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has + brought forward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to, + examine whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had + the bill or document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says + that is a copy of the Toomb's bill,—the amendment offered by + Toomb's. He says that is a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went + into Judge Douglas's hands. Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? + That is one thing Trumbull brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged + it from beginning to end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does + Douglas say that is a forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a + subsequent examination upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another + document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came + back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas + say that is a forgery? Does he say it in his general sweeping charge? Does + he say so now? If he does not, then take this Toomb's bill and the bill in + the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see that the + provision is in the one and not in the other; it leaves the inference + inevitable that it was taken out. + </p> + <p> + But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull's + other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull says + there are in this original Toomb's bill these words: + </p> + <p> + "That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to the + said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free + acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified + by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall + be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." + </p> + <p> + Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper here and + see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr. + Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December + 9, 1857: + </p> + <p> + "I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the bill + was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, whether the + constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It + was held by those most intelligent on the subject that, in view of all the + difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experiment at + that time of a popular vote, it would be better there should be no such + provision in the Toomb's bill; and it was my understanding, in all the + intercourse I had, that the Convention would make a constitution, and send + it here, without submitting it to the popular vote." + </p> + <p> + Then Trumbull follows on: + </p> + <p> + "In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 + [Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said: + </p> + <p> + "'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or + confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it + was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollection + was clear that I left the conference under the impression that it had been + deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the + agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this Convention. + This impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of the bill + infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great + aversion; but with the hope of accomplishing a great good, and as no + movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this + objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of + testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their + submission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the + senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the + admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as + follows: + </p> + <p> + "That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to + the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free + acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified + by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall + be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." + </p> + <p> + The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of + June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same + section word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the + conference referred to; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reported + the Toombs bill to the Senate with amendments, the next morning, it did + not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the + Convention that the constitution should be approved by the people. The + words "and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the + constitution" had been stricken out. + </p> + <p> + Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor of + the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the + Congressional Globe on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is a + forgery? Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional Globe? + What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his evidence from + beginning to end? So again he says in another place that Judge Douglas, in + his speech, December 9, 1857 (Congressional Globe, part I., page 15), + stated: + </p> + <p> + "That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill + from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to + assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently the senator + from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, + after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed + by the Senate." + </p> + <p> + Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and is + recorded in the Congressional Globe. Is it a forgery? Is it there or not? + It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take these pieces of + evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he dare do it. + </p> + <p> + [A voice: "He will."] + </p> + <p> + Well, sir, you had better not commit him. He gives other quotations,—another + from Judge Douglas. He says: + </p> + <p> + "I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member of + the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union, from + any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the people. + I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so + understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it was + not, they would have made the point on it; and if they had made it, we + should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a + discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take + it for granted that that would be done, which ought in fairness to have + been done." + </p> + <p> + Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. Does + Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true? Trumbull says + somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any one who + will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the notice of + those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that provision; and + then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge Douglas, where Judge + Trumbull uses this language: + </p> + <p> + "Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probably + recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had objected to the + Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for a submission of the + constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found + in the same volume of the Globe, page 22, in which he says: 'That the bill + was silent on this subject was true, and my attention was called to that + about the time it was passed; and I took the fair construction to be, that + powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the constitution + would be submitted to the people.' + </p> + <p> + "Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before made, + that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that it was + a new discovery, you will determine." + </p> + <p> + So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and yet + maintain his position that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from beginning + to end." I will remark that I have not got these Congressional Globes with + me. They are large books, and difficult to carry about, and if Judge + Douglas shall say that on these points where Trumbull has quoted from them + there are no such passages there, I shall not be able to prove they are + there upon this occasion, but I will have another chance. Whenever he + points out the forgery and says, "I declare that this particular thing + which Trumbull has uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then + my attention will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest, + stating now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find + every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the question is, How + can Douglas call that a forgery? How can he make out that it is a forgery? + What is a forgery? It is the bringing forward something in writing or in + print purporting to be of certain effect when it is altogether untrue. If + you come forward with my note for one hundred dollars when I have never + given such a note, there is a forgery. If you come forward with a letter + purporting to be written by me which I never wrote, there is another + forgery. If you produce anything in writing or in print saying it is so + and so, the document not being genuine, a forgery has been committed. How + do you make this forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine? If + Judge Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false and + forged, he has a full right to do so; but until he does it specifically, + we don't know how to get at him. If he does say they are false and forged, + I will then look further into it, and presume I can procure the + certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies. I have + no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where Trumbull says + it is. Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in making his sweeping + charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged from beginning to end, at + all meets the case,—if that is the way to get at the facts. I repeat + again, if he will point out which one is a forgery, I will carefully + examine it, and if it proves that any one of them is really a forgery, it + will not be me who will hold to it any longer. I have always wanted to + deal with everyone I meet candidly and honestly. If I have made any + assertion not warranted by facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will + withdraw it cheerfully. But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull + calumniated, and the evidence he has brought forward branded in general + terms "a forgery from beginning to end." This is not the legal way of + meeting a charge, and I submit it to all intelligent persons, both friends + of Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is. + </p> + <p> + The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill that went into his hands + had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to the + people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision for a + submission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was known that + the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge Douglas, it was + not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the declaration, when you + got it, for a submission of the constitution to the people. And now, my + direct question to Judge Douglas is, to answer why, if he deemed the bill + silent on this point, he found it necessary to strike out those particular + harmless words. If he had found the bill silent and without this + provision, he might say what he does now. If he supposes it was implied + that the constitution would be submitted to a vote of the people, how + could these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to + strike them out? How could he infer that a submission was still implied, + after its express provision had been stricken from the bill? I find the + bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it out, and + although he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a vote + of the people, I ask, Why did you first put it in? I ask him whether he + took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges was in the bill. + If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he did it for. It looks + to us as if he had altered the bill. If it looks differently to him,—if + he has a different reason for his action from the one we assign him—he + can tell it. I insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent upon that + point when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it. + </p> + <p> + I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three + minutes of being out. I presume it is expired now; I therefore close. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0004" id="link2H_4_0004"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. + </h2> + <p> + FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour answer + to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried one. I shall + only be able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by Judge Douglas, + and give them a brief attention, while I shall have to totally omit others + for the want of time. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an + answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far + as I know the Judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no + occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not + in favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying a + few words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine, which + has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could + not possibly be made a citizen; and without saying what was my ground of + complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, + Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he + ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes + and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he will find I + mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme + Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. But Judge + Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them + myself. Now, my opinion is that the different States have the power to + make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they + choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If + the State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise + of it. That is all I have to say about it. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speeches + south; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north and + recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very different cast of + sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. I will not charge + upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but I call upon + every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and I dare him + to point out any difference between my speeches north and south. While I + am here perhaps I ought to say a word, if I have the time, in regard to + the latter portion of the Judge's speech, which was a sort of declamation + in reference to my having said I entertained the belief that this + government would not endure half slave and half free. I have said so, and + I did not say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhaps + would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in + detail; but let me ask you a few questions. Have we ever had any peace on + this slavery question? When are we to have peace upon it, if it is kept in + the position it now occupies? How are we ever to have peace upon it? That + is an important question. To be sure, if we will all stop, and allow Judge + Douglas and his friends to march on in their present career until they + plant the institution all over the nation, here and wherever else our flag + waves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be peace. But let me ask Judge + Douglas how he is going to get the people to do that? They have been + wrangling over this question for at least forty years. This was the cause + of the agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise; this produced the + troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the territory + acquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was the trouble which was quieted + by the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled "forever" as both the great + political parties declared in their National Conventions. That "forever" + turned out to be just four years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. + When is it likely to come to an end? He introduced the Nebraska Bill in + 1854 to put another end to the slavery agitation. He promised that it + would finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since, + until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton + Constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the end of + the slavery agitation. But in one speech, I think last winter, he did say + that he did n't quite see when the end of the slavery agitation would + come. Now he tells us again that it is all over and the people of Kansas + have voted down the Lecompton Constitution. How is it over? That was only + one of the attempts at putting an end to the slavery agitation—one + of these "final settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formed a + constitution that she is likely to come in under? Is not the slavery + agitation still an open question in that Territory? Has the voting down of + that constitution put an end to all the trouble? Is that more likely to + settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery + agitation? Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more + foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can see + the end of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas Bill was introduced four + years and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end we + may say we are four years and a half nearer the end. So, too, we can say + we are four years and a half nearer the end of the world, and we can just + as clearly see the end of the world as we can see the end of this + agitation. The Kansas settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should + sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this + vexed question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of + putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon + the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out of our + new Territories,—to restrict it forever to the old States where it + now exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the + course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to the + slavery agitation. + </p> + <p> + The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his friends + have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease speaking of it + as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the common matters of + property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and cattle. But + while it drives on in its state of progress as it is now driving, and as + it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured the opinion, and I + say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery agitation until it + takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when it takes a turn + toward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two + years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction + would occur in less than a hundred years at least; but that it will occur + in the best way for both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt. + But, my friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this + point. + </p> + <p> + Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a + bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854: Judge + Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, except the + speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he told a + cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral principles that + Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the simple truth. I do not + care greatly for the story, but this is the truth of it: and I have twice + told Judge Douglas to his face that from beginning to end there is not one + word of truth in it. I have called upon him for the proof, and he does not + at all meet me as Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just + talking, by producing the record. He did n't bring the record because + there was no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready to + indorse Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply + that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would not be likely to + indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity because + neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years that I have + known Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his word or tell a + falsehood large or small. It is for that reason that I indorse Lyman + Trumbull. + </p> + <p> + [Mr. JAMES BROWN (Douglas postmaster): "What does Ford's History say about + him?"] + </p> + <p> + Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My own + recollection is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful terms + in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal worse of + Judge Douglas. I refer you, sir, to the History for examination. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on the + part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to attend to + that suggestion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly accused of dealing + illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either in court or in a + political canvass or anywhere else. I would despise myself if I supposed + myself ready to deal less liberally with an adversary than I was willing + to be treated myself. Judge Douglas in a general way, without putting it + in a direct shape, revives the old charge against me in reference to the + Mexican War. He does not take the responsibility of putting it in a very + definite form, but makes a general reference to it. That charge is more + than ten years old. He complains of Trumbull and myself because he says we + bring charges against him one or two years old. He knows, too, that in + regard to the Mexican War story the more respectable papers of his own + party throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and + acknowledge that it was a lie. + </p> + <p> + [Here Mr. LINCOLN turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting HON. + ORLANDO B. FICKLIN, led him forward and said:] + </p> + <p> + I do not mean to do anything with Mr. FICKLIN except to present his face + and tell you that he personally knows it to be a lie! He was a member of + Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [FICKLIN] knows that + whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine which would + indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such + indorsement and voted against it; but I never voted against the supplies + for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a + dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise for the benefit of + the soldiers I gave all the votes that FICKLIN or Douglas did, and perhaps + more. + </p> + <p> + [Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter: + Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas + and myself. In reference to this Mexican War, my recollection is that when + Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun of + Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican War was unnecessary + and unconstitutionally commenced by the President-my recollection is that + Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.] + </p> + <p> + That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution censuring + the President for the manner in which the war was begun. You know they + have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the + soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their country. I say that + FICKLIN knows it is false. When that charge was brought forward by the + Chicago Times, the Springfield Register [Douglas's organ] reminded the + Times that the charge really applied to John Henry; and I do know that + John Henry is now making speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. + If the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of setoff to what I + said to-day in reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that he + made this charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He brought this + forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the opening + speech that Judge Douglas made he attacked me in regard to a matter ten + years old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about people making + charges against him only two years old! + </p> + <p> + The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon this + charge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in my opening + speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said that when Judge + Douglas was speaking at place—where I spoke on the succeeding day he + used very harsh language about this charge. Two or three times afterward I + said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's veracity and intelligence; and + my own opinion was, from what I knew of the character of Judge Trumbull, + that he would vindicate his position and prove whatever he had stated to + be true. This I repeated two or three times; and then I dropped it, + without saying anything more on the subject for weeks—perhaps a + month. I passed it by without noticing it at all till I found, at + Jacksonville, Judge Douglas in the plenitude of his power is not willing + to answer Trumbull and let me alone, but he comes out there and uses this + language: "He should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such + charges made by Trumbull but that, Lincoln having indorsed the character + of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln] responsible for the + slanders." What was Lincoln to do? Did he not do right, when he had the + fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas here, to tell him he was ready + for the responsibility? I ask a candid audience whether in doing thus + Judge Douglas was not the assailant rather than I? Here I meet him face to + face, and say I am ready to take the responsibility, so far as it rests on + me. + </p> + <p> + Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the question + whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge + Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it? You all heard me call upon + him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery. Does he say + that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a + forgery? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported by + himself is a forgery, or what is presented as a transcript from the Globe + of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a forgery? Does he say the + quotations from his own speech are forgeries? Does he say this transcript + from Trumbull's speech is a forgery? + </p> + <p> + ["He didn't deny one of them."] + </p> + <p> + I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of a + story is true the whole story turns out false. I take it these people have + some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is playing cuttle-fish, a + small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself when pursued + except by throwing out a black fluid, which makes the water so dark the + enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Ain't the Judge playing the + cuttle-fish? + </p> + <p> + Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge + Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech of + to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces of + testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown to be + such. Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery. Then I ask the + original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is it + possible that the whole is a falsehood? + </p> + <p> + In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision into + the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the people, what + was his answer? He comes here and reads from the Congressional Globe to + show that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill. Why, + Trumbull has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull says he + [Douglas] put it in; and it is no answer to the charge to say he + afterwards took it out. Both are perhaps true. It was in regard to that + thing precisely that I told him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows you + that by his introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to that + assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially say + that Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case, does it answer + Trumbull? I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are here to-day, + and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you were in Mattoon + yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your head, and you prove me a + liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole force of Douglas's + argument. + </p> + <p> + Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that Judge + Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a constitution to + be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge Douglas deny that + fact? Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull reads was put in that + bill? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he dare to deny that? He + does not, and I have the right to repeat the question,—Why Judge + Douglas took it out? Bigler has said there was a combination of certain + senators, among whom he did not include Judge Douglas, by which it was + agreed that the Kansas Bill should have a clause in it not to have the + constitution formed under it submitted to a vote of the people. He did not + say that Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about + the same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken + out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in + concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and done + with a mutual understanding after the conference; and while we do not know + that it was absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that we have a right + to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it was done to tell + what the true reason was. When he will not tell what the true reason was, + he stands in the attitude of an accused thief who has stolen goods in his + possession, and when called to account refuses to tell where he got them. + Not only is this the evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having + the provision stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then but since, + that these alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, + in consultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells us the + same to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in the bill in + committee that he did not vote for. I ask you to remember, while certain + amendments were made which he disapproved of, but which a majority of the + committee voted in, he has himself told us that in this particular the + alterations and modifications were made by him, upon consultation with + Toombs. We have his own word that these alterations were made by him, and + not by the committee. Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so + chary about coming to the exact question? What is the reason he will not + tell you anything about How it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that he + remembers it being made at all? Why does he stand playing upon the meaning + of words and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? If he can explain + all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have the right to infer that Judge + Douglas understood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering that + bill through, to make a constitution, and have Kansas come into the Union + with that constitution, without its being submitted to a vote of the + people. If he will explain his action on this question, by giving a better + reason for the facts that happened than he has done, it will be + satisfactory. But until he does that—until he gives a better or more + plausible reason than he has offered against the evidence in the case—I + suggest to him it will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, + takes on dignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word in + Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has only + arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of reasoning. + There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends on Trumbull's + word. If you have ever studied geometry, you remember that by a course of + reasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a triangle are equal to two + right angles. Euclid has shown you how to work it out. Now, if you + undertake to disprove that proposition, and to show that it is erroneous, + would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar? They tell me that + my time is out, and therefore I close. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0005" id="link2H_4_0005"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, OCTOBER 7, 1858 + </h2> + <h3> + Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY. + </h3> + <p> + MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge Douglas + has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in print. I do + not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all.—-If I had not been + interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I was able to make + to a very large portion of it had already been more than once made and + published. There has been an opportunity afforded to the public to see our + respective views upon the topics 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 + attended to, and ask your attention to them, and I shall follow him + backwards upon some notes which I have taken, reversing the order, by + beginning where he concluded. + </p> + <p> + The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and insisted + that negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that it is a + slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that negroes were + meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possible to believe that Mr. + Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have supposed himself + applying the language of that instrument to the negro race, and yet held a + portion of that race in slavery? Would he not at once have freed them? I + only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech (and that, too, + very briefly, for I shall not detain 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, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single + man, that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence; I + think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that + Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any member + of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the whole earth ever + said so, until the necessities of the present policy of the Democratic + party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that affirmation. And I will + remind Judge Douglas and this audience that while Mr. Jefferson was the + owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking upon this very subject + he used the strong language that "he trembled for his country when he + remembered that God was just"; and I will offer the highest premium in my + power to Judge Douglas if he will show that he, in all his life, ever + uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson. + </p> + <p> + 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 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? + </p> + <p> + So, again, there is another thing to which I would ask the Judge's + attention upon this subject. In the contest of 1856 his party delighted to + call themselves together as the "National Democracy"; but now, if there + should be a notice put up 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 postmasters whom he talks about. + </p> + <p> + 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 assumes that I do not understand that my + speeches will be put in print and read north and south. I knew all the + while that the speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at + Jonesboro and the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all + the reading and intelligent men in the community would see them and know + all about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, + that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will have + it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality between + the white and black races which justifies us in making them slaves, we + must then insist that there is a degree of equality that requires us to + make them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken a broad distinction + in regard to that matter; and that is all there is in these different + speeches which he arrays here; and the entire reading of either of the + speeches will show that that distinction was made. Perhaps by taking two + parts of the same speech he could have got up as much of a conflict as the + one he has found. I have all the while maintained that in so far as it + should be insisted that there was an equality between the white and black + races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it was + an impossibility. This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I + have said that in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of + happiness," as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are + our equals. And these declarations I have constantly made in reference to + the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we are + legislating about any new country which is not already cursed with the + actual presence of the evil,—slavery. I have never manifested any + impatience with the necessities that spring from the actual presence of + black people amongst us, and the actual existence of slavery amongst us + where it does already exist; but I have insisted that, in legislating for + new countries where it does not exist there is no just rule other than + that of moral and abstract right! With reference to those new countries, + those maxims as to the right of a people to "life, liberty, and the + pursuit of happiness" were the just rules to be constantly referred to. + There is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested to + misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an intelligent and + reading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge + whether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I advanced + hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions of + the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, + though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free from all error + in the opinions I advance. + </p> + <p> + The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction between + his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national party, ours a + sectional one. He does this in asking the question whether this country + has any interest in the maintenance of the 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—and + be based upon rightful principles—unless it can announce its + principles everywhere. I presume that Judge Douglas could not go into + Russia and announce the doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not + denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Russia; and + it may be true of this country that in some places we may not be able to + proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of democracy, because + there is a section so directly opposed to it that they will not tolerate + us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of a doctrine that in + some places people won't let you proclaim it? Is that the way to test the + truth of any doctrine? Why, I understood that at one time the people of + Chicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a certain favorite doctrine of + his. I commend to his consideration the question whether he takes that as + a test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. + </p> + <p> + 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? The main one was + that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did not let the + Republicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That has been the main + evidence brought forward,—that they had no supporters, or + substantially none, in the Slave States. The South have not taken hold of + our principles as we announce 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. + Judge Douglas and I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have + now for the fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I + have not found either Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of + the Republican platform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is + wrong. I ask you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away from the + platform of principles to the fact that he can find people somewhere who + will not allow us to announce those principles. If he had great confidence + that our principles were wrong, he would take hold of them and demonstrate + them to be wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he has of their + being wrong is in the fact that there are people who won't allow us to + preach them. I ask again, is that the way to test the soundness of a + doctrine? + </p> + <p> + I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality he is + himself fast becoming sectional. I ask his attention to the fact that his + speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio River as they have + formerly gone there I ask his attention to the fact that he felicitates + himself to-day that all the Democrats of the free States are agreeing with + him, while he omits to tell us that the Democrats of any slave State agree + with him. If he has not thought of this, I commend to his consideration + the evidence in his own declaration, on this day, of his becoming + sectional too. I see it rapidly approaching. Whatever may be the result of + this ephemeral contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day + rapidly approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has been + thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be crowded + down his own throat. + </p> + <p> + Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his speech) + about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principles of the Nebraska + Bill, although I have often presented my views upon that subject, yet as I + have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you please, detain you a + little with them. I have always maintained, so far as I was able, that + there was nothing of the principle of the Nebraska Bill in the Compromise + of 1850 at all,—nothing whatever. Where can you find the principle + of the Nebraska Bill in that Compromise? If anywhere, in the two pieces of + the Compromise organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was + expressly provided in these two acts that when they came to be admitted + into the Union they should be admitted with or without slavery, as they + should choose, by their own constitutions. Nothing was said in either of + those acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery during the + Territorial existence of those Territories, while Henry Clay constantly + made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him as a leader) that, in + his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control that question during the + Territorial existence, and that these old Mexican laws excluded slavery. + How can that be used as a principle for declaring that during the + Territorial existence as well as at the time of framing the constitution + the people, if you please, might have slaves if they wanted them? I am not + discussing the question whether it is right or wrong; but how are the New + Mexican and Utah laws patterns for the Nebraska Bill? I maintain that the + organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general 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 allowed to come in in that shape, because in another way it was paid + for, considering that as a part of that system of measures called the + Compromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen acts. It included + the admission of California as a free State, 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 law. All these things were + put together, and, though passed in separate acts, were nevertheless, in + legislation (as the speeches at the time will show), made to depend upon + each other. Each got votes with the understanding that the other measures + were to pass, and by this system of compromise, in that series of + measures, those two bills—the New Mexico and Utah bills—were + passed: and I say for that reason they could not be taken as models, + framed upon their own intrinsic principle, for all future Territories. And + I have the evidence of this in the fact 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 follow them as a pattern + at all. + </p> + <p> + The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any odious + distinctions between free and slave States. I am altogether unaware that + the Republicans are in favor of making any odious distinctions between the + free and slave States. But there is still 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 Republicans on + the contrary, is, that the Judge is not in favor of making any difference + between slavery and liberty; that he is in favor of eradicating, of + pressing out of view, the questions of preference in this country for free + or slave institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards + the idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Everything that emanates from + him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully excludes the + thought that there is anything wrong in slavery. All their arguments, if + you will consider them, will be seen to exclude the thought that there is + anything whatever wrong in slavery. If you will take the Judge's speeches, + and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him,—as his + declaration that he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or down,"—you + will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that + slavery is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot + logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. + Judge Douglas declares that if any community wants slavery they have a + right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no + wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot + 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 founded in right. But if you + admit that one of them is wrong, you cannot institute any equality between + right and wrong. And from this difference of sentiment,—the belief + on the part of one that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing + from that belief 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 the wrong + from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end to it through + all the existence of things,—arises the real difference between + Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand and the Republicans on the + other. Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who + contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political evil, having due + regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of 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. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, if not the + seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or + combination between the 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. Buchanan had; though at last, when they + reached it, they quarreled over it, and their friends divided upon it. I + am very free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have no objection to the + division; but I defy the Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way + promoted that division, unless he insists on being a witness himself in + merely 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 + Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess you + do. Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also that he + was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to see all there + is between the National Democrats and the Republicans. What we now think + of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fremont and + Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. + </p> + <p> + But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there is an + unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the National + Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving him as an + entirely competent witness upon that subject. I want to call to the + Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first one of these + debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order to fix extreme + Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which he + declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in October, + 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken part in that + Convention. It turned out that although a few men calling themselves an + anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at Springfield about that time, yet + neither did I take any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or any + such resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So apparent had it become that the + resolutions which he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor + by a State Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days + afterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by + Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L. Harris, + member of Congress in that district, and he promised in that speech that + when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter. Since then + Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made the + investigation; but a month has passed since he has been there, and, so far + as I know, he has made no report of the result of his investigation. I + have waited as I think sufficient time for the report of that + investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A fraud, an + absolute forgery was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced to + the three,—Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed + in any way so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's + report would probably show. + </p> + <p> + 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. + The idea that it was done by mistake is absurd. The article in the + Illinois State Register contains part of the real proceedings of that + Springfield Convention, showing that the writer of the article had the + real proceedings before him, and purposely threw out the genuine + resolutions passed by the Convention and fraudulently substituted the + others. Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of the Register, so that + there seems to be but little room for his escape. But then it is to be + borne in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of that + forgery than either of the other two. The main object of that forgery at + that time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to Congress, and that object + was known to be exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and + Douglas were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, and + although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register, + subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon that + Convention. + </p> + <p> + The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both Harris + and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put it to + new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband was brought home + with his body full of eels, said when she was asked what was to be done + with him, "Take the eels out and set 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. + </p> + <p> + On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton 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 Harris—reattempted it + upon me at Ottawa. It has been clung to and played out again and again as + an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio. And now that it has been + discovered publicly to be a fraud we find that Judge Douglas manifests no + surprise at it at all. He makes no complaint of Lanphier, who must have + known it to be a fraud from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and Harris are + just as cozy now and just as active in the concoction of new schemes as + they were before the general discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is + very natural if they are all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very + unnatural if any one of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists that + the rule of honor among thieves does not quite require him to take all + upon himself, and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult + to make a satisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the + three are agreed that each is "a most honorable man." + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a + re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports against + me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which we know to be + utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to think that this one + unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate, will be the least + drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He asks a re-election to + the lower House of Congress without seeming to remember at all that he is + involved in this dishonorable fraud! The Illinois State Register, edited + by Lanphier, then, as now, the central organ of both Harris and Douglas, + continues to din the public ear with this assertion, without seeming to + suspect that these assertions are at all lacking in title to belief. + </p> + <p> + 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. Lanphier cannot be ignorant of how + and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he be induced to tell, or, if + he has told, can Judge Douglas be 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! + </p> + <p> + While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I answered + certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded to me, and then + 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 + States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of + acquiescing in, adhering to, and following such decision as a rule of + political action?" + </p> + <p> + To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense of + the word. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that it was + possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. He sneered at + me for propounding the interrogatory. I had not propounded it without some + reflection, and I wish now to address to this audience some remarks upon + it. + </p> + <p> + In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe it is, of the + Constitution of the United States, we find the following language: + </p> + <p> + "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 notwithstanding." + </p> + <p> + The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence which I + will now read: + </p> + <p> + "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." + </p> + <p> + I repeat it, "The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly + affirmed in the Constitution"! What is it to be "affirmed" in the + Constitution? Made firm in the Constitution, so made that it cannot be + separated from the Constitution without breaking the Constitution; durable + as the Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now, remembering the + provision of the Constitution which I have read—affirming that that + instrument is the supreme law of the land; that the judges of every State + shall be bound by it, any law or constitution of any State to the contrary + notwithstanding; that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that + Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be separated from it + without breaking it; durable as the instrument; part of the instrument;—what + follows as a short and even syllogistic argument from it? I think it + follows, and I submit to the consideration of men capable of arguing + whether, as I state it, in syllogistic form, the argument has any fault in + it: + </p> + <p> + Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right + distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United + States. + </p> + <p> + The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in + the Constitution of the United States. + </p> + <p> + Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy + the right of property in a slave. + </p> + <p> + 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 is not + distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge Douglas + thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates of that + decision may search in vain for the place in the Constitution where the + right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed I say, + therefore, that I think one of the premises is not true in fact. But it is + true with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced + it. They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying it, + the conclusion follows that, the Constitution of the United States being + the supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere with it. It being + affirmed in the decision that the right of property in a slave is + distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion + inevitably follows that no State law or constitution can destroy that + right. I then say to Judge Douglas and to all others that I think it will + take a better answer than a sneer to show that those 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 decision, deciding against the right of the + people of the States to exclude slavery, will never be made if that party + is not sustained by the elections. I believe, further, that it is just as + sure to be made as to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained. + I have said, upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course + of arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge + not his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new Dred + Scott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the reasons for + his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. I have turned his + 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 Jefferson 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, retaining for themselves no + appeal from it, their liberties were gone. I have asked his attention to + the fact that the Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, + disregards a time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the + power of Congress to establish a National Bank. I have asked his attention + to the fact that he himself was one of the most active instruments at one + time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the 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. + </p> + <p> + 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 adheres to it,—not as being right upon the merits, as he + conceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being + absolutely obligatory upon every one simply because of the source from + whence it comes, as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be,—this + is another marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it + in this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it + comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not investigate + it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong. So he takes + the next one without inquiring whether it is right or wrong. He teaches + men this doctrine, and in so doing prepares the 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 voted down,"; that "whoever wants + slavery has a right to have it"; that "upon principles of equality it + should be allowed to go everywhere"; that "there is no inconsistency + between free and slave institutions"—in this he is also preparing + (whether purposely or not) the way for making the institution of slavery + national! I repeat again, for I wish no misunderstanding, that I do not + charge that he means it so; but I call upon your minds to inquire, if you + were going to get the best instrument you could, and then set it to work + in the most ingenious way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, + operating in the free States, where there is now an abhorrence of the + institution of slavery, could you find an instrument so capable of doing + it as Judge Douglas, or one employed in so apt a way to do it? + </p> + <p> + I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, when he + was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, that it had a + tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, said that: + </p> + <p> + "Those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate + emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the + Colonization Society: they must go back to the era of our liberty and + independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous + return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate + the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love of + liberty!" + </p> + <p> + 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 a right to hold them; that he is penetrating, so far as + lies in his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of reason and + the love of liberty, when he is in every possible way preparing the public + mind, by his vast influence, for making the institution of slavery + perpetual and national. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at Freeport, + there was one in about this language: + </p> + <p> + "Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the United + States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?" + </p> + <p> + I answered, as I thought, in this way: that I am not generally opposed to + the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would support a + proposition for the acquisition of additional territory according as my + supporting it was or was not calculated to aggravate this slavery question + amongst us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another interrogatory, which + was correlative to that: "Are you in favor of acquiring additional + territory, in disregard of how it may affect us upon the slavery + question?" Judge Douglas answered,—that is, in his own way he + answered it. I believe that, although he took a good many words to answer + it, it was a little more fully answered than any other. The substance of + his answer was that this country would continue to expand; that it would + need additional territory; that it was as absurd to suppose that we could + continue upon our present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as + it would be to hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow to + man's size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was something like + that. Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of further + territory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might affect + the slavery question. I do not say this as giving his exact language, but + he said so substantially; and he would leave the question of slavery, + where the territory was acquired, to be settled by the people of the + acquired territory. ["That's the doctrine."] May be it is; let us consider + that for a while. This will probably, in the run of things, become one of + the concrete manifestations of this slavery question. If Judge Douglas's + policy upon this question succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until + all opposition is crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the + territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, + then the adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promises + additional slave-fields. And this question is to be left to the people of + those countries for settlement. When we 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 horror of an inferior race. + </p> + <p> + It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring additional + territory is a power confided to the President and the Senate of the + United States. It is a power not under the control of the representatives + of the people any further than they, the President and the Senate, can be + considered the representatives of the 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 insisted 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 + insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an assurance that + any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it, so far as + the House of Representatives was concerned. But at last the President and + Senate acquired the territory without asking the House of Representatives + anything about it, and took it without that prohibition. They have the + power of acquiring territory without the immediate representatives of the + people being called upon to say anything 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 + slavery agitation. It is therefore, as I think, a very important question + for due 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 easy to assert, but much less easy to + disprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country. + </p> + <p> + 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 institutions, 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, discarding 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 consider the importance of the question, and arrive at a + just conclusion as to whether it is or is not wise in the people of this + Union, in the acquisition of new territory, to consider whether it will + add to the disturbance that is existing amongst us—whether it will + add to the one only danger that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the + Union or our own liberties. I think it is extremely important that they + shall decide, and rightly decide, that question before entering upon that + policy. + </p> + <p> + 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 topic so as to treat it fully, + without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment think of + doing. I give way to Judge Douglas. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0006" id="link2H_4_0006"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, 1858. + </h2> + <p> + LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have had no immediate conference with Judge + Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree that + your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will be most + agreeable to us. + </p> + <p> + In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois which + have since been consolidated into the Republican party assembled together + in a State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted at that time what, in + political language, is called a platform. In June of the same year the + elements of the Republican party in the nation assembled together in a + National Convention at Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the + National Platform. In June, 1858,—the present year,—the + Republicans of Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, + and adopted again their platform, as I suppose not differing in any + essential particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding + something in relation to the new developments of political progress in the + country. + </p> + <p> + The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be one, + and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the United + States Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this canvass, I + stood generally upon these platforms. We are now met together on the 13th + of October of the same year, only four months from the adoption of the + last platform, and I am unaware that in this canvass, from the beginning + until to-day, any one of our adversaries has taken hold of our platforms, + or laid his finger upon anything that he calls wrong in them. + </p> + <p> + In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator Douglas + and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these platforms, + or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to hold me + responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the meeting of + either one of these conventions of which I have spoken. And as a ground + for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he assumed that they had + been passed at a State Convention of the Republican party, and that I took + part in that Convention. It was discovered afterward that this was + erroneous, that the resolutions which he endeavored to hold me responsible + for had not been passed by any State Convention anywhere, had not been + passed at Springfield, where he supposed they had, or assumed that they + had, and that they had been passed in no convention in which I had taken + part. The Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the point that + he was endeavoring to make upon me, and he 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 hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of where I was when it + met, nor one in which I took any part at all. He also introduced other + resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by combining the whole, + although they were all antecedent to the two State Conventions and the one + National Convention I have mentioned, still he insisted, and now insists, + as I understand, that I am in some way responsible for them. + </p> + <p> + At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I was in + no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this local + meeting or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in which I was in + no way embraced; but I insisted to him that if he thought I was + responsible for every man or every set of men everywhere, who happen to be + my friends, the rule ought to work both ways, and he ought to be + responsible for the acts and resolutions of all men or sets of men who + were or are now his supporters and friends, and gave him a pretty long + string of resolutions, passed by men who are now his friends, and + announcing doctrines for which he does not desire to be held responsible. + </p> + <p> + 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 understand him. But in addition to + that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, last week, undertakes to + establish that I am guilty of a species of double dealing with the public; + that I make speeches of a certain sort in the north, among the + Abolitionists, which I would not make in the south, and that I make + speeches of a certain sort in the south which I would not make in the + north. I apprehend, in the course I have marked out for myself, that I + shall not have to dwell at very great length upon this subject. + </p> + <p> + As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had an + opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something in + answer to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech of mine + delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he brought forward an + extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted that I + was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that his conclusion followed, that + I was playing a double part, and speaking in one region one way, and in + another region another way. I have not time now to dwell on this as long + as I would like, and wish only now to requote that portion of my speech at + Charleston which the Judge quoted, and then make some comments upon it. + This he quotes from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I believe + correctly: + </p> + <p> + "I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing + about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black + races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or + jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to + intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that + there is a physical difference between the white and black races which + will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and + political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do + remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am + as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned + to the white race." + </p> + <p> + This, I believe, is the entire quotation from Charleston speech, as Judge + Douglas made it his comments are as follows: + </p> + <p> + "Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right when + he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that he + discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and + inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for Mr. + Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in the + Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared equal, + and endowed by divine law with equality. And down South, with the old-line + Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians and the Tennesseeans, he tells + you that there is a physical difference between 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." + </p> + <p> + Those are the Judges comments. Now, I wish to show you that a month, or + only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech at + Charleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say + substantially the same thing It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa—and + I will say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was in, after + a while—but at 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 that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while I + was giving it, but afterward went away without getting it from me. At the + end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at Ottawa, I made + the comments which were reported at that time, and which I will now read, + and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the same as Judge Douglas + says were delivered by me down in Egypt. After reading, I added these + words: + </p> + <p> + "Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length; but this is the + true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of + slavery or the black race, and this is the whole of it: anything that + argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the + negro, is but a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which a + man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, + while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, + to interfere with the institution in the States where it exists. I believe + I have no right to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no + purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and + black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my + judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the + footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that + there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of + the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said + anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there + is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights + enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,—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 my + equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." + </p> + <p> + I 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 Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc., but + would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of the + Abolition element. I now make this 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 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 print 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 said 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 + Declaration of Independence I am entirely borne out by the sentiments + advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I have the book here to + show it from but because I have already occupied more time than I intended + to do on that topic, I pass over it. + </p> + <p> + At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, 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 decision declaring that the States had not the power to exclude + slavery from their limits, he would adopt and follow that decision as a + rule of political action; and because he had not directly answered that + question, but had merely contented himself with sneering at it, I again + introduced it, and tried to show that the conclusion that I stated + followed inevitably and logically from the proposition already decided by + the court. Judge Douglas had the privilege of replying to me at + Galesburgh, and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether he would + or would not sustain such a decision if made. I give him his 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 + decided by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thought + of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his remarks + upon this subject uses the language which I will now read. Speaking of me, + the Judge says: + </p> + <p> + "He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry slavery + into the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself says the + contrary." And he adds: + </p> + <p> + "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." + </p> + <p> + I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying that I + have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge Douglas to lay + his finger upon the place in the entire opinions of the court where any + one of them "says the contrary." It is very hard to affirm a negative with + entire confidence. I say, however, that I have examined that decision with + a good deal of care, as a lawyer examines a decision and, so far as I have + been able to do so, the court has 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 was exactly, in substance, the Nebraska Bill,—that + the States had the exclusive 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 have been voted down by the majority of the judges, just as + Chase's amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it + was offered to the Nebraska Bill. + </p> + <p> + Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield + resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at Ottawa, and + commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as presented, not + genuine. Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to be somewhat + exasperated. He said he would never have believed that Abraham Lincoln, as + he kindly called me, would have attempted such a thing as I had attempted + upon that occasion; and among other expressions which he used toward me, + was that I dared to say forgery, that I had dared to say forgery [turning + to Judge Douglas]. Yes, Judge, I did dare to say forgery. But in this + political canvass the Judge ought to remember that I was not the first who + dared to say forgery. At Jacksonville, Judge Douglas made a speech in + answer to something said by Judge Trumbull, and at the close of what he + said upon that subject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged his + evidence. He said, too, that he should not concern 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 said he + would hold me responsible for it, I spread out before him the statements + of the evidence that Judge Trumbull had used, and I asked Judge Douglas, + piece by piece, to put his finger upon one piece of all that evidence that + he would say was a forgery! When I went through with each and every piece, + Judge Douglas did not dare then to say that any piece of it was a forgery. + So it seems that there are some things that Judge Douglas dares to do, and + some that he dares not to do. + </p> + <p> + [A voice: It is the same thing with you.] + </p> + <p> + Yes, sir, it is the same thing with me. I do dare to say forgery when it + is true, and don't dare to say forgery when it is false. Now I will say + here to this audience and to Judge Douglas I have not dared to say he + committed a forgery, and I never shall until I know it; but I did dare to + say—just to suggest to the Judge—that a forgery had been + committed, which by his own showing had been traced to him and two of his + friends. I dared to suggest to him that he had expressly promised in one + of his public speeches to investigate that matter, and I dared to suggest + to him that there was an implied promise that when he investigated it he + would make known the result. I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could + not expect to be quite clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the + time that promise was made he had been with those friends, and had not + kept his promise in regard to the investigation and the report upon it. I + am not a very daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much + scared about it yet. When the Judge says he would n't have believed of + Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that he reminds + me of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the purpose to treat + me courteously; that touched me somewhat. It 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 audiences before which + it was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and made + his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some sort of a + reply to it. His second speech was made at Bloomington, in which he + commented upon my speech at Chicago and said that I had used language + ingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions, or words to that effect. + Now, I understand that this is an imputation upon my veracity and my + candor. I do not know what the Judge understood by it, but in our first + discussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a bargain, somewhat corrupt + in its character, upon Trumbull and myself,—that we had entered into + a bargain, one of the terms of which was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize + the old Democratic party, and I (Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig + party; I pretending 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 treating me in a dignified way, as a man of honor and + truth, as he now claims he was disposed to treat me. Even after that time, + at Galesburgh, when he brings forward an extract from a speech made at + Chicago and an extract from a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I + was trying to play a double part, that I was trying to cheat the public, + and get votes upon one set of principles at one place, and upon another + set of principles at another place,—I do not understand but what he + impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does this, + I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground for it, to + keep my hands off of him. As soon as I learned that Judge Douglas was + disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of my speeches that I + should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble resources I might have,—to + adopt a new course with him. I was not entirely sure that I should be able + to hold my own with him, but I at least had the purpose made to do as well + as I could upon him; and now I say that I will not be the first to cry + "Hold." I think it originated with the Judge, and when he quits, I + probably will. But I shall not ask any favors at all. He asks me, or he + asks the audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of personal + difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make a mistake, in one of his early + speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though perhaps he did when + he called me an "intelligent" man. It really hurts me very much to suppose + that I have wronged anybody on earth. I again tell him, no! I very much + prefer, when this canvass shall be over, however it may result, that we at + least part without any bitter recollections of personal difficulties. + </p> + <p> + The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was pushing + this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the responsibility for the + enormity of my principles. I say to the Judge and this audience, now, that + I will again state our principles, as well as I hastily can, in all their + enormity, and if the Judge hereafter chooses to confine himself to a war + upon these principles, he will probably not find me departing from the + same course. + </p> + <p> + We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery. It is a matter of + absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. It is the opinion of + all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it is a + dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in regard to it. That + controversy necessarily springs from difference of opinion; and if we can + learn exactly—can reduce to the lowest elements—what that + difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for + discussing the different systems of policy that we would propose in regard + to that disturbing element. I suggest that the difference of opinion, + reduced to its lowest of terms, is no other than the difference between + the men who think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The + Republican party think it wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a + political wrong. We think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the + persons or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its + tendency, to say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the + whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy + that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other + wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal + with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it. + We have a due regard to the actual presence of it amongst us, and the + difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the + constitutional obligations thrown about it. I suppose that in reference + both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional + obligations, we have no right at all to disturb it in the States where it + exists, and we profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than + we have the right to do it. We go further than that: we don't propose to + disturb it where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit + us. We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the + District of Columbia. Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it + should be in terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely soon to + agree to,—the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and + compensating the unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the + constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the actual + existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about it. We also + oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. We insist on the + policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. We don't suppose that + in doing this we violate anything due to the actual presence of the + institution, or anything due to the constitutional guaranties thrown + around it. + </p> + <p> + We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I ought + perhaps to address you a few words. We do not propose that when Dred Scott + has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will decide him + to be free. We do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, + shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way + disturb the rights of property thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose + that decision as a political rule which shall be binding on the voter to + vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members + of Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually + concur with the principles of that decision. We do not propose to be bound + by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays the + foundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we consider an + evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil into the States + themselves. We propose so resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, + and a new judicial rule established upon this subject. + </p> + <p> + I will add this: that if there be any man who does not believe that + slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in any + one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while on the + other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is impatient + over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and is impatient of + the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and would act in disregard + of these, he too is misplaced, standing with us. He will find his place + somewhere else; for we have a due regard, so far as we are capable of + understanding them, for all these things. This, gentlemen, as well as I + can give it, is a plain statement of our principles in all their enormity. + I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to me,—a + sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore it goes for + the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a wrong. That policy + is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is the Democratic sentiment. + If there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this vast audience that this + is really the central idea of the 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 proposition. 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 anything wrong in it. If you + will examine the arguments that are made on it, you will find that every + one carefully excludes the idea that there is 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? Do you not constantly argue that this is + not the right place to oppose it? You say it must not be opposed in the + free States, because slavery is not here; it must not be 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 place 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 + Douglas Says he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," + whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as + a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to + say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything wrong in it; + but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He + cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When + Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they + have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing + wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot + logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. When he says that + slave property and horse and hog property are alike to be allowed to go + into the Territories, upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning + truly, if there is no difference between them as property; but if the one + is property held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no + equality between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in anyway you can, + in all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that policy + itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is + 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. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0007" id="link2H_4_0007"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. + </h2> + <p> + MY FRIENDS:—Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion + that he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said in an + hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in half an + hour all that he said in an hour and a half. + </p> + <p> + I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public + annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of policy + in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it shall last + forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of this + controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. Judge + Douglas asks you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why + cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made + it, forever? In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make + this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I + insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did + not make it so but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid + of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter + of choice, the fathers of the government made this nation part slave and + part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: + when the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the + abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from + the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed + it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the + course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it + cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends + could not let it remain as our fathers made it? + </p> + <p> + It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of + slavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers placed it + upon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly said, that when + this government was established, no one expected the institution of + slavery to last until this day, and that the men who formed this + government were wiser and better than the men of these days; but the men + of these days had experience which the fathers had not, and that + experience had taught them the invention of the cotton-gin, and this had + made the perpetuation of the institution of slavery a necessity in this + country. Judge Douglas could not let it stand upon the basis which our + fathers placed it, but removed it, and put it upon the cotton-gin basis. + It is a question, therefore, for him and his friends to answer, why they + could not let it remain where the fathers of the government originally + placed it. I hope nobody has understood me as trying to sustain the + doctrine that we have a right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or + any of the slave States, about the institution of slavery,—thus + giving the Judge an opportunity to be eloquent and valiant against us in + fighting for their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech that + I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence + of, the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in + doing as they pleased with slavery Or any other existing institution. Then + what becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the rights of States, which + are assailed by no living man? + </p> + <p> + But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge has informed + me, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is laboring for + my election to the United States Senate. This is news to me,—not + very ungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. W. H. Carlin, who was on the + stand]—I hope that Carlin will be elected to the State Senate, and + will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] Carlin don't fall in, I + perceive, and I suppose he will not do much for me; but I am glad of all + the support I can get, anywhere, if I can get it without practicing any + deception to obtain it. In respect to this large portion of Judge + Douglas's speech in which he tries to show that in the controversy between + himself and the Administration party he is in the right, I do not feel + myself at all competent or inclined to answer him. I say to him, "Give it + to them,—give it to them just all you can!" and, on the other hand, + I say to Carlin, and Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in + Hancock, "Give it to Douglas, just pour it into him!" + </p> + <p> + Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to say a + word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a decision is + made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude slavery, he will + support it or not. He obstinately refuses to say what he will do in that + case. The judges of the Supreme Court as obstinately refused to say what + they would do on this subject. Before this I reminded him that at + Galesburgh he said the judges had expressly declared the contrary, and you + remember that in my Opening speech I told him I had the book containing + that decision here, and I would thank him to lay his finger on the place + where any such thing was said. He has occupied his hour and a half, and he + has not ventured to try to sustain his assertion. He never will. But he is + desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred Scott decision. + Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his political friends find + a way to reverse the decision of that same court in favor of the + constitutionality of the National Bank? Didn't they find a way to do it so + effectually that they have reversed it as completely as any decision ever + was reversed, so far as its practical operation is concerned? + </p> + <p> + And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the + decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father—old + Governor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a Secretary of + State? Did he not appeal to the "MOBS," as he calls them? Did he not make + speeches in the lobby to show how villainous that decision was, and how it + ought to be overthrown? Did he not succeed, too, in getting an act passed + by the Legislature to have it overthrown? And did n't he himself sit down + on that bench as one of the five added judges, who were to overslaugh the + four old ones, getting his name of "judge" in that way, and no other? If + there is a villainy in using disrespect or making opposition to Supreme + Court decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration. I + know of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know so well about + how much villainy it takes to oppose a decision of the Supreme Court as + our honorable friend Stephen A. Douglas. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are + bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not. In the + sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you what I have + said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day. I have said that as the + Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and that the extension of + slavery is affirmed in the National Constitution, they are bound to + support it as such; and I will tell you here that General Jackson once + said each man was bound to support the Constitution "as he understood it." + Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred + Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I + understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the + way in which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas believes that decision + to be correct, I will remake that argument if I have time to do so. Let me + talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in the face. We + will say you are a member of the Territorial Legislature, and, like Judge + Douglas, you believe that the right to take and hold slaves there is a + constitutional right The first thing you do is to swear you will support + the Constitution, and all rights guaranteed therein; that you will, + whenever your neighbor needs your legislation to support his + constitutional rights, not withhold that legislation. If you withhold that + necessary legislation for the support of the Constitution and + constitutional rights, do you not commit perjury? I ask every sensible man + if that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so, say what you please. Now, + that is precisely what Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutional + right. Does the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in + legislating may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly + laws, nullify that constitutional right? Does he mean to say that? Does he + mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in law, that + what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? Does he mean that? + The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas has sung paeans to his + "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his Supreme Court, co-operating with + him, has squatted his Squatter Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this + species of humbuggery about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented + this sort of do-nothing sovereignty,—that the people may exclude + slavery by a sort of "sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at + all. Is not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not + got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the + shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death? But at last, when it is + brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even that thin + decoction of it left. It is a presumption impossible in the domain of + thought. It is precisely no other than the putting of that most + unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same space at + the same time. The Dred Scott decision covers the whole ground, and while + it occupies it, there is no room even for the shadow of a starved pigeon + to occupy the same ground. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a previous + occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an extract from at + Charleston, says it only shows that I practiced the deception twice. Now, + my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to swallow that? Judge Douglas + had said I had made a speech at Charleston that I would not make up north, + and I turned around and answered him by showing I had made that same + speech up north,—had made it at Ottawa; made it in his hearing; made + it in the Abolition District,—in Lovejoy's District,—in the + personal presence of Lovejoy himself,—in the same atmosphere exactly + in which I had made my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much. + </p> + <p> + Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation from + the Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me to handle. + Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the Chicago speech I + delivered two years ago in "Egypt," as he calls it. It was down at + Springfield. That speech is here in this book, and I could turn to it and + read it to you but for the lack of time. I have not now the time to read + it. ["Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I am obliged to use discretion in + disposing most advantageously of my brief time. The Judge has taken great + exception to my adopting the heretical statement in the Declaration of + Independence, that "all men are created equal," and he has a great deal to + say about negro equality. I want to say that in sometimes alluding to the + Declaration of Independence, I have only uttered the sentiments that Henry + Clay used to hold. Allow me to occupy your time a moment with what he + said. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indiana, and in a way that I + suppose was very insulting, to liberate his slaves; and he made a written + reply to that application, and one portion of it is in these words: + </p> + <p> + "What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate the + slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the act + announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American + colonies, that men are created 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." + </p> + <p> + When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in new + countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we should keep + that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I want a negro + wife. He never can be brought to understand that there is any middle + ground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth year, and have + never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, and I think I can + live fifty centuries, for that matter, without having had one for either. + I maintain that you may take Judge Douglas's quotations from my Chicago + speech, and from my Charleston speech, and the Galesburgh speech,—in + his speech of to-day,—and compare them over, and I am willing to + trust them with you upon his proposition that they show rascality or + double-dealing. I deny that they do. + </p> + <p> + The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he is + disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath would + not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. + Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It is certainly not + for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these gentlemen, but I will tell + Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I "dared" to say they proved a + forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh that the publication of these + resolutions in the Illinois State Register could not have been the result + of accident, as the proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable evidence + of being done by a man who knew it was a forgery; that it was a + publication partly taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and + partly from the proceedings of a convention at another place, which showed + that he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part of the + resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and + fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also that + his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time and now + is, must have known how it was done. Now, whether he did it, or got some + friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he certainly knew all about + it. I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in his Freeport speech he had + promised to investigate that matter. Does he now say that he did not make + that promise? I have a right to ask why he did not keep it. I call upon + him to tell here to-day why he did not keep that promise? That fraud has + been traced up so that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier. There is + little room for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge good + service, and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. He + desires Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his + newspaper. He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; and + when this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where the + guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate it, + and implied that he would tell us the result of his investigation, I + demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, if he did not; and if + he did, why he won't tell the result. I call upon him for that. + </p> + <p> + This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned + about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against Norton + on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public records of the + country show that he himself attempted it upon Trumbull a month before + Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had the opportunity of learning + it from him, rather than he from Harris. I now ask his attention to that + part of the record on the case. My friends, I am not disposed to detain + you longer in regard to that matter. + </p> + <p> + I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another matter I + wish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered there was a mistake + in that case, he came forward magnanimously, without my calling his + attention to it, and explained it. I will tell you how he became so + magnanimous. When the newspapers of our side had discovered and published + it, and put it beyond his power to deny it, then he came forward and made + a virtue of necessity by acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the + point there was in those resolutions, although never passed at + Springfield, is retained by their being passed at other localities. Is + that true? He said I had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech, + that I was in the convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutions + touch me at all? It strikes me there is some difference between holding a + man responsible for an act which he has not done and holding him + responsible for an act that he has done. You will judge whether there is + any difference in the "spots." And he has taken credit for great + magnanimity in coming forward and acknowledging what is proved on him + beyond even the capacity of Judge Douglas to deny; and he has more + capacity in that way than any other living man. + </p> + <p> + Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a + conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he made. + May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is proven false on + me as that was proven false on him. I will add a little more than that, I + will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man shall be brought to believe + that the charge is not true. I have asked Judge Douglas's attention to + certain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy to + nationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue + because Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the Dred + Scott case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say + the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say that + I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never uttered it. + [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated affirmatively at Mr. + Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say I did, I tell you myself + that I never said the "Democratic" owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I + have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were Democrats, + or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers or Border Ruffians. I have said that + there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a made-up + case, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that that + evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to + be a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the + case tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that + decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his by + that decision. But my time is out, and I can say no more. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0008" id="link2H_4_0008"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + LAST DEBATE, AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858 + </h2> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0009" id="link2H_4_0009"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY + </h2> + <p> + LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—I have been somewhat, in my own mind, + complimented by a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech,—I mean + that portion which he devotes to the controversy 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 improving + in regard to his war with the Administration. At Quincy, day before + yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the Administration 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 + re-commend 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!" + </p> + <p> + There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this branch of the + discussion,—although I do not consider it much of my business, + anyway. 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; 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 the Missouri Compromise. I want to + know if Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? + Has Douglas the exclusive right, 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? + </p> + <p> + So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it was + about me, it is my business to pay some attention 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 + complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had decided that + a negro could never be a citizen of the United States. I have omitted by + some accident heretofore to analyze 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 especially 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 foundation 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 my 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 could not be a citizen; that 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 rights 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 into the State of Illinois and holding 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 prohibited 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 them in a lump, taken in + connection with the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, and the amendment + 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 these 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. + </p> + <p> + Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of my + purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between the + white and black races. His assertion that I made an "especial objection" + (that is his exact language) to the decision on this account is untrue in + point of fact. + </p> + <p> + 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 allusions. 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, without reading, to-day to a portion + of a speech which I delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that + speech, as he has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken + in 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 + convey. It will take me some little time to read it, but I believe I will + occupy the time that way. + </p> + <p> + 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 + published speeches: + </p> + <p> + "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 we did secure if we + grasped for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does + not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let the + charter remain as our standard." + </p> + <p> + 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 institution of slavery, and establish a perfect social + and political equality between negroes and white people. + </p> + <p> + 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: + </p> + <p> + "I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all + men, but they did not mean to declare all men 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 + inalienable rights, among which are life, 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. + </p> + <p> + "They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be + familiar to all,—constantly looked to, constantly 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." + </p> + <p> + 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 myself chose to say in regard to it. + </p> + <p> + At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, 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 reassert 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 astonishment to me if they shall + be able to find that one human being three years ago had ever uttered the + astounding sentiment 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 mouth of some Southern men for a period of years, + ending at last in that shameful, though rather 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 believe 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 irresistible current,—whither, they know not. + </p> + <p> + 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 Times, 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 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 men 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 Declaration. 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 authority. While he was in Indiana + a man presented a petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made + a speech in answer to it, which I suppose he carefully wrote out himself + and 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 did n't suppose the negro was + included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay said: + </p> + <p> + "And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate + the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the + act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American + colonies, that 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 apprehend + 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, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always + probably remain subject to the government of another portion of the + community. + </p> + <p> + "That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, 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? Would Virginia and other Southern States + have ever united in a declaration 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 recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but + permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808." + </p> + <p> + 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 does it do so? In what way has it a + tendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an abstract principle + that all men are created equal, but that we cannot practically apply it in + all eases. 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. Clay says, a little further on: + </p> + <p> + "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, 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 would be more strongly opposed than I should be to + incorporate the institution of slavery amongst its elements." + </p> + <p> + 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 Independence, is no such statement on his + part, but the declaration that it is a great fundamental truth which + should be constantly kept in view in the organization of society and in + societies already 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 I am 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 recognizing what he + recognized as the great principle of free government? + </p> + <p> + And when this new principle—this new proposition that no human being + ever thought of three years ago—is brought forward, I combat it as + having an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as having a + tendency to dehumanize the 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 + constantly 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. + </p> + <p> + 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: + </p> + <p> + "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, 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 would be more strongly opposed than I should be to + incorporate the institution of slavery amongst its elements." + </p> + <p> + 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 nothing 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 society in our Territories + where it does not exist, he would be opposed 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 hurtful to him. + </p> + <p> + Judge 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 language: + </p> + <p> + "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 a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house divided + against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure + permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, + but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, + or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the 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." + </p> + <p> + 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: + </p> + <p> + I said we were 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? We were to have no more agitation + 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 that time to + allay. We were for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and that + very allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again. But was it + not understood or intimated with the "confident promise" of putting an end + to the slavery agitation? 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 Constitution, every speech on that + Nebraska Bill was full of his felicitations that we were just at the end + of the slavery agitation. 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? + </p> + <p> + There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska policy, + which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a superior degree + of self-government, beyond 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 + earth 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 + living, creeping lie from the time of its introduction till to-day. + </p> + <p> + 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 be 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 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 + the 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 its + ultimate extinction? + </p> + <p> + 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 + regard to the prohibition of the African slave-trade? It runs in about + this way: + </p> + <p> + "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." + </p> + <p> + 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: + </p> + <p> + "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several + States which may be included within this Union, according to their + respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding 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." + </p> + <p> + It says "persons," not slaves, not negroes; but this "three-fifths" can be + applied to no other class among us than the negroes. + </p> + <p> + Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it is + said: + </p> + <p> + "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, + escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation + therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered + up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." + </p> + <p> + 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 purpose, 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 institution of slavery + had passed from among us,—there should be nothing on the face of the + great charter of liberty suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had + ever existed among us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of + the government 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 that I desire to see the further + spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the + fathers have first done. 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 + extinction, 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 puts + it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within itself,—was + introduced by the framers of the Constitution. The exact truth is, that + they found the institution 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 difficulty—the absolute + impossibility—of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks + me why we cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of + the government 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 government had adopted in relation to + this element among us was the best policy in the world, the only wise + policy, the only policy that we can ever safely continue upon that will + ever give us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all and + becomes a national institution,—I turn upon him and ask him why he + could not leave it 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 so 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. I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free + and slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude + by those who made the Constitution, did they make any war? If we had no + war 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. + </p> + <p> + 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 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 democratic 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 productions + 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 barrel 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 house,"—figuratively + expressing the Union,—they tend to sustain it; they are the props of + the house, tending always to hold it up. + </p> + <p> + 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 amongst ourselves about the cranberry laws of + Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine-lumber laws of Maine, + or 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 amongst 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. + </p> + <p> + But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in regard to + this institution of slavery spring 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 annexation of Texas. Go + back to the troubles that led to the Compromise 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 + disturbance 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 Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What disturbed the + Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has jarred and + shaken the great American Tract Society recently, 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 + literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life? Is this the + work of politicians? Is that irresistible power, which for fifty years has + shaken the government and agitated the people, to be stifled and subdued + by pretending that it is an exceedingly 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 disturbed 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 undertakes to build up a + system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing + that everybody does care the most about—a thing which all experience + has shown we care a very great deal about? + </p> + <p> + 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 + controversy 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 + Government, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We profess + constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the power of + the government to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend + ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the + Sates. What 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 right all his way, and you have no part of it + your way. If he goes in and makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence + a slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have it a free + State were on equal ground? Let me suggest it in a different way. How many + Democrats are there about here ["A thousand"] 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 Territory to go to? And when hereafter, for any cause, the people in + this place shall desire to find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the + institution, where will they find the place to go to? + </p> + <p> + Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there + is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new + Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home,—may + find some spot where they can better their condition; where they can + settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of + this, not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own + people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people + everywhere the world over—in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, + and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their + conditions in life. + </p> + <p> + I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what I + understand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge Douglas + and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the free and + the slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when he + assumes that I am in favor of producing 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 institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does + not look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the + institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the + Republican party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all + their arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They + look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while they + contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual + existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any + satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about + it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in regard to + it that looks to its not creating any more danger. They insist that it + should, as far as may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the methods of + treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. + They also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some + time. These are the views they entertain in regard to it as I understand + them; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are + brought within this range. I have said, and I repeat it here, that if + there be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of + slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he is + misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man amongst us + who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence + among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a + satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown + about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We disclaim + sympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly with us. + </p> + <p> + On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let me + say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union save + and except this very institution of slavery? What is it that we hold most + dear amongst us? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever 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. That is the peaceful way, the + old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us the + example. + </p> + <p> + On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it as not + being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean + to say that every man who stands within that range positively asserts that + it is right. That class will include all who positively assert that it is + right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as indifferent and do not + say it is either 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 supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider + himself "as much opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason + with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you + consider as a wrong do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you + say it is wrong—but your leader never does, and you quarrel with + 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 the security of "my place." There is no place to + talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. + But, finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the people + of the slave States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the + slavery question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor of + it. You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad + to see it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself. You all know that Frank + Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook to introduce + that system in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as they could for the + system of 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 exclude 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 pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish + that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. The + Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the + merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. + Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he "don't care + whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories. I do not care + myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be + expressive of his individual 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 indifferent thing is + voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right + thing and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves + has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is + a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon + the score of equality slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, + like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no difference + between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, this + argument is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the + other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and + wrong. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from + beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in + the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in + conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,—it + everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. + </p> + <p> + 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 face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue + to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the + divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it + develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and + earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether + from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own + nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an + apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I + was glad to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, to + Judge Douglas,—that he looks to no end of the institution of + slavery. That will help the people to see where the struggle really is. It + will 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 between + the parties, this controversy will soon be settled, and it will be done + peaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. It will be placed again + where the wisest and best men of the world placed it. Brooks of South + Carolina once declared that when this Constitution was framed its framers + did not look to the institution existing until this day. When he said + this, I think he stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history of + the times. But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men of + these days, yet the men of these days had experience which they had not, + and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this + country that slavery should be perpetual. I now say that, willingly or + unwillingly—purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been the + most prominent 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's cotton-gin basis; placing it + where he openly confesses he has no desire there shall ever be an end of + it. + </p> + <p> + I understand I have ten minutes yet. 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 + constantly said, before the decision, that whether they could or not, was + a question for the Supreme Court. But after the court had made the + decision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme Court, but + for the people. And how is it he tells us they can exclude it? He says it + needs "police regulations," and that admits of "unfriendly legislation." + Although it is a right established by the Constitution of the United + States to take a slave into a Territory of the United States and hold him + as property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly + legislation, and more especially if they adopt unfriendly legislation, + they can practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition as + a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional obligation. + Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face before me, and let us + suppose that he is a member of the Territorial Legislature. The first + thing he will do will be to swear that he will support the Constitution of + the United States. His neighbor by his side in the Territory has slaves + and needs Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy that + constitutional right. Can he withhold the legislation which his neighbor + needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the + Constitution of the United States which he has sworn to support? Can he + withhold it without violating his oath? And, more especially, can he pass + unfriendly legislation to violate his oath? Why, this is a monstrous sort + of talk about the Constitution of the United States! There has never been + as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable man + on earth. I do not believe it is a constitutional right to hold slaves in + a Territory of the United States. I believe the decision was improperly + made and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is furious against those who + go for reversing a decision. But he is for legislating it out of all force + while the law itself stands. I repeat that there has never been so + monstrous a doctrine uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. + </p> + <p> + 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 + valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is + constitutional, I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it, and + that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no + taste for running and 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 legislation to support slavery in a Territory, who believes + it is a constitutional right to have it there. No man can, who does not + give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation enjoined by the + Constitution to enact a Fugitive State law. Try it now. It is the + strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision + is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a + constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway + returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The one is + express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in the + Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believes + in the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in + spite of that constitutional right, slavery may be driven from the + Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument by which Abolitionists + may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to pass + laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I + do not know how such an arguement may strike a popular assembly like this, + but I defy anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to + estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of + difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive and the + constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred + Scott decision is correct, I defy any man to make an argument that will + justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to + hold his slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, + breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for nullifying the Fugitive + Slave law. Why, there is not such an Abolitionist in the nation as + Douglas, after all! + </p> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Papers And Writings Of Abraham +Lincoln, Volume Four, by Abraham Lincoln + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LINCOLN'S PAPERS *** + +***** This file should be named 2656-h.htm or 2656-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/2/6/5/2656/ + +Produced by David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + </body> +</html> diff --git a/2656.txt b/2656.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6f558f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/2656.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3592 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Papers And Writings Of Abraham Lincoln, +Volume Four, by Abraham Lincoln + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Papers And Writings Of Abraham Lincoln, Volume Four + Constitutional Edition + +Author: Abraham Lincoln + +Commentator: Theodore Roosevelt, Carl Schurz, and Joseph Choate + +Editor: Arthur Brooks Lapsley + +Release Date: June, 2001 [Etext #2656] +Posting Date: July 5, 2009 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LINCOLN'S PAPERS *** + + + + +Produced by David Widger + + + + + +THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN + +VOLUME FOUR + +CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION + +By Abraham Lincoln + + +Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley + + + + + +THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Volume Four + + + + +THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II + + + + +LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH DEBATE, AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. + + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--It will be very difficult for an audience so large +as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is +important that as profound silence be preserved as possible. + +While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to +know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between +the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this +occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I +thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard +to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of +bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white +and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making +voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor +to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that +there is a physical difference between the white and black races which +I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of +social and political equality. And in as much 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 +superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion +I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior +position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that +because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want +her for a wife. My 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 a 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 entirely satisfied of its +correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel +Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am +not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the +least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was +no law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem +to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep +them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very +last stand by the law of this State which forbids the marrying of white +people with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this: that I do +not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social +and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, except +in the State Legislature,--not in the Congress of the United States; and +as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and +as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is +rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the +Judge be kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight the +measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject. + +When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to Illinois +in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in which he made what +may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which I understand proved to +be very offensive to him. The Judge was at that time out upon one of his +speaking tours through the country, and when the news of it reached him, +as I am informed, he denounced Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for +having said what he did in regard to that matter. I was traveling at that +time, and speaking at the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent +days, and when I heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and +what Douglas had said back again, I felt that I was in a position where +I could not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter. Consequently, +upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no other +wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by Trumbull against +Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to say nothing about it; +that I did personally know Judge Trumbull; that I believed him to be a +man of veracity; that I believed him to be a man of capacity sufficient to +know very well whether an assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn +from a set of facts, was true or false; and as a conclusion of my own from +that, I stated it as my belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon, +he would prove everything he had said. I said this upon two or three +occasions. Upon a subsequent occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before +an audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his charge +against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to substantiate +it. This speech was published at length; and subsequently at Jacksonville +Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In the course of his speech, and near +the close of it, he stated in regard to myself what I will now read: + +"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his +time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, Lincoln having +indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him +(Lincoln) responsible for the slanders." + +I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitation +to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally been my +purpose to discuss that matter at all But in-as-much as it seems to be the +wish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once in +my life I will play General Jackson, and to the just extent I take the +responsibility. + +I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that +portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this matter, +and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at Jacksonville in +answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of this debate with the +complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I cannot now read them, +for the reason that it would take half of my first hour to do so. I can +only make some comments upon them. Trumbull's charge is in the following +words: + +"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a +constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the +people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the +plot." + +I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity of +reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he regards +as sufficient evidence to substantiate this charge. + +It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon the +floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference among the +senators, in which conference it was determined to have an enabling act +passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution under, and in +this conference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a +provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people after +it should be formed. He then brings forward to show, and showing, as he +deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with that +clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause inserted +into the bill, which would in its nature prevent a reference of the +constitution back for a vote of the people,--if, indeed, upon a mere +silence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to vote +upon it. These are the general statements that he has made. + +I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he +attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to +examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he +makes is: + +"Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and that +I struck it out,--is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution upon +them against their will?" + +His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill, +he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the +purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would say, in the first +place, that that would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, as +Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial bills have passed without +having such a provision in them. I believe it is true, though I am not +certain, that in some instances constitutions framed under such bills +have been submitted to a vote of the people with the law silent upon the +subject; but it does not appear that they once had their enabling acts +framed with an express provision for submitting the constitution to be +framed to a vote of the people, then that they were stricken out when +Congress did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have been +bills which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when was +that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does the +evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, when +we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almost +simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a conference among +certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be passed +leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to attend to +the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which it was agreed +they should so frame the bill that there should be no submission of the +constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge does not notice this part +of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that +simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to +be submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty fair +show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter into a plot +to put in force a constitution for Kansas, without giving the people any +opportunity of voting upon it. + +But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is this: + +"But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain +a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted." + +This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I only +want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that these words +were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill from which it is +alleged the provision was stricken out,--a bill which goes by the name of +Toomb's, because he originally brought it forward? I ask why, if the Judge +wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take the exact +proposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not stricken out? +Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the Toomb's bill, +and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were stricken out. Judge +Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken +out were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision in the +Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We see at +once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the words. +He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about these words +being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to it, only taking an +issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if there be any issue upon +the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the question of fact as to +whether these words were stricken out, I have before me what I suppose to +be a genuine copy of the Toomb's bill, in which it can be shown that the +words Trumbull says were in it were, in fact, originally there. If there +be any dispute upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show +they were there. If there be any controversy upon the sense of the +words,--whether these words which were stricken out really constituted a +provision for submitting the matter to a vote of the people,--as that is a +matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull's own argument. He +says that the proposition is in these words: + +"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to +the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their free +acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified +by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall +be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." + +Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill +when it came back, and he says this was a provision for submitting the +constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument is this: + +"Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the +election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an election was +to be held?" + +This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge +at all, but he stands up and says there was no such proposition in that +bill for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people. +Trumbull admits that the language is not a direct provision for submitting +it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another provision. He +asks you how it is possible to ratify the land proposition at the election +for the adoption of the constitution, if there was no election to be held +for the adoption of the constitution. And he goes on to show that it is +not any less a law because the provision is put in that indirect shape +than it would be if it were put directly. But I presume I have said enough +to draw attention to this point, and I pass it by also. + +Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and at +very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in +a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to be made would +have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thought so then, +what ground is there for anybody thinking otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, +this much may be said in reply: That bill had been in the hands of a +party to which Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of the +committee at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had a +printed copy of the original Toomb's bill. I have not the evidence on +that point except a sort of inference I draw from the general course +of business there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of +altering, were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, +until the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterwards, when it was +reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull in +reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the bearings +of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not +follow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive, +that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that what +Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did? Suppose Trumbull had +been in the plot with these other men, would that let Douglas out of it? +Would it exonerate Douglas that Trumbull did n't then perceive he was in +the plot? He also asks the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose to +amend the bill, if he thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe that +everything Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection with +this question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of +the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his friends. +He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to anything on this +subject would receive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull did +bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the fact that there was no +provision for submitting the constitution about to be made for the people +of Kansas to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture to say that +Judge Douglas made some reply to this speech of Judge Trumbull's, but he +never noticed that part of it at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, +then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not throw +much blame upon him; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact +as to what Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself +been in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it +from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial it +should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, but that +the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at all touch +the question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck that they +discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to be guilty too. + +Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is, that +when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the fact that the +bill had the provision in it for submitting the constitution to a vote +of the people when it went into his Judge Douglas's hands, that it was +missing when he reported it to the Senate, and that in a public speech he +had subsequently said the alterations in the bill were made while it was +in committee, and that they were made in consultation between him (Judge +Douglas) and Toomb's. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact +of Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill +not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with another +clause and another provision in it, saying that "until the +complete execution of this Act there shall be no election in said +Territory,"--which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the provision +for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but was adding an +affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from exercising the right +under a bill that was merely silent on the question. Now, in regard +to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the issue, that he shifts his +ground,--and I believe he uses the term that, "it being proven false, he +has changed ground," I call upon all of you, when you come to examine that +portion of Trumbull's speech (for it will make a part of mine), to examine +whether Trumbull has shifted his ground or not. I say he did not shift his +ground, but that he brought forward his original charge and the evidence +to sustain it yet more fully, but precisely as he originally made it. +Then, in addition thereto, he brought in a new piece of evidence. He +shifted no ground. He brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with +his former testimony; but he brought a new piece, tending, as he thought, +and as I think, to prove his proposition. To illustrate: A man brings +an accusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge +introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a second trial he +introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and a +third witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives further +testimony corroborative of the charge. So with Trumbull. There was no +shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony between the new piece +of evidence and what he originally introduced. + +But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last +provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and a +substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is true +that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. Trumbull +has not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it was so stricken +out. He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as Judge Douglas reported +it back. It was amended somewhat in the Senate before it passed, but I am +speaking of it as he brought it back." Now, when Judge Douglas parades the +fact that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he +asserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only said +that he originally put it in, not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull +says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. When it came +back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made by him in +consultation with Toomb's. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as his conclusion, +that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants to contradict +Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not put it in, and not +that he did n't take it out again. It is said that a bear is sometimes +hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I presume it was in this case. +I presume the truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward took it out. +That, I take it, is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing, +Douglas says another thing, and the two don't contradict one another at +all. The question is, what did he put it in for? In the first place, what +did he take the other provision out of the bill for,--the provision which +Trumbull argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of +the people? What did he take that out for; and, having taken it out, what +did he put this in for? I say that in the run of things it is not unlikely +forces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge Douglas to take +that latter clause out again. The question that Trumbull has made is +that Judge Douglas put it in; and he don't meet Trumbull at all unless he +denies that. + +In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses this +language toward Judge Trumbull. He says: + +"He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the +record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge." + +Well, that is a pretty serious statement--Trumbull forges his evidence +from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say that it is not +true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has brought +forward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to, examine +whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had the bill +or document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says that is a +copy of the Toomb's bill,--the amendment offered by Toomb's. He says that +is a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas's +hands. Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? That is one thing +Trumbull brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning +to end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does Douglas say that is a +forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent examination +upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another document like this, and +says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came back in the amended form +out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? +Does he say it in his general sweeping charge? Does he say so now? If he +does not, then take this Toomb's bill and the bill in the amended form, +and it only needs to compare them to see that the provision is in the one +and not in the other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken +out. + +But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull's +other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull says +there are in this original Toomb's bill these words: + +"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to +the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free +acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified +by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall +be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." + +Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper here and +see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr. +Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December +9, 1857: + +"I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the bill +was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, whether the +constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It +was held by those most intelligent on the subject that, in view of all the +difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experiment at +that time of a popular vote, it would be better there should be no such +provision in the Toomb's bill; and it was my understanding, in all the +intercourse I had, that the Convention would make a constitution, and send +it here, without submitting it to the popular vote." + +Then Trumbull follows on: + +"In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 +[Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said: + +"'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or +confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it +was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollection +was clear that I left the conference under the impression that it had +been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the +agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this Convention. +This impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of the bill +infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great +aversion; but with the hope of accomplishing a great good, and as no +movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this +objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of +testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their +submission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by +the senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the +admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as +follows: + +"That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to +the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free +acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified +by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall +be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." + +The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of +June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same +section word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the +conference referred to; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reported +the Toombs bill to the Senate with amendments, the next morning, it did +not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the +Convention that the constitution should be approved by the people. The +words "and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the +constitution" had been stricken out. + +Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor +of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the +Congressional Globe on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is a +forgery? Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional Globe? +What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his evidence from +beginning to end? So again he says in another place that Judge Douglas, +in his speech, December 9, 1857 (Congressional Globe, part I., page 15), +stated: + +"That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill +from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to +assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently the senator +from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, +after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed +by the Senate." + +Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and is +recorded in the Congressional Globe. Is it a forgery? Is it there or +not? It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take these pieces of +evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he dare do it. + +[A voice: "He will."] + +Well, sir, you had better not commit him. He gives other +quotations,--another from Judge Douglas. He says: + +"I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member of +the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union, from +any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the +people. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so +understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it +was not, they would have made the point on it; and if they had made it, +we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a +discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take +it for granted that that would be done, which ought in fairness to have +been done." + +Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. Does +Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true? Trumbull says +somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any one who +will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the notice of +those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that provision; and +then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge Douglas, where Judge +Trumbull uses this language: + +"Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probably +recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had objected to the +Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for a submission of the +constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found +in the same volume of the Globe, page 22, in which he says: 'That the bill +was silent on this subject was true, and my attention was called to that +about the time it was passed; and I took the fair construction to be, that +powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the constitution +would be submitted to the people.' + +"Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before made, +that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that it was +a new discovery, you will determine." + +So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and yet +maintain his position that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from beginning +to end." I will remark that I have not got these Congressional Globes +with me. They are large books, and difficult to carry about, and if Judge +Douglas shall say that on these points where Trumbull has quoted from them +there are no such passages there, I shall not be able to prove they are +there upon this occasion, but I will have another chance. Whenever he +points out the forgery and says, "I declare that this particular thing +which Trumbull has uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then +my attention will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest, +stating now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find +every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the question is, How +can Douglas call that a forgery? How can he make out that it is a forgery? +What is a forgery? It is the bringing forward something in writing or in +print purporting to be of certain effect when it is altogether untrue. If +you come forward with my note for one hundred dollars when I have never +given such a note, there is a forgery. If you come forward with a letter +purporting to be written by me which I never wrote, there is another +forgery. If you produce anything in writing or in print saying it is so +and so, the document not being genuine, a forgery has been committed. How +do you make this forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine? +If Judge Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false and +forged, he has a full right to do so; but until he does it specifically, +we don't know how to get at him. If he does say they are false and +forged, I will then look further into it, and presume I can procure the +certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies. I have +no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where Trumbull says +it is. Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in making his sweeping +charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged from beginning to end, +at all meets the case,--if that is the way to get at the facts. I repeat +again, if he will point out which one is a forgery, I will carefully +examine it, and if it proves that any one of them is really a forgery, +it will not be me who will hold to it any longer. I have always wanted +to deal with everyone I meet candidly and honestly. If I have made any +assertion not warranted by facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will +withdraw it cheerfully. But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull +calumniated, and the evidence he has brought forward branded in general +terms "a forgery from beginning to end." This is not the legal way of +meeting a charge, and I submit it to all intelligent persons, both friends +of Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is. + +The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill that went into his hands +had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to the +people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision for a +submission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was known that +the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge Douglas, it was +not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the declaration, when you +got it, for a submission of the constitution to the people. And now, my +direct question to Judge Douglas is, to answer why, if he deemed the bill +silent on this point, he found it necessary to strike out those particular +harmless words. If he had found the bill silent and without this +provision, he might say what he does now. If he supposes it was implied +that the constitution would be submitted to a vote of the people, how +could these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to +strike them out? How could he infer that a submission was still implied, +after its express provision had been stricken from the bill? I find the +bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it out, and +although he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a vote +of the people, I ask, Why did you first put it in? I ask him whether he +took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges was in the bill. +If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he did it for. It looks +to us as if he had altered the bill. If it looks differently to him,--if +he has a different reason for his action from the one we assign him--he +can tell it. I insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent upon that +point when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it. + +I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three +minutes of being out. I presume it is expired now; I therefore close. + + + + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. + +FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour answer +to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried one. I shall +only be able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by Judge Douglas, +and give them a brief attention, while I shall have to totally omit others +for the want of time. + +Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an +answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far +as I know the Judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no +occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not +in favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying a +few words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine, which +has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could +not possibly be made a citizen; and without saying what was my ground of +complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, +Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he +ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes +and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he will find I +mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme +Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. But Judge +Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them +myself. Now, my opinion is that the different States have the power to +make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they +choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If +the State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise +of it. That is all I have to say about it. + +Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speeches +south; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north and +recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very different cast of +sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. I will not charge +upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but I call upon +every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and I dare him +to point out any difference between my speeches north and south. While I +am here perhaps I ought to say a word, if I have the time, in regard to +the latter portion of the Judge's speech, which was a sort of declamation +in reference to my having said I entertained the belief that this +government would not endure half slave and half free. I have said so, and +I did not say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhaps +would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in +detail; but let me ask you a few questions. Have we ever had any peace on +this slavery question? When are we to have peace upon it, if it is kept in +the position it now occupies? How are we ever to have peace upon it? That +is an important question. To be sure, if we will all stop, and allow Judge +Douglas and his friends to march on in their present career until they +plant the institution all over the nation, here and wherever else our flag +waves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be peace. But let me ask Judge +Douglas how he is going to get the people to do that? They have been +wrangling over this question for at least forty years. This was the cause +of the agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise; this produced the +troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the territory +acquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was the trouble which was quieted +by the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled "forever" as both the great +political parties declared in their National Conventions. That "forever" +turned out to be just four years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. +When is it likely to come to an end? He introduced the Nebraska Bill in +1854 to put another end to the slavery agitation. He promised that it +would finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech +since, until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton +Constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the end of +the slavery agitation. But in one speech, I think last winter, he did +say that he did n't quite see when the end of the slavery agitation would +come. Now he tells us again that it is all over and the people of Kansas +have voted down the Lecompton Constitution. How is it over? That was only +one of the attempts at putting an end to the slavery agitation--one +of these "final settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formed +a constitution that she is likely to come in under? Is not the slavery +agitation still an open question in that Territory? Has the voting down +of that constitution put an end to all the trouble? Is that more likely to +settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery +agitation? Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more +foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can see +the end of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas Bill was introduced four +years and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end we +may say we are four years and a half nearer the end. So, too, we can say +we are four years and a half nearer the end of the world, and we can +just as clearly see the end of the world as we can see the end of this +agitation. The Kansas settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should +sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this +vexed question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of +putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon +the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out of our +new Territories,--to restrict it forever to the old States where it now +exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the +course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to the +slavery agitation. + +The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his friends +have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease speaking of +it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the common matters +of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and cattle. But +while it drives on in its state of progress as it is now driving, and as +it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured the opinion, and +I say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery agitation until +it takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when it takes a turn +toward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two +years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction +would occur in less than a hundred years at least; but that it will occur +in the best way for both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt. +But, my friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this +point. + +Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a +bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854: Judge +Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, except +the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he told a +cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral principles that +Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the simple truth. I do not +care greatly for the story, but this is the truth of it: and I have twice +told Judge Douglas to his face that from beginning to end there is not one +word of truth in it. I have called upon him for the proof, and he does +not at all meet me as Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just +talking, by producing the record. He did n't bring the record because +there was no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready to +indorse Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply +that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would not be likely to +indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity because +neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years that I have +known Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his word or tell a +falsehood large or small. It is for that reason that I indorse Lyman +Trumbull. + +[Mr. JAMES BROWN (Douglas postmaster): "What does Ford's History say about +him?"] + +Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My own +recollection is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful terms +in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal worse of +Judge Douglas. I refer you, sir, to the History for examination. + +Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on the +part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to attend to +that suggestion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly accused of dealing +illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either in court or in a +political canvass or anywhere else. I would despise myself if I supposed +myself ready to deal less liberally with an adversary than I was willing +to be treated myself. Judge Douglas in a general way, without putting it +in a direct shape, revives the old charge against me in reference to the +Mexican War. He does not take the responsibility of putting it in a very +definite form, but makes a general reference to it. That charge is more +than ten years old. He complains of Trumbull and myself because he says +we bring charges against him one or two years old. He knows, too, that +in regard to the Mexican War story the more respectable papers of his +own party throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and +acknowledge that it was a lie. + +[Here Mr. LINCOLN turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting HON. +ORLANDO B. FICKLIN, led him forward and said:] + +I do not mean to do anything with Mr. FICKLIN except to present his face +and tell you that he personally knows it to be a lie! He was a member +of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [FICKLIN] knows +that whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine which +would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such +indorsement and voted against it; but I never voted against the supplies +for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a +dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise for the benefit of +the soldiers I gave all the votes that FICKLIN or Douglas did, and perhaps +more. + +[Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter: +Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas +and myself. In reference to this Mexican War, my recollection is that +when Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun of +Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican War was unnecessary +and unconstitutionally commenced by the President-my recollection is that +Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.] + +That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution censuring +the President for the manner in which the war was begun. You know they +have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the +soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their country. I say that +FICKLIN knows it is false. When that charge was brought forward by the +Chicago Times, the Springfield Register [Douglas's organ] reminded the +Times that the charge really applied to John Henry; and I do know that +John Henry is now making speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. +If the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of setoff to what I +said to-day in reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that he +made this charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He brought this +forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the opening +speech that Judge Douglas made he attacked me in regard to a matter +ten years old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about people making +charges against him only two years old! + +The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon this +charge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in my opening +speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said that when Judge +Douglas was speaking at place--where I spoke on the succeeding day he used +very harsh language about this charge. Two or three times afterward I said +I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's veracity and intelligence; and my own +opinion was, from what I knew of the character of Judge Trumbull, that he +would vindicate his position and prove whatever he had stated to be true. +This I repeated two or three times; and then I dropped it, without saying +anything more on the subject for weeks--perhaps a month. I passed it by +without noticing it at all till I found, at Jacksonville, Judge Douglas +in the plenitude of his power is not willing to answer Trumbull and let +me alone, but he comes out there and uses this language: "He should not +hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull but +that, Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he +should hold him [Lincoln] responsible for the slanders." What was Lincoln +to do? Did he not do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting +Judge Douglas here, to tell him he was ready for the responsibility? I +ask a candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the +assailant rather than I? Here I meet him face to face, and say I am ready +to take the responsibility, so far as it rests on me. + +Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the question +whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge +Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it? You all heard me call upon +him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery. Does he +say that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a +forgery? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported by +himself is a forgery, or what is presented as a transcript from the Globe +of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a forgery? Does he say the +quotations from his own speech are forgeries? Does he say this transcript +from Trumbull's speech is a forgery? + +["He didn't deny one of them."] + +I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of a +story is true the whole story turns out false. I take it these people have +some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is playing cuttle-fish, +a small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself when pursued +except by throwing out a black fluid, which makes the water so dark the +enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Ain't the Judge playing the +cuttle-fish? + +Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge +Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech +of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces of +testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown to +be such. Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery. Then I ask the +original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is it +possible that the whole is a falsehood? + +In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision into +the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the people, what +was his answer? He comes here and reads from the Congressional Globe to +show that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill. Why, +Trumbull has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull says +he [Douglas] put it in; and it is no answer to the charge to say he +afterwards took it out. Both are perhaps true. It was in regard to that +thing precisely that I told him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows you +that by his introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to that +assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially say +that Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case, does it answer +Trumbull? I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are here to-day, +and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you were in Mattoon +yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your head, and you prove me +a liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole force of Douglas's +argument. + +Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that Judge +Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a constitution +to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge Douglas deny that +fact? Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull reads was put in that +bill? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he dare to deny that? He +does not, and I have the right to repeat the question,--Why Judge Douglas +took it out? Bigler has said there was a combination of certain senators, +among whom he did not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that +the Kansas Bill should have a clause in it not to have the constitution +formed under it submitted to a vote of the people. He did not say that +Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the same +time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken out of the +bill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in concert, yet +it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and done with a mutual +understanding after the conference; and while we do not know that it was +absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that we have a right to call upon +the man who knows the true reason why it was done to tell what the true +reason was. When he will not tell what the true reason was, he stands in +the attitude of an accused thief who has stolen goods in his possession, +and when called to account refuses to tell where he got them. Not only is +this the evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision +stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then but since, that these +alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, in +consultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells us the +same to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in the bill in +committee that he did not vote for. I ask you to remember, while certain +amendments were made which he disapproved of, but which a majority of the +committee voted in, he has himself told us that in this particular the +alterations and modifications were made by him, upon consultation with +Toombs. We have his own word that these alterations were made by him, and +not by the committee. Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so +chary about coming to the exact question? What is the reason he will not +tell you anything about How it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that he +remembers it being made at all? Why does he stand playing upon the meaning +of words and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? If he can explain +all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have the right to infer that Judge +Douglas understood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering that +bill through, to make a constitution, and have Kansas come into the Union +with that constitution, without its being submitted to a vote of the +people. If he will explain his action on this question, by giving a +better reason for the facts that happened than he has done, it will be +satisfactory. But until he does that--until he gives a better or more +plausible reason than he has offered against the evidence in the case--I +suggest to him it will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, +takes on dignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word in +Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has only +arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of reasoning. +There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends on Trumbull's +word. If you have ever studied geometry, you remember that by a course of +reasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a triangle are equal to +two right angles. Euclid has shown you how to work it out. Now, if you +undertake to disprove that proposition, and to show that it is erroneous, +would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar? They tell me that +my time is out, and therefore I close. + + + + +FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, OCTOBER 7, 1858 + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY. + +MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge Douglas +has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in print. I +do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all.---If I had not been +interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I was able to make +to a very large portion of it had already been more than once made and +published. There has been an opportunity afforded to the public to see +our respective views upon the topics 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 attended to, and ask your attention to them, and I shall follow him +backwards upon some notes which I have taken, reversing the order, by +beginning where he concluded. + +The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and insisted +that negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that it is a +slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that negroes +were meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possible to believe that Mr. +Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have supposed himself +applying the language of that instrument to the negro race, and yet held +a portion of that race in slavery? Would he not at once have freed them? +I only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech (and that, too, +very briefly, for I shall not detain 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, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single +man, that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence; +I think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that +Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any member +of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the whole earth ever +said so, until the necessities of the present policy of the Democratic +party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that affirmation. And I will +remind Judge Douglas and this audience that while Mr. Jefferson was the +owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking upon this very subject +he used the strong language that "he trembled for his country when he +remembered that God was just"; and I will offer the highest premium in +my power to Judge Douglas if he will show that he, in all his life, ever +uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson. + +The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's comments +upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call our public +meetings as Republican meetings; and he instances Tazewell County as one +of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called a public meeting +and have not dared to name it a 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. In the contest of 1856 his party delighted +to call themselves together as the "National Democracy"; but now, if +there should be a notice put up anywhere for a meeting of the "National +Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not come. They would not +suppose themselves invited. They would understand that it was a call for +those hateful postmasters whom he talks about. + +Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine which +Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in very great +contrast to 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 assumes that I do not understand that my +speeches will be put in print and read north and south. I knew all the +while that the speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at +Jonesboro and the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all +the reading and intelligent men in the community would see them and know +all about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, +that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will have +it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality between +the white and black races which justifies us in making them slaves, we +must then insist that there is a degree of equality that requires us to +make them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken a broad distinction +in regard to that matter; and that is all there is in these different +speeches which he arrays here; and the entire reading of either of the +speeches will show that that distinction was made. Perhaps by taking two +parts of the same speech he could have got up as much of a conflict as +the one he has found. I have all the while maintained that in so far as it +should be insisted that there was an equality between the white and black +races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it was +an impossibility. This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it +I have said that in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of +happiness," as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are +our equals. And these declarations I have constantly made in reference +to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we are +legislating about any new country which is not already cursed with +the actual presence of the evil,--slavery. I have never manifested any +impatience with the necessities that spring from the actual presence of +black people amongst us, and the actual existence of slavery amongst us +where it does already exist; but I have insisted that, in legislating for +new countries where it does not exist there is no just rule other than +that of moral and abstract right! With reference to those new countries, +those maxims as to the right of a people to "life, liberty, and the +pursuit of happiness" were the just rules to be constantly referred +to. There is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested to +misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an intelligent and +reading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge +whether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I advanced +hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions of +the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, +though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free from all error +in the opinions I advance. + +The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction between +his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national party, ours a +sectional one. He does this in asking the question whether this country +has any interest in the maintenance of the 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--and be based upon rightful principles--unless it can announce its +principles everywhere. I presume that Judge Douglas could not go into +Russia and announce the doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not +denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Russia; and +it may be true of this country that in some places we may not be able to +proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of democracy, because +there is a section so directly opposed to it that they will not tolerate +us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of a doctrine that in +some places people won't let you proclaim it? Is that the way to test the +truth of any doctrine? Why, I understood that at one time the people of +Chicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a certain favorite doctrine of +his. I commend to his consideration the question whether he takes that as +a test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. + +There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little while +on this occasion. What has always been the evidence brought forward to +prove that the Republican party is a sectional party? The main one was +that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did not let the +Republicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That has been the main +evidence brought forward,--that they had no supporters, or substantially +none, in the Slave States. The South have not taken hold of our principles +as we announce 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. Judge Douglas and +I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have now for the fifth +time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I have not found +either Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of the Republican +platform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is wrong. I ask +you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away from the platform +of principles to the fact that he can find people somewhere who will not +allow us to announce those principles. If he had great confidence that our +principles were wrong, he would take hold of them and demonstrate them to +be wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he has of their being +wrong is in the fact that there are people who won't allow us to preach +them. I ask again, is that the way to test the soundness of a doctrine? + +I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality he is +himself fast becoming sectional. I ask his attention to the fact that his +speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio River as they have +formerly gone there I ask his attention to the fact that he felicitates +himself to-day that all the Democrats of the free States are agreeing with +him, while he omits to tell us that the Democrats of any slave State agree +with him. If he has not thought of this, I commend to his consideration +the evidence in his own declaration, on this day, of his becoming +sectional too. I see it rapidly approaching. Whatever may be the result +of this ephemeral contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the +day rapidly approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has been +thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be crowded +down his own throat. + +Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his speech) +about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principles of the Nebraska +Bill, although I have often presented my views upon that subject, yet as +I have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you please, detain you a +little with them. I have always maintained, so far as I was able, that +there was nothing of the principle of the Nebraska Bill in the Compromise +of 1850 at all,--nothing whatever. Where can you find the principle of the +Nebraska Bill in that Compromise? If anywhere, in the two pieces of the +Compromise organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was +expressly provided in these two acts that when they came to be admitted +into the Union they should be admitted with or without slavery, as they +should choose, by their own constitutions. Nothing was said in either of +those acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery during the +Territorial existence of those Territories, while Henry Clay constantly +made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him as a leader) that, in +his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control that question during the +Territorial existence, and that these old Mexican laws excluded slavery. +How can that be used as a principle for declaring that during the +Territorial existence as well as at the time of framing the constitution +the people, if you please, might have slaves if they wanted them? I am not +discussing the question whether it is right or wrong; but how are the New +Mexican and Utah laws patterns for the Nebraska Bill? I maintain that the +organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general 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 allowed to come in in that shape, because in another way it was paid +for, considering that as a part of that system of measures called the +Compromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen acts. It included +the admission of California as a free State, 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 law. All these things were +put together, and, though passed in separate acts, were nevertheless, in +legislation (as the speeches at the time will show), made to depend upon +each other. Each got votes with the understanding that the other measures +were to pass, and by this system of compromise, in that series of +measures, those two bills--the New Mexico and Utah bills--were passed: and +I say for that reason they could not be taken as models, framed upon +their own intrinsic principle, for all future Territories. And I have the +evidence of this in the fact 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 follow them as a pattern at all. + +The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any odious +distinctions between free and slave States. I am altogether unaware that +the Republicans are in favor of making any odious distinctions between the +free and slave States. But there is still 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 Republicans on +the contrary, is, that the Judge is not in favor of making any difference +between slavery and liberty; that he is in favor of eradicating, of +pressing out of view, the questions of preference in this country for free +or slave institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards +the idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Everything that emanates from +him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully excludes the +thought that there is anything wrong in slavery. All their arguments, if +you will consider them, will be seen to exclude the thought that there is +anything whatever wrong in slavery. If you will take the Judge's speeches, +and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him,--as his +declaration that he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or down,"--you +will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that +slavery is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot +logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. +Judge Douglas declares that if any community wants slavery they have a +right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no +wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot +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 founded in right. But if you admit that +one of them is wrong, you cannot institute any equality between right and +wrong. And from this difference of sentiment,--the belief on the part of +one that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that belief +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 the wrong from growing larger, +and looks to there never being an end to it through all the existence of +things,--arises the real difference between Judge Douglas and his friends +on the one hand and the Republicans on the other. Now, I confess myself as +belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, +social, and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence +amongst us and the difficulties of 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, if not the +seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or +combination between the 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. Buchanan had; though at last, when they +reached it, they quarreled over it, and their friends divided upon it. I +am very free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have no objection to the +division; but I defy the Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way +promoted that division, unless he insists on being a witness himself in +merely 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 +Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess you +do. Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also that he +was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to see all there +is between the National Democrats and the Republicans. What we now think +of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fremont and +Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. + +But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there is +an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the National +Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving him as an +entirely competent witness upon that subject. I want to call to the +Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first one of these +debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order to fix extreme +Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which he +declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in October, +1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken part in that +Convention. It turned out that although a few men calling themselves an +anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at Springfield about that time, yet +neither did I take any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or any +such resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So apparent had it become that the +resolutions which he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, +nor by a State Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days +afterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by +Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L. Harris, +member of Congress in that district, and he promised in that speech that +when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter. Since +then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made the +investigation; but a month has passed since he has been there, and, so +far as I know, he has made no report of the result of his investigation. +I have waited as I think sufficient time for the report of that +investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A fraud, an +absolute forgery was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced to +the three,--Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed in +any way so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's report +would probably show. + +It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were +published in the Illinois State 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. +The idea that it was done by mistake is absurd. The article in the +Illinois State Register contains part of the real proceedings of that +Springfield Convention, showing that the writer of the article had +the real proceedings before him, and purposely threw out the genuine +resolutions passed by the Convention and fraudulently substituted the +others. Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of the Register, so that +there seems to be but little room for his escape. But then it is to +be borne in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of that +forgery than either of the other two. The main object of that forgery at +that time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to Congress, and that object +was known to be exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and +Douglas were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, +and although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register, +subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon that +Convention. + +The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both Harris +and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put it to +new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband was brought home +with his body full of eels, said when she was asked what was to be done +with him, "Take the eels out and set 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 Norton 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 Harris--reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. +It has been clung to and played out again and again as an exceedingly high +trump by this blessed trio. And now that it has been discovered publicly +to be a fraud we find that Judge Douglas manifests no surprise at it at +all. He makes no complaint of Lanphier, who must have known it to be a +fraud from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as cozy now +and just as active in the concoction of new schemes as they were before +the general discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is very natural if they +are all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any one +of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honor +among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself, +and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a +satisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the three are +agreed that each is "a most honorable man." + +Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a +re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports against +me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which we know to +be utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to think that this one +unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate, will be the least +drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He asks a re-election to +the lower House of Congress without seeming to remember at all that he is +involved in this dishonorable fraud! The Illinois State Register, edited +by Lanphier, then, as now, the central organ of both Harris and Douglas, +continues 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. Lanphier cannot be ignorant of how +and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he be induced to tell, or, +if he has told, can Judge Douglas be 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! + +While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I answered +certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded to me, and then +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 + States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of +acquiescing in, adhering to, and following such decision as a rule of +political action?" + +To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense of +the word. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that it was +possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. He sneered at +me for 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 notwithstanding." + +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 Constitution"! 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 Constitution; durable +as the Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now, remembering the +provision of the Constitution which I have read--affirming that that +instrument is the supreme law of the land; that the judges of every State +shall be bound by it, any law or constitution of any State to the contrary +notwithstanding; that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in +that Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be separated from +it without breaking it; durable as the instrument; part of the +instrument;--what follows as a short and even syllogistic argument from +it? I think it follows, and I submit to the consideration of men capable +of arguing whether, as I state it, in syllogistic form, the argument has +any fault in it: + +Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right +distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United +States. + +The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in +the Constitution of the United States. + +Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy +the right of property in a slave. + +I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming the +truth of the 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 is not +distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge Douglas +thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates of that +decision may search in vain for the place in the Constitution where the +right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed I say, +therefore, that I think one of the premises is not true in fact. But it is +true with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced +it. They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying it, +the conclusion follows that, the Constitution of the United States being +the supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere with it. It +being affirmed in the decision that the right of property in a slave is +distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion +inevitably follows that no State law or constitution can destroy that +right. I then say to Judge Douglas and to all others that I think it will +take a better answer than a sneer to show that those 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 decision, deciding against the right of the +people of the States to exclude slavery, will never be made if that party +is not sustained by the elections. I believe, further, that it is just as +sure to be made as to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained. +I have said, upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course +of arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge +not his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new Dred +Scott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the reasons for +his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. I have turned his +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 Jefferson 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, retaining for themselves no +appeal from it, their liberties were gone. I have asked his attention +to the fact that the Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, +disregards a time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the +power of Congress to establish a National Bank. I have asked his attention +to the fact that he himself was one of the most active instruments at one +time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the 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 adheres to it,--not as being right upon the merits, as +he conceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being +absolutely obligatory upon every one simply because of the source from +whence it comes, as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may +be,--this is another marked feature of his adherence to that decision. +It marks it in this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, +whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not +investigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong. +So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is right or wrong. +He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing prepares the 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 voted down,"; that "whoever +wants slavery has a right to have it"; that "upon principles of equality +it should be allowed to go everywhere"; that "there is no inconsistency +between free and slave institutions"--in this he is also preparing +(whether purposely or not) the way for making the institution of slavery +national! I repeat again, for I wish no misunderstanding, that I do not +charge that he means it so; but I call upon your minds to inquire, if you +were going to get the best instrument you could, and then set it to work +in the most ingenious way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, +operating in the free States, where there is now an abhorrence of the +institution of slavery, could you find an instrument so capable of doing +it as Judge Douglas, or one employed in so apt a way to do it? + +I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, when he +was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, that it had a +tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, said that: + +"Those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate +emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the +Colonization Society: they must go back to the era of our liberty and +independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous +return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate +the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love of +liberty!" + +And I do think--I repeat, though I said it on a 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 a right to hold them; that he is penetrating, so far as +lies in his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of reason and +the love of liberty, when he is in every possible way preparing the +public mind, by his vast influence, for making the institution of slavery +perpetual and national. + +There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your +attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I shall +not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may not take me +clear through it. + +Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at Freeport, +there was one in about this language: + +"Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the United +States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?" + +I answered, as I thought, in this way: that I am not generally opposed +to the acquisition 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 calculated to aggravate this slavery question +amongst us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another interrogatory, +which was correlative to that: "Are you in favor of acquiring additional +territory, in disregard of how it may affect us upon the slavery +question?" Judge Douglas answered,--that is, in his own way he answered +it. I believe that, although he took a good many words to answer it, it +was a little more fully answered than any other. The substance of his +answer was that this country would continue to expand; that it would +need additional territory; that it was as absurd to suppose that we could +continue upon our present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as +it would be to hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow to +man's size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was something +like that. Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of further +territory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might affect +the slavery question. I do not say this as giving his exact language, +but he said so substantially; and he would leave the question of slavery, +where the territory was acquired, to be settled by the people of the +acquired territory. ["That's the doctrine."] May be it is; let us consider +that for a while. This will probably, in the run of things, become one of +the concrete manifestations of this slavery question. If Judge Douglas's +policy upon this question succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until +all opposition is crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the +territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, +then the adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promises +additional slave-fields. And this question is to be left to the people of +those countries for settlement. When we 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 horror of an inferior race. + +It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring additional +territory is a power confided to the President and the Senate of the +United States. It is a power not under the control of the representatives +of the people any further than they, the President and the Senate, can be +considered the representatives of the 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 insisted 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 +insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an assurance that +any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it, so far as +the House of Representatives was concerned. But at last the President and +Senate acquired the territory without asking the House of Representatives +anything about it, and took it without that prohibition. They have the +power of acquiring territory without the immediate representatives of the +people being called upon to say anything 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 +slavery agitation. It is therefore, as I think, a very important question +for due 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 easy to assert, but much less easy to +disprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country. + +And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very grave +question for the people of this Union to consider, whether, in view of +the fact that this slavery question has been the only one that has +ever endangered our Republican institutions, 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, discarding 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 consider the importance of the question, and arrive at +a just conclusion as to whether it is or is not wise in the people of this +Union, in the acquisition of new territory, to consider whether it will +add to the disturbance that is existing amongst us--whether it will add to +the one only danger that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union +or our own liberties. I think it is extremely important that they shall +decide, 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 topic so as to treat it fully, +without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment think of +doing. I give way to Judge Douglas. + + + + +SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, 1858. + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have had no immediate conference with Judge +Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree that +your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will be most +agreeable to us. + +In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois which +have since been consolidated into the Republican party assembled together +in a State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted at that time what, in +political language, is called a platform. In June of the same year the +elements of the Republican party in the nation assembled together in +a National Convention at Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the +National Platform. In June, 1858,--the present year,--the Republicans +of Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted +again their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essential +particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding something in +relation to the new developments of political progress in the country. + +The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be one, +and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the United +States Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this canvass, I +stood generally upon these platforms. We are now met together on the 13th +of October of the same year, only four months from the adoption of the +last platform, and I am unaware that in this canvass, from the beginning +until to-day, any one of our adversaries has taken hold of our platforms, +or laid his finger upon anything that he calls wrong in them. + +In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator Douglas +and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these platforms, +or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to hold me +responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the meeting of +either one of these conventions of which I have spoken. And as a ground +for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he assumed that they had +been passed at a State Convention of the Republican party, and that I +took part in that Convention. It was discovered afterward that this was +erroneous, that the resolutions which he endeavored to hold me responsible +for had not been passed by any State Convention anywhere, had not been +passed at Springfield, where he supposed they had, or assumed that they +had, and that they had been passed in no convention in which I had taken +part. The Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the point that +he was endeavoring to make upon me, and he 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 hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of where I was when it +met, nor one in which I took any part at all. He also introduced other +resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by combining the whole, +although they were all antecedent to the two State Conventions and the one +National Convention I have mentioned, still he insisted, and now insists, +as I understand, that I am in some way responsible for them. + +At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I was +in no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this local +meeting or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in which I was +in no way embraced; but I insisted to him that if he thought I was +responsible for every man or every set of men everywhere, who happen to +be my friends, the rule ought to work both ways, and he ought to be +responsible for the acts and resolutions of all men or sets of men who +were or are now his supporters and friends, and gave him a pretty +long string of resolutions, passed by men who are now his friends, and +announcing doctrines for which he does not 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 understand him. But in addition to +that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, last week, undertakes to +establish that I am guilty of a species of double dealing with the +public; that I make speeches of a certain sort in the north, among the +Abolitionists, which I would not make in the south, and that I make +speeches of a certain sort in the south which I would not make in the +north. I apprehend, in the course I have marked out for myself, that I +shall not have to dwell at very great length upon this subject. + +As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had an +opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something in +answer to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech of mine +delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he brought forward an +extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted that I +was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that his conclusion followed, that +I was playing a double part, and speaking in one region one way, and in +another region another way. I have not time now to dwell on this as long +as I would like, and wish only now to requote that portion of my speech +at Charleston which the Judge quoted, and then make some comments upon +it. This he quotes from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I believe +correctly: + +"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing +about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black +races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters +or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to +intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that +there is a physical difference between the white and black races which +will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and +political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do +remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am +as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned +to the white race." + +This, I believe, is the entire quotation from Charleston speech, as Judge +Douglas made it his comments are as follows: + +"Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right when +he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that +he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and +inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for +Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in the +Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared equal, +and endowed by divine law with equality. And down South, with the old-line +Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians and the Tennesseeans, he tells +you that there is a physical difference between 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 Judges comments. Now, I wish to show you that a month, +or only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech at +Charleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say +substantially the same thing It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa--and I +will say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was in, after a +while--but at 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 that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while I +was giving it, but afterward went away without getting it from me. At the +end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at Ottawa, I made +the comments which were reported at that time, and which I will now read, +and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the same as Judge Douglas +says were delivered by me down in Egypt. After reading, I added these +words: + +"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great 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 that +argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the +negro, is but a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which a +man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, +while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, +to interfere with the institution in the States where it exists. I believe +I have no right to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no +purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and +black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in +my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the +footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that +there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of +the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said +anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there +is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the +rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,--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 my +equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." + +I 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 Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc., but +would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of the +Abolition element. I now make this 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 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 print 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 said 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 +Declaration of Independence I am entirely borne out by the sentiments +advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I have the book here to +show it from but because I have already occupied more time than I intended +to do on that topic, I pass over it. + +At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, 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 decision declaring that the States had not the power to exclude +slavery from their limits, he would adopt and follow that decision as a +rule of political action; and because he had not directly answered that +question, but had merely contented himself with sneering at it, I again +introduced it, and tried to show that the conclusion that I stated +followed inevitably and logically from the proposition already decided +by the court. Judge Douglas had the privilege of replying to me at +Galesburgh, and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether he would +or would not sustain such a decision if made. I give him his 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 +decided by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thought +of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his remarks +upon this subject uses the language which I will now read. Speaking of me, +the Judge says: + +"He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry slavery +into the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself says the +contrary." And he adds: + +"Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that holds +that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their opinions held the +reverse." + +I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying that +I have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge Douglas to lay +his finger upon the place in the entire opinions of the court where any +one of them "says the contrary." It is very hard to affirm a negative with +entire confidence. I say, 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 was exactly, in substance, the Nebraska +Bill,--that the States had the exclusive 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 have been voted down by the majority of the +judges, just as Chase's amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and his +compeers when it was offered to the Nebraska Bill. + +Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield +resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at Ottawa, and +commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as presented, +not genuine. Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to be somewhat +exasperated. He said he would never have believed that Abraham Lincoln, as +he kindly called me, would have attempted such a thing as I had attempted +upon that occasion; and among other expressions which he used toward me, +was that I dared to say forgery, that I had dared to say forgery [turning +to Judge Douglas]. Yes, Judge, I did dare to say forgery. But in this +political canvass the Judge ought to remember that I was not the first +who dared to say forgery. At Jacksonville, Judge Douglas made a speech in +answer to something said by Judge Trumbull, and at the close of what +he said upon that subject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged his +evidence. He said, too, that he should not concern 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 said he +would hold me responsible for it, I spread out before him the statements +of the evidence that Judge Trumbull had used, and I asked Judge Douglas, +piece by piece, to put his finger upon one piece of all that evidence that +he would say was a forgery! When I went through with each and every piece, +Judge Douglas did not dare then to say that any piece of it was a 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 is the same thing with you.] + +Yes, sir, it is the same thing with me. I do dare to say forgery when it +is true, and don't dare to say forgery when it is false. Now I will say +here to this audience and to Judge Douglas I have not dared to say he +committed a forgery, and I never shall until I know it; but I did dare +to say--just to suggest to the Judge--that a forgery had been committed, +which by his own showing had been traced to him and two of his friends. +I dared to suggest to him that he had expressly promised in one of his +public speeches to investigate that matter, and I dared to suggest to him +that there was an implied promise that when he investigated it he would +make known the result. I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could not +expect to be quite clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the time +that promise was made he had been with those friends, and had not kept his +promise in regard to the investigation and the report upon it. I am not +a very daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much scared +about it yet. When the Judge says he would n't have believed of Abraham +Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that he reminds me of +the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the purpose to treat +me courteously; that touched me somewhat. It 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 audiences before which +it was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and made +his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some sort of +a reply to it. His second speech was made at Bloomington, in which he +commented upon my speech at Chicago and said that I had used language +ingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions, or words to that effect. +Now, I understand that this is an imputation upon my veracity and my +candor. I do not know what the Judge understood by it, but in our first +discussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a bargain, somewhat corrupt +in its character, upon Trumbull and myself,--that we had entered into a +bargain, one of the terms of which was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize +the old Democratic party, and I (Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig +party; I pretending 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 treating me in a dignified way, as a man of honor and +truth, as he now claims he was disposed to treat me. Even after that time, +at Galesburgh, when he brings forward an extract from a speech made at +Chicago and an extract from a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I +was trying to play a double part, that I was trying to cheat the public, +and get votes upon one set of principles at one place, and upon another +set of principles at another place,--I do not understand but what he +impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does this, +I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground for it, +to keep my hands off of him. As soon as I learned that Judge Douglas was +disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of my speeches that +I should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble resources I might +have,--to adopt a new course with him. I was not entirely sure that I +should be able to hold my own with him, but I at least had the purpose +made to do as well as I could upon him; and now I say that I will not be +the first to cry "Hold." I think it originated with the Judge, and when he +quits, I probably will. But I shall not ask any favors at all. He asks +me, or he asks the audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of +personal difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make a mistake, in one of +his early speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though perhaps he +did when he called me an "intelligent" man. It really hurts me very much +to suppose that I have wronged anybody on earth. I again tell him, no! I +very much prefer, when this canvass shall be over, however it may result, +that we at least part without any bitter recollections of personal +difficulties. + +The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was pushing +this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the responsibility for the +enormity of my principles. I say to the Judge and this audience, now, that +I will again state our principles, as well as I hastily can, in all their +enormity, and if the Judge hereafter chooses to confine himself to a war +upon these principles, he will probably not find me departing 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 element. It is the opinion +of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it is +a dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in regard to it. That +controversy necessarily springs from difference of opinion; and if we can +learn exactly--can reduce to the lowest elements--what that difference +of opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for discussing the +different systems of policy that we would propose in regard to that +disturbing element. I suggest that the difference of opinion, reduced to +its lowest of terms, is no other than the difference between the men who +think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican +party think it wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a political +wrong. We think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons +or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to +say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole nation. +Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal +with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, in so far as +we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run +of time there may be some promise of an end to it. We have a due regard to +the actual presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of getting +rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations +thrown about it. I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence +in the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at +all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that we +have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to do it. +We go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it where, in +one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us. We think the +Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the District of Columbia. +Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it should be in terms which +I don't suppose the nation is very likely soon to agree to,--the terms of +making the emancipation gradual, and compensating the unwilling owners. +Where we suppose we have the constitutional right, we restrain ourselves +in reference to the actual existence of the institution and the +difficulties thrown about it. We also oppose it as an evil so far as it +seeks to spread itself. We insist on the policy that shall restrict it +to its present limits. We don't suppose that in doing this we violate +anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything due to +the constitutional guaranties thrown around it. + +We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I ought +perhaps to address you a few words. We do not propose that when Dred Scott +has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will decide him +to be free. We do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, +shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way +disturb the rights of property thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose +that decision as a political rule which shall be binding on the voter to +vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members +of Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually +concur with the principles of that decision. We do not propose to be +bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays the +foundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we consider an +evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil into the States +themselves. We propose so resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, +and a new judicial rule established upon this subject. + +I will add this: that if there be any man who does not believe that +slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in any +one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while on the +other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is impatient +over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and is impatient of +the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and would act in disregard +of these, he too is misplaced, standing with us. He will find his place +somewhere else; for we have a due regard, so far as we are capable of +understanding them, for all these things. This, gentlemen, as well as I +can give it, is a plain statement of our principles in all their enormity. +I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to me,--a +sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore it goes for +the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a wrong. That policy +is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is the Democratic sentiment. +If there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this vast audience that this +is really the central idea of the 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 proposition. 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 anything wrong in it. If you +will examine the arguments that are made on it, you will find that every +one carefully excludes the idea that there is 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? Do you not constantly argue that this +is not the right place to oppose it? You say it must not be opposed in the +free States, because slavery is not here; it must not be 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 place 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 +Douglas Says he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," +whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as +a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to +say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything wrong in +it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He +cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When +Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they +have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing +wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot +logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. When he says that +slave property and horse and hog property are alike to be allowed to go +into the Territories, upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning +truly, if there is no difference between them as property; but if the +one is property held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no +equality between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in anyway you can, +in all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that policy +itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is +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 REJOINDER. + +MY FRIENDS:--Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion that he +had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said in an hour, +it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in half an hour all +that he said in an hour and a half. + +I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public +annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of policy +in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it shall +last forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of this +controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. Judge +Douglas asks you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why +cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made +it, forever? In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make +this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I +insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did +not make it so but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid +of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter +of choice, the fathers of the government made this nation part slave and +part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: +when the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the +abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from +the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed +it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in +the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it +cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends +could not let it remain as our fathers made it? + +It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of +slavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers placed it +upon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly said, that +when this government was established, no one expected the institution +of slavery to last until this day, and that the men who formed this +government were wiser and better than the men of these days; but the +men of these days had experience which the fathers had not, and that +experience had taught them the invention of the cotton-gin, and this had +made the perpetuation of the institution of slavery a necessity in this +country. Judge Douglas could not let it stand upon the basis which our +fathers placed it, but removed it, and put it upon the cotton-gin basis. +It is a question, therefore, for him and his friends to answer, why they +could not let it remain where the fathers of the government originally +placed it. I hope nobody has understood me as trying to sustain the +doctrine that we have a right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or +any of the slave States, about the institution of slavery,--thus giving +the Judge an opportunity to be eloquent and valiant against us in fighting +for their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech that I had +neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of, +the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in doing +as they pleased with slavery Or any other existing institution. Then what +becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the rights of States, which are +assailed by no living man? + +But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge has informed +me, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is laboring for +my election to the United States Senate. This is news to me,--not very +ungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. W. H. Carlin, who was on the +stand]--I hope that Carlin will be elected to the State Senate, and +will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] Carlin don't fall in, I +perceive, and I suppose he will not do much for me; but I am glad of all +the support I can get, anywhere, if I can get it without practicing +any deception to obtain it. In respect to this large portion of Judge +Douglas's speech in which he tries to show that in the controversy between +himself and the Administration party he is in the right, I do not feel +myself at all competent or inclined to answer him. I say to him, "Give it +to them,--give it to them just all you can!" and, on the other hand, I +say to Carlin, and Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in Hancock, +"Give it to Douglas, just pour it into him!" + +Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to say a +word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a decision is +made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude slavery, he will +support it or not. He obstinately refuses to say what he will do in that +case. The judges of the Supreme Court as obstinately refused to say +what they would do on this subject. Before this I reminded him that at +Galesburgh he said the judges had expressly declared the contrary, and you +remember that in my Opening speech I told him I had the book containing +that decision here, and I would thank him to lay his finger on the place +where any such thing was said. He has occupied his hour and a half, and he +has not ventured to try to sustain his assertion. He never will. But he is +desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred Scott decision. +Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his political friends +find a way to reverse the decision of that same court in favor of the +constitutionality of the National Bank? Didn't they find a way to do it so +effectually that they have reversed it as completely as any decision ever +was reversed, so far as its practical operation is concerned? + +And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the +decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father--old +Governor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a Secretary of +State? Did he not appeal to the "MOBS," as he calls them? Did he not make +speeches in the lobby to show how villainous that decision was, and how it +ought to be overthrown? Did he not succeed, too, in getting an act passed +by the Legislature to have it overthrown? And did n't he himself sit down +on that bench as one of the five added judges, who were to overslaugh the +four old ones, getting his name of "judge" in that way, and no other? If +there is a villainy in using disrespect or making opposition to Supreme +Court decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration. +I know of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know so well about +how much villainy it takes to oppose a decision of the Supreme Court as +our honorable friend Stephen A. Douglas. + +Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are +bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not. In the +sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you what I have +said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day. I have said that as the +Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and that the extension +of slavery is affirmed in the National Constitution, they are bound to +support it as such; and I will tell you here that General Jackson once +said each man was bound to support the Constitution "as he understood +it." Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the +Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. +I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the +way in which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas believes that decision +to be correct, I will remake that argument if I have time to do so. Let me +talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in the face. We +will say you are a member of the Territorial Legislature, and, like Judge +Douglas, you believe that the right to take and hold slaves there is a +constitutional right The first thing you do is to swear you will support +the Constitution, and all rights guaranteed therein; that you +will, whenever your neighbor needs your legislation to support his +constitutional rights, not withhold that legislation. If you withhold +that necessary legislation for the support of the Constitution and +constitutional rights, do you not commit perjury? I ask every sensible man +if that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so, say what you please. Now, +that is precisely what Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutional +right. Does the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in +legislating may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly +laws, nullify that constitutional right? Does he mean to say that? Does he +mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in law, that +what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? Does he mean that? +The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas has sung paeans to his +"Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his Supreme Court, co-operating with +him, has squatted his Squatter Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this +species of humbuggery about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented +this sort of do-nothing sovereignty,--that the people may exclude slavery +by a sort of "sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is +not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not got down +as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a +pigeon that had starved to death? But at last, when it is brought to the +test of close reasoning, there is not even that thin decoction of it left. +It is a presumption impossible in the domain of thought. It is precisely +no other than the putting of that most unphilosophical proposition, that +two bodies can occupy the same space at the same time. The Dred Scott +decision covers the whole ground, and while it occupies it, there is no +room even for the shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground. + +Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a previous +occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an extract from at +Charleston, says it only shows that I practiced the deception twice. Now, +my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to swallow that? Judge Douglas +had said I had made a speech at Charleston that I would not make up north, +and I turned around and answered him by showing I had made that same +speech up north,--had made it at Ottawa; made it in his hearing; made +it in the Abolition District,--in Lovejoy's District,--in the personal +presence of Lovejoy himself,--in the same atmosphere exactly in which I +had made my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much. + +Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation from +the Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me to handle. +Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the Chicago speech +I delivered two years ago in "Egypt," as he calls it. It was down at +Springfield. That speech is here in this book, and I could turn to it and +read it to you but for the lack of time. I have not now the time to read +it. ["Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I am obliged to use discretion in +disposing most advantageously of my brief time. The Judge has taken great +exception to my adopting the heretical statement in the Declaration of +Independence, that "all men are created equal," and he has a great deal to +say about negro equality. I want to say that in sometimes alluding to the +Declaration of Independence, I have only uttered the sentiments that Henry +Clay used to hold. Allow me to occupy your time a moment with what he +said. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indiana, and in a way that I +suppose was very insulting, to liberate his slaves; and he made a written +reply to that application, and one portion of it is in these words: + +"What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate the +slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the +act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American +colonies, that men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, there +is no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it is desirable in the +original construction of society, and in organized societies, to keep it +in view as a great fundamental principle." + +When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in new +countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we should keep +that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I want a negro +wife. He never can be brought to understand that there is any middle +ground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth year, and have +never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, and I think I can +live fifty centuries, for that matter, without having had one for either. +I maintain that you may take Judge Douglas's quotations from my Chicago +speech, and from my Charleston speech, and the Galesburgh speech,--in his +speech of to-day,--and compare them over, and I am willing to trust them +with you upon his proposition that they show rascality or double-dealing. +I deny that they do. + +The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he is +disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath would +not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. +Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It is certainly not +for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these gentlemen, but I will tell +Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I "dared" to say they proved +a forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh that the publication of these +resolutions in the Illinois State Register could not have been the result +of accident, as the proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable +evidence of being done by a man who knew it was a forgery; that it was a +publication partly taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and +partly from the proceedings of a convention at another place, which showed +that he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part of +the resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and +fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also that +his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time and now +is, must have known how it was done. Now, whether he did it, or got some +friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he certainly knew all about +it. I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in his Freeport speech he had +promised to investigate that matter. Does he now say that he did not make +that promise? I have a right to ask why he did not keep it. I call upon +him to tell here to-day why he did not keep that promise? That fraud has +been traced up so that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier. There +is little room for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge +good service, and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. +He desires Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his +newspaper. He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; and +when this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where the +guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate it, +and implied that he would tell us the result of his investigation, I +demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, if he did not; and if +he did, why he won't tell the result. I call upon him for that. + +This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned +about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against Norton +on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public records of the +country show that he himself attempted it upon Trumbull a month before +Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had the opportunity of learning +it from him, rather than he from Harris. I now ask his attention to that +part of the record on the case. My friends, I am not disposed to detain +you longer in regard to that matter. + +I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another matter I +wish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered there was a mistake +in that case, he came forward magnanimously, without my calling his +attention to it, and explained it. I will tell you how he became so +magnanimous. When the newspapers of our side had discovered and published +it, and put it beyond his power to deny it, then he came forward and made +a virtue of necessity by acknowledging it. Now he argues that all +the point there was in those resolutions, although never passed at +Springfield, is retained by their being passed at other localities. Is +that true? He said I had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech, +that I was in the convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutions +touch me at all? It strikes me there is some difference between holding +a man responsible for an act which he has not done and holding him +responsible for an act that he has done. You will judge whether there +is any difference in the "spots." And he has taken credit for great +magnanimity in coming forward and acknowledging what is proved on him +beyond even the capacity of Judge Douglas to deny; and he has more +capacity in that way than any other living man. + +Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a +conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he made. +May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is proven false on +me as that was proven false on him. I will add a little more than that, +I will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man shall be brought to believe +that the charge is not true. I have asked Judge Douglas's attention to +certain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy to +nationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue +because Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the Dred +Scott case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say +the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say that +I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never uttered +it. [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated affirmatively at Mr. +Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say I did, I tell you myself +that I never said the "Democratic" owners of Dred Scott got up the case. +I have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were Democrats, +or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers or Border Ruffians. I have said that +there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a made-up +case, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that that +evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to +be a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the +case tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that +decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his by +that decision. But my time is out, and I can say no more. + + + + +LAST DEBATE, AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858 + + + + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have been somewhat, in my own mind, complimented +by a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech,--I mean that portion +which he devotes to the controversy 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 improving in regard +to his war with the Administration. At Quincy, day before yesterday, he +was a little more severe upon the Administration 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 re-commend +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 leave this branch of the +discussion,--although I do not consider it much of my business, anyway. 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; 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 the Missouri Compromise. I want to know +if Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? Has +Douglas the exclusive right, 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 Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it was +about me, it is my business to pay some attention 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 +complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had decided that +a negro could never be a citizen of the United States. I have omitted by +some accident heretofore to analyze 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 especially 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 foundation 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 my 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 could not be a citizen; that 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 rights 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 into the State of Illinois and holding 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 prohibited 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 them in a lump, taken in +connection with the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, and the amendment +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 these 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 fabrication of my +purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between the +white and black races. His assertion 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 allusions. 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, without reading, to-day to a portion +of a speech which I delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that +speech, as he has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken +in 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 +convey. 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 +published 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 we did secure if we +grasped for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does +not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let 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 institution 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 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 +inalienable rights, among which are life, 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, constantly 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 myself chose to say in regard to it. + +At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, 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 reassert 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 astonishment to me if they shall +be able to find that one human being three years ago had ever uttered the +astounding sentiment 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 mouth of some Southern men for a period of years, +ending at last in that shameful, though rather 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 believe 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 irresistible 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 Times, 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 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 men 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 Declaration. 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 authority. While he was in Indiana +a man presented a petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made +a speech in answer to it, which I suppose he carefully wrote out himself +and 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 did n't suppose the negro was +included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay said: + +"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate +the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the +act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American +colonies, that 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 apprehend +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, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always +probably remain subject to the government of another portion of the +community. + +"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, 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? Would Virginia and other Southern States +have ever united in a declaration 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 recognized 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 does it do so? In what way has it a +tendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an abstract principle +that all men are created equal, but that we cannot practically apply it in +all eases. 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. Clay 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. I wish +every slave in the United States was in the country of his 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 would be more strongly opposed than I should be to +incorporate the institution of slavery amongst 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 Independence, is no such statement on +his part, but the declaration that it is a great fundamental truth which +should be constantly kept in view in the organization of society and in +societies already 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 I am 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 recognizing what he +recognized as the great principle of free government? + +And when this new principle--this new proposition that no human being ever +thought of three years ago--is brought forward, I combat it as having an +evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as having a tendency to +dehumanize the 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 constantly 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, 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 would be more strongly opposed than I should be to +incorporate the institution of slavery amongst 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 nothing 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 society in our Territories +where it does not exist, he would be opposed 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 hurtful to him. + +Judge 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 language: + +"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 a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house divided +against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure +permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, +but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, +or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the 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." + +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 were 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? We were to have no more agitation +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 that time to +allay. We were for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and that +very allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again. But was it +not understood or intimated with the "confident promise" of putting an end +to the slavery agitation? 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 Constitution, every speech on that +Nebraska Bill was full of his felicitations that we were just at the +end of the slavery agitation. 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 that Nebraska policy, +which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a superior degree +of self-government, beyond 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 earth 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 +living, 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 be 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 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 the 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 its ultimate +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 regard to the prohibition of the African slave-trade? It runs 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: + +"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several +States which may be included within this Union, according to their +respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding 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 consequence 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 purpose, 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 institution of slavery had +passed from among us,--there should be nothing on the face of the great +charter of liberty suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had ever +existed among us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the +government 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 that I desire to see the further +spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the +fathers have first done. 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 +extinction, 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 +puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within itself,--was +introduced by the framers of the Constitution. The exact truth is, that +they found the institution 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 difficulty--the absolute +impossibility--of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks me +why we cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of +the government 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 government had adopted in relation +to this element among us was the best policy in the world, the only wise +policy, the only policy that we can ever safely continue upon that will +ever give us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all and +becomes a national institution,--I turn upon him and ask him why he could +not leave it 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 so 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. I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free +and slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude +by those who made the Constitution, did they make any war? If we had no +war 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 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 democratic 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 productions +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 barrel 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 +house,"--figuratively expressing the Union,--they tend to sustain it; they +are the props 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 amongst ourselves about the cranberry laws of +Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine-lumber laws of Maine, +or 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 amongst 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 spring 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 annexation of Texas. +Go back to the troubles that led to the Compromise 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 +disturbance 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 Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What disturbed the +Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has jarred and +shaken the great American Tract Society recently, 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 +literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life? Is this the +work of politicians? Is that irresistible power, which for fifty years has +shaken the government and agitated the people, to be stifled and subdued +by pretending that it is an exceedingly 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 disturbed 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 undertakes to build up a system of policy upon +the basis of caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care +the most about--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 +controversy 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 +Government, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We profess +constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the power +of the government to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend +ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the +Sates. What 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 right all his way, and you have no part of it +your way. If he goes in and makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence +a slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have it a free +State were on equal ground? Let me suggest it in a different way. How many +Democrats are there about here ["A thousand"] 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 Territory to go to? And when hereafter, for any cause, the people in +this place shall desire to find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the +institution, where will they find the place to go to? + +Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there +is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new +Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home,--may +find some spot where they can better their condition; where they can +settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor +of this, not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own +people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people +everywhere the world over--in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and +all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their +conditions in life. + +I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what I +understand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge Douglas +and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the free and +the slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when he +assumes that I am in favor of producing 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 +institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look +upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution of +slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican +party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their +arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They look +upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while they +contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual +existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any +satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about +it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in regard +to it that looks to its not creating any more danger. They insist that it +should, as far as may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the methods of +treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. +They also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some +time. These are the views they entertain in regard to it as I understand +them; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, +are brought within this range. I have said, and I repeat it here, that +if there be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of +slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he is +misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man amongst us +who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual +presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a +satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown +about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We disclaim +sympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly with us. + +On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let me +say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union save +and except this very institution of slavery? What is it that we hold most +dear amongst us? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever 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. That is the peaceful way, +the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us the +example. + +On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it as not +being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean +to say that every man who stands within that range positively asserts that +it is right. That class will include all who positively assert that it is +right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as indifferent and do not +say it is either 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 supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider +himself "as much opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason +with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you +consider as a wrong do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you +say it is wrong--but your leader never does, and you quarrel with 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 the security of "my place." There is no place to +talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. +But, finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the people +of the slave States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the +slavery question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor of +it. You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad +to see it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself. You all know that Frank +Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook to introduce +that system in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as they could for the +system of 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 exclude 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 pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering a +wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. The +Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the +merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about +it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he "don't care +whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories. I do not care +myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be +expressive of his individual 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 indifferent thing +is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right +thing and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves +has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is +a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon +the score of equality slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, +like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no difference +between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, this +argument is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the +other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right +and wrong. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from +beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in +the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in +conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,--it +everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. + +That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this +country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be +silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles--right and +wrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles that have +stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue +to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the +divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it +develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and +earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether +from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own +nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an +apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. +I was glad to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, +to Judge Douglas,--that he looks to no end of the institution of slavery. +That will help the people to see where the struggle really is. It will +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 between the +parties, this controversy will soon be settled, and it will be done +peaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. It will be placed again +where the wisest and best men of the world placed it. Brooks of South +Carolina once declared that when this Constitution was framed its framers +did not look to the institution existing until this day. When he said +this, I think he stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history of +the times. But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men of +these days, yet the men of these days had experience which they had not, +and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this +country that slavery should be perpetual. I now say that, willingly or +unwillingly--purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been the +most prominent 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's cotton-gin basis; placing it where +he openly confesses he has no desire there shall ever be an end of it. + +I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying 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 +constantly said, before the decision, that whether they could or not, +was a question for the Supreme Court. But after the court had made the +decision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme Court, but +for the people. And how is it he tells us they can exclude it? He says it +needs "police regulations," and that admits of "unfriendly legislation." +Although it is a right established by the Constitution of the United +States to take a slave into a Territory of the United States and hold him +as property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly +legislation, and more especially if they adopt unfriendly legislation, +they can practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition as +a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional obligation. +Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face before me, and let +us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial Legislature. The first +thing he will do will be to swear that he will support the Constitution +of the United States. His neighbor by his side in the Territory has +slaves and needs Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy that +constitutional right. Can he withhold the legislation which his neighbor +needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the +Constitution of the United States which he has sworn to support? Can he +withhold it without violating his oath? And, more especially, can he pass +unfriendly legislation to violate his oath? Why, this is a monstrous sort +of talk about the Constitution of the United States! There has never been +as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable man +on earth. I do not believe it is a constitutional right to hold slaves in +a Territory of the United States. I believe the decision was improperly +made and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is furious against those who +go for reversing a decision. But he is for legislating it out of all +force while the law itself stands. I repeat that there has never been so +monstrous a doctrine uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. + +I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of the +Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law,--that +is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to +them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a +"barren right," which needs legislation before it can become efficient +and valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is +constitutional, I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it, and +that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no +taste for running and 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 legislation to support slavery in a Territory, who believes +it is a constitutional right to have it there. No man can, who does not +give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation enjoined by +the Constitution to enact a Fugitive State law. Try it now. It is the +strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision +is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a +constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway +returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The one is +express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in the +Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believes +in the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, +in spite of that constitutional right, slavery may be driven from the +Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument by which Abolitionists +may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to pass +laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I +do not know how such an arguement may strike a popular assembly like this, +but I defy anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated +to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of +difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive and the +constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred +Scott decision is correct, I defy any man to make an argument that will +justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to +hold his slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, +breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for nullifying the Fugitive +Slave law. Why, there is not such an Abolitionist in the nation as +Douglas, after all! such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after +all! + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Papers And Writings Of Abraham +Lincoln, Volume Four, by Abraham Lincoln + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LINCOLN'S PAPERS *** + +***** This file should be named 2656.txt or 2656.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/2/6/5/2656/ + +Produced by David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/2656.zip b/2656.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..657ef3f --- /dev/null +++ b/2656.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..28a8d9c --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #2656 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2656) diff --git a/old/20060816.2656.txt b/old/20060816.2656.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ada19cb --- /dev/null +++ b/old/20060816.2656.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3624 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 4 +by Abraham Lincoln + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net + + +Title: The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 4 + The Lincoln-Douglas Debates II. + +Author: Abraham Lincoln + +Release Date: August 16, 2006 [EBook #2656] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WRITINGS OF LINCOLN *** + + + + +Produced by David Widger + + + + + +THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Volume Four + +CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION + + + +THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II + + + +LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH DEBATE, +AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. + + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--It will be very difficult for an audience so large +as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is +important that as profound silence be preserved as possible. + +While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to +know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality +between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself +on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was +asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying +something in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have +been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political +equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, +in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to +hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in +addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white +and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living +together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much 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 superior position assigned to the white race. I say +upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to +have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do +not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I +must necessarily want her for a wife. My 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 a 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 +entirely satisfied of its correctness, and that is the case of Judge +Douglas's old friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the +remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this +subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my +friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it; but +as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that +they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the +most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this +State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I will add +one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is +any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of +the negro and the white man can be made, except in the State +Legislature,--not in the Congress of the United States; and as I do not +really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge +Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly +approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be +kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. I +do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject. + +When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to Illinois +in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in which he made +what may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which I understand +proved to be very offensive to him. The Judge was at that time out upon +one of his speaking tours through the country, and when the news of it +reached him, as I am informed, he denounced Judge Trumbull in rather +harsh terms for having said what he did in regard to that matter. I was +traveling at that time, and speaking at the same places with Judge +Douglas on subsequent days, and when I heard of what Judge Trumbull had +said of Douglas, and what Douglas had said back again, I felt that I was +in a position where I could not remain entirely silent in regard to the +matter. Consequently, upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and +alluded to it in no other wise than to say that in regard to the charge +brought by Trumbull against Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and +sought to say nothing about it; that I did personally know Judge +Trumbull; that I believed him to be a man of veracity; that I believed +him to be a man of capacity sufficient to know very well whether an +assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn from a set of facts, was +true or false; and as a conclusion of my own from that, I stated it as my +belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove everything +he had said. I said this upon two or three occasions. Upon a subsequent +occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before an audience at Alton, and +upon that occasion not only repeated his charge against Douglas, but +arrayed the evidence he relied upon to substantiate it. This speech was +published at length; and subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas +alluded to the matter. In the course of his speech, and near the close of +it, he stated in regard to myself what I will now read: + +"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy +his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, Lincoln +having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold +him (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders." + +I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitation +to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally been +my purpose to discuss that matter at all But in-as-much as it seems to be +the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once in +my life I will play General Jackson, and to the just extent I take the +responsibility. + +I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that +portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this +matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at +Jacksonville in answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of this +debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I +cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take half of my first +hour to do so. I can only make some comments upon them. Trumbull's charge +is in the following words: + +"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a +constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the +people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the +plot." + +I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity +of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he +regards as sufficient evidence to substantiate this charge. + +It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon the +floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference among the +senators, in which conference it was determined to have an enabling act +passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution under, and in this +conference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a +provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people after +it should be formed. He then brings forward to show, and showing, as he +deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with that +clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause inserted +into the bill, which would in its nature prevent a reference of the +constitution back for a vote of the people,--if, indeed, upon a mere +silence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to vote +upon it. These are the general statements that he has made. + +I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he +attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to +examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he +makes is: + +"Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and that +I struck it out,--is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution upon +them against their will?" + +His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill, +he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the +purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would say, in the first +place, that that would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, as +Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial bills have passed without +having such a provision in them. I believe it is true, though I am not +certain, that in some instances constitutions framed under such bills +have been submitted to a vote of the people with the law silent upon the +subject; but it does not appear that they once had their enabling acts +framed with an express provision for submitting the constitution to be +framed to a vote of the people, then that they were stricken out when +Congress did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have +been bills which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when +was that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does +the evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, when +we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almost +simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a conference +among certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be +passed leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to +attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which it +was agreed they should so frame the bill that there should be no +submission of the constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge does +not notice this part of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence, +and then ascertain that simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a +provision that did require it to be submitted, and put the two together, +I think it will make a pretty fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did, +as Trumbull says, enter into a plot to put in force a constitution for +Kansas, without giving the people any opportunity of voting upon it. + +But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is +this: + +"But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain +a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted." + +This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I +only want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that these +words were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill from which +it is alleged the provision was stricken out,--a bill which goes by the +name of Toomb's, because he originally brought it forward? I ask why, if +the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take +the exact proposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not +stricken out? Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the +Toomb's bill, and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were +stricken out. Judge Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull +says were stricken out were not so stricken out, but he says there was no +provision in the Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the +people. We see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning +of the words. He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie +about these words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to +it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if +there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the +question of fact as to whether these words were stricken out, I have +before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the Toomb's bill, in +which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says were in it were, in +fact, originally there. If there be any dispute upon the fact, I have got +the documents here to show they were there. If there be any controversy +upon the sense of the words,--whether these words which were stricken out +really constituted a provision for submitting the matter to a vote of the +people,--as that is a matter of argument, I think I may as well use +Trumbull's own argument. He says that the proposition is in these words: + +"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to +the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their free +acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and +ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the +constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said +State of Kansas." + +Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill +when it came back, and he says this was a provision for submitting the +constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument is this: + +"Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the +election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an election +was to be held?" + +This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge +at all, but he stands up and says there was no such proposition in that +bill for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the +people. Trumbull admits that the language is not a direct provision for +submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another +provision. He asks you how it is possible to ratify the land proposition +at the election for the adoption of the constitution, if there was no +election to be held for the adoption of the constitution. And he goes on +to show that it is not any less a law because the provision is put in +that indirect shape than it would be if it were put directly. But I +presume I have said enough to draw attention to this point, and I pass it +by also. + +Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and at +very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in +a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to be made would +have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thought so then, +what ground is there for anybody thinking otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, +this much may be said in reply: That bill had been in the hands of a +party to which Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of the +committee at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had +a printed copy of the original Toomb's bill. I have not the evidence on +that point except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of +business there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of +altering, were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, +until the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterwards, when it was +reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull in +reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the bearings +of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not +follow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive, +that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that what +Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did? Suppose Trumbull +had been in the plot with these other men, would that let Douglas out of +it? Would it exonerate Douglas that Trumbull did n't then perceive he +was in the plot? He also asks the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose +to amend the bill, if he thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe +that everything Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection +with this question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor +of the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his +friends. He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to anything +on this subject would receive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull +did bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the fact that there +was no provision for submitting the constitution about to be made for the +people of Kansas to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture to say +that Judge Douglas made some reply to this speech of Judge Trumbull's, +but he never noticed that part of it at all. And so the thing passed by. +I think, then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not +throw much blame upon him; and if it did, it does not reach the question +of fact as to what Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull +had himself been in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who +were in it from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the +trial it should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, +but that the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at all +touch the question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck that +they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to be guilty +too. + +Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is, +that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the fact +that the bill had the provision in it for submitting the constitution to +a vote of the people when it went into his Judge Douglas's hands, that it +was missing when he reported it to the Senate, and that in a public +speech he had subsequently said the alterations in the bill were made +while it was in committee, and that they were made in consultation +between him (Judge Douglas) and Toomb's. And Judge Douglas goes on to +comment upon the fact of Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the +proposition that the bill not only came back with that proposition +stricken out, but with another clause and another provision in it, saying +that "until the complete execution of this Act there shall be no election +in said Territory,"--which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the +provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but was +adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from +exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the question. +Now, in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the issue, that he +shifts his ground,--and I believe he uses the term that, "it being proven +false, he has changed ground," I call upon all of you, when you come to +examine that portion of Trumbull's speech (for it will make a part of +mine), to examine whether Trumbull has shifted his ground or not. I say +he did not shift his ground, but that he brought forward his original +charge and the evidence to sustain it yet more fully, but precisely as he +originally made it. Then, in addition thereto, he brought in a new piece +of evidence. He shifted no ground. He brought no new piece of evidence +inconsistent with his former testimony; but he brought a new piece, +tending, as he thought, and as I think, to prove his proposition. To +illustrate: A man brings an accusation against another, and on trial the +man making the charge introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a +second trial he introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as +before, and a third witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition +gives further testimony corroborative of the charge. So with Trumbull. +There was no shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony between +the new piece of evidence and what he originally introduced. + +But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last +provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and a +substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is true +that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. Trumbull +has not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it was so +stricken out. He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as Judge Douglas +reported it back. It was amended somewhat in the Senate before it passed, +but I am speaking of it as he brought it back." Now, when Judge Douglas +parades the fact that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it +came back, he asserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull +has only said that he originally put it in, not that he did not strike it +out. Trumbull says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. +When it came back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were +made by him in consultation with Toomb's. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as +his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants to +contradict Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not put it +in, and not that he did n't take it out again. It is said that a bear is +sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I presume it was in +this case. I presume the truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward +took it out. That, I take it, is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says +one thing, Douglas says another thing, and the two don't contradict one +another at all. The question is, what did he put it in for? In the first +place, what did he take the other provision out of the bill for,--the +provision which Trumbull argued was necessary for submitting the +constitution to a vote of the people? What did he take that out for; and, +having taken it out, what did he put this in for? I say that in the run +of things it is not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly +expedient for Judge Douglas to take that latter clause out again. The +question that Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in; and he +don't meet Trumbull at all unless he denies that. + +In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses this +language toward Judge Trumbull. He says: + +"He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the +record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge." + +Well, that is a pretty serious statement--Trumbull forges his evidence +from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say that it is not +true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has brought +forward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to, +examine whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had +the bill or document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says +that is a copy of the Toomb's bill,--the amendment offered by Toomb's. He +says that is a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went into Judge +Douglas's hands. Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? That is +one thing Trumbull brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from +beginning to end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does Douglas say +that is a forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent +examination upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another document +like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came back in +the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas say +that is a forgery? Does he say it in his general sweeping charge? Does he +say so now? If he does not, then take this Toomb's bill and the bill in +the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see that the +provision is in the one and not in the other; it leaves the inference +inevitable that it was taken out. + +But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull's +other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull says +there are in this original Toomb's bill these words: + +"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to +the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free +acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and +ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the +constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said +State of Kansas." + +Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper here +and see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along, +that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate, +December 9, 1857: + +"I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the +bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, whether +the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the +people. It was held by those most intelligent on the subject that, in +view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of +any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better there +should be no such provision in the Toomb's bill; and it was my +understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the Convention would +make a constitution, and send it here, without submitting it to the +popular vote." + +Then Trumbull follows on: + +"In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 +[Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said: + +"'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or +confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it +was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollection +was clear that I left the conference under the impression that it had +been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the +agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this +Convention. This impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of +the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had +great aversion; but with the hope of accomplishing a great good, and as +no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived +this objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items +of testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their +submission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the +senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the +admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as +follows: + +"That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to +the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free +acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and +ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the +constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said +State of Kansas." + +The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of +June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same +section word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the +conference referred to; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reported +the Toombs bill to the Senate with amendments, the next morning, it did +not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the +Convention that the constitution should be approved by the people. The +words "and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the +constitution" had been stricken out. + +Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor of +the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the +Congressional Globe on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is a +forgery? Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional Globe? +What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his evidence from +beginning to end? So again he says in another place that Judge Douglas, +in his speech, December 9, 1857 (Congressional Globe, part I., page 15), +stated: + +"That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a +bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas +to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently the +senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for my +bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in +consultation, was passed by the Senate." + +Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and is +recorded in the Congressional Globe. Is it a forgery? Is it there or not? +It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take these pieces of +evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he dare do it. + +[A voice: "He will."] + +Well, sir, you had better not commit him. He gives other +quotations,--another from Judge Douglas. He says: + +"I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member of +the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union, +from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the +people. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so +understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it +was not, they would have made the point on it; and if they had made it, +we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a +discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take +it for granted that that would be done, which ought in fairness to have +been done." + +Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. Does +Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true? Trumbull says +somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any one who +will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the notice of +those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that provision; and +then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge Douglas, where Judge +Trumbull uses this language: + +"Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probably +recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had objected to the +Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for a submission of the +constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found +in the same volume of the Globe, page 22, in which he says: 'That the +bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention was called to +that about the time it was passed; and I took the fair construction to +be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the +constitution would be submitted to the people.' + +"Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before +made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that +it was a new discovery, you will determine." + +So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and yet +maintain his position that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from beginning +to end." I will remark that I have not got these Congressional Globes +with me. They are large books, and difficult to carry about, and if Judge +Douglas shall say that on these points where Trumbull has quoted from +them there are no such passages there, I shall not be able to prove they +are there upon this occasion, but I will have another chance. Whenever he +points out the forgery and says, "I declare that this particular thing +which Trumbull has uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then +my attention will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the +contest, stating now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I +will find every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the +question is, How can Douglas call that a forgery? How can he make out +that it is a forgery? What is a forgery? It is the bringing forward +something in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect when +it is altogether untrue. If you come forward with my note for one hundred +dollars when I have never given such a note, there is a forgery. If you +come forward with a letter purporting to be written by me which I never +wrote, there is another forgery. If you produce anything in writing or in +print saying it is so and so, the document not being genuine, a forgery +has been committed. How do you make this forgery when every piece of the +evidence is genuine? If Judge Douglas does say these documents and +quotations are false and forged, he has a full right to do so; but until +he does it specifically, we don't know how to get at him. If he does say +they are false and forged, I will then look further into it, and presume +I can procure the certificates of the proper officers that they are +genuine copies. I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found +exactly where Trumbull says it is. Then I leave it to you if Judge +Douglas, in making his sweeping charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is +forged from beginning to end, at all meets the case,--if that is the way +to get at the facts. I repeat again, if he will point out which one is a +forgery, I will carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one of +them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it any +longer. I have always wanted to deal with everyone I meet candidly and +honestly. If I have made any assertion not warranted by facts, and it is +pointed out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully. But I do not choose to +see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and the evidence he has brought forward +branded in general terms "a forgery from beginning to end." This is not +the legal way of meeting a charge, and I submit it to all intelligent +persons, both friends of Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is. + +The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill that went into his hands +had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to the +people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision for a +submission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was known that +the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge Douglas, it was +not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the declaration, when you +got it, for a submission of the constitution to the people. And now, my +direct question to Judge Douglas is, to answer why, if he deemed the bill +silent on this point, he found it necessary to strike out those +particular harmless words. If he had found the bill silent and without +this provision, he might say what he does now. If he supposes it was +implied that the constitution would be submitted to a vote of the people, +how could these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary +to strike them out? How could he infer that a submission was still +implied, after its express provision had been stricken from the bill? I +find the bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it +out, and although he took out the other provision preventing a submission +to a vote of the people, I ask, Why did you first put it in? I ask him +whether he took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges was in +the bill. If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he did it for. +It looks to us as if he had altered the bill. If it looks differently to +him,--if he has a different reason for his action from the one we assign +him--he can tell it. I insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent +upon that point when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it. + +I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three +minutes of being out. I presume it is expired now; I therefore close. + + + + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. + +FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour answer +to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried one. I shall +only be able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by Judge +Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I shall have to totally +omit others for the want of time. + +Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an +answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far +as I know the Judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no +occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not +in favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying a +few words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine, +which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro +could not possibly be made a citizen; and without saying what was my +ground of complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of +complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly +everything that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality +between the negroes and the white people. If any one will read my speech, +he will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course +of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had +to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I +did not tell them myself. Now, my opinion is that the different States +have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the +United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they +have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power, I should be +opposed to the exercise of it. That is all I have to say about it. + +Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speeches +south; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north and +recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very different cast +of sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. I will not +charge upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but I call +upon every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and I +dare him to point out any difference between my speeches north and south. +While I am here perhaps I ought to say a word, if I have the time, in +regard to the latter portion of the Judge's speech, which was a sort of +declamation in reference to my having said I entertained the belief that +this government would not endure half slave and half free. I have said +so, and I did not say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It +perhaps would require more time than I have now to set forth these +reasons in detail; but let me ask you a few questions. Have we ever had +any peace on this slavery question? When are we to have peace upon it, if +it is kept in the position it now occupies? How are we ever to have peace +upon it? That is an important question. To be sure, if we will all stop, +and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march on in their present +career until they plant the institution all over the nation, here and +wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be +peace. But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is going to get the people to +do that? They have been wrangling over this question for at least forty +years. This was the cause of the agitation resulting in the Missouri +Compromise; this produced the troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the +acquisition of the territory acquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was +the trouble which was quieted by the Compromise of 1850, when it was +settled "forever" as both the great political parties declared in their +National Conventions. That "forever" turned out to be just four years, +when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. When is it likely to come to an +end? He introduced the Nebraska Bill in 1854 to put another end to the +slavery agitation. He promised that it would finish it all up +immediately, and he has never made a speech since, until he got into a +quarrel with the President about the Lecompton Constitution, in which he +has not declared that we are just at the end of the slavery agitation. +But in one speech, I think last winter, he did say that he did n't quite +see when the end of the slavery agitation would come. Now he tells us +again that it is all over and the people of Kansas have voted down the +Lecompton Constitution. How is it over? That was only one of the attempts +at putting an end to the slavery agitation--one of these "final +settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formed a constitution that +she is likely to come in under? Is not the slavery agitation still an +open question in that Territory? Has the voting down of that constitution +put an end to all the trouble? Is that more likely to settle it than +every one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery agitation? +Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more foretell +where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can see the end +of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas Bill was introduced four years +and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end we may say +we are four years and a half nearer the end. So, too, we can say we are +four years and a half nearer the end of the world, and we can just as +clearly see the end of the world as we can see the end of this agitation. +The Kansas settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should sink to-day, +and leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed +question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of putting +an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon the +basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out of our new +Territories,--to restrict it forever to the old States where it now +exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the +course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to the +slavery agitation. + +The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his +friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease +speaking of it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the common +matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and +cattle. But while it drives on in its state of progress as it is now +driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured +the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery +agitation until it takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when +it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in a +year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way +ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years at least; +but that it will occur in the best way for both races, in God's own good +time, I have no doubt. But, my friends, I have used up more of my time +than I intended on this point. + +Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a +bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854: Judge +Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, except the +speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he told a +cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral principles that +Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the simple truth. I do not +care greatly for the story, but this is the truth of it: and I have twice +told Judge Douglas to his face that from beginning to end there is not +one word of truth in it. I have called upon him for the proof, and he +does not at all meet me as Trumbull met him upon that of which we were +just talking, by producing the record. He did n't bring the record +because there was no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready +to indorse Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I +reply that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would not be likely +to indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity because +neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years that I have +known Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his word or tell a +falsehood large or small. It is for that reason that I indorse Lyman +Trumbull. + +[Mr. JAMES BROWN (Douglas postmaster): "What does Ford's History say +about him?"] + +Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My own +recollection is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful terms +in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal worse of +Judge Douglas. I refer you, sir, to the History for examination. + +Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on the +part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to attend to +that suggestion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly accused of dealing +illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either in court or in a +political canvass or anywhere else. I would despise myself if I supposed +myself ready to deal less liberally with an adversary than I was willing +to be treated myself. Judge Douglas in a general way, without putting it +in a direct shape, revives the old charge against me in reference to the +Mexican War. He does not take the responsibility of putting it in a very +definite form, but makes a general reference to it. That charge is more +than ten years old. He complains of Trumbull and myself because he says +we bring charges against him one or two years old. He knows, too, that in +regard to the Mexican War story the more respectable papers of his own +party throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and +acknowledge that it was a lie. + +[Here Mr. LINCOLN turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting +HON. ORLANDO B. FICKLIN, led him forward and said:] + +I do not mean to do anything with Mr. FICKLIN except to present his face +and tell you that he personally knows it to be a lie! He was a member of +Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [FICKLIN] knows that +whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine which would +indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such +indorsement and voted against it; but I never voted against the supplies +for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a +dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise for the benefit of +the soldiers I gave all the votes that FICKLIN or Douglas did, and +perhaps more. + +[Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter: +Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas +and myself. In reference to this Mexican War, my recollection is that +when Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun of +Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican War was unnecessary +and unconstitutionally commenced by the President-my recollection is that +Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.] + +That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution censuring +the President for the manner in which the war was begun. You know they +have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the +soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their country. I say that +FICKLIN knows it is false. When that charge was brought forward by the +Chicago Times, the Springfield Register [Douglas's organ] reminded the +Times that the charge really applied to John Henry; and I do know that +John Henry is now making speeches and fiercely battling for Judge +Douglas. If the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of setoff to +what I said to-day in reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him +that he made this charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He +brought this forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and +in the opening speech that Judge Douglas made he attacked me in regard to +a matter ten years old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about people +making charges against him only two years old! + +The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon +this charge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in my +opening speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said that when +Judge Douglas was speaking at place--where I spoke on the succeeding day +he used very harsh language about this charge. Two or three times +afterward I said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's veracity and +intelligence; and my own opinion was, from what I knew of the character +of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his position and prove +whatever he had stated to be true. This I repeated two or three times; +and then I dropped it, without saying anything more on the subject for +weeks--perhaps a month. I passed it by without noticing it at all till I +found, at Jacksonville, Judge Douglas in the plenitude of his power is +not willing to answer Trumbull and let me alone, but he comes out there +and uses this language: "He should not hereafter occupy his time in +refuting such charges made by Trumbull but that, Lincoln having indorsed +the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln] +responsible for the slanders." What was Lincoln to do? Did he not do +right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas here, to +tell him he was ready for the responsibility? I ask a candid audience +whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the assailant rather than I? +Here I meet him face to face, and say I am ready to take the +responsibility, so far as it rests on me. + +Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the question +whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge +Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it? You all heard me call upon +him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery. Does he say +that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a +forgery? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported +by himself is a forgery, or what is presented as a transcript from the +Globe of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a forgery? Does he say +the quotations from his own speech are forgeries? Does he say this +transcript from Trumbull's speech is a forgery? + +["He didn't deny one of them."] + +I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of a +story is true the whole story turns out false. I take it these people +have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is playing +cuttle-fish, a small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself +when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid, which makes the water +so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Ain't the Judge +playing the cuttle-fish? + +Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge +Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech of +to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces of +testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown to be +such. Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery. Then I ask the +original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is it +possible that the whole is a falsehood? + +In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision +into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the people, +what was his answer? He comes here and reads from the Congressional Globe +to show that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill. +Why, Trumbull has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull says he +[Douglas] put it in; and it is no answer to the charge to say he +afterwards took it out. Both are perhaps true. It was in regard to that +thing precisely that I told him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows +you that by his introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to +that assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not +specially say that Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case, +does it answer Trumbull? I assert that you [pointing to an individual] +are here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you +were in Mattoon yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your head, +and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole +force of Douglas's argument. + +Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that +Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a +constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge +Douglas deny that fact? Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull +reads was put in that bill? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he +dare to deny that? He does not, and I have the right to repeat the +question,--Why Judge Douglas took it out? Bigler has said there was a +combination of certain senators, among whom he did not include Judge +Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas Bill should have a clause +in it not to have the constitution formed under it submitted to a vote of +the people. He did not say that Douglas was among them, but we prove by +another source that about the same time Douglas comes into the Senate +with that provision stricken out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot say +they were all working in concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing +was agreed upon and done with a mutual understanding after the +conference; and while we do not know that it was absolutely so, yet it +looks so probable that we have a right to call upon the man who knows the +true reason why it was done to tell what the true reason was. When he +will not tell what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude of an +accused thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to +account refuses to tell where he got them. Not only is this the evidence, +but when he comes in with the bill having the provision stricken out, he +tells us in a speech, not then but since, that these alterations and +modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, in consultation with +Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells us the same to-day. He says +there were certain modifications made in the bill in committee that he +did not vote for. I ask you to remember, while certain amendments were +made which he disapproved of, but which a majority of the committee voted +in, he has himself told us that in this particular the alterations and +modifications were made by him, upon consultation with Toombs. We have +his own word that these alterations were made by him, and not by the +committee. Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about +coming to the exact question? What is the reason he will not tell you +anything about How it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that he remembers +it being made at all? Why does he stand playing upon the meaning of words +and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? If he can explain all +this, but leaves it unexplained, I have the right to infer that Judge +Douglas understood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering that +bill through, to make a constitution, and have Kansas come into the Union +with that constitution, without its being submitted to a vote of the +people. If he will explain his action on this question, by giving a +better reason for the facts that happened than he has done, it will be +satisfactory. But until he does that--until he gives a better or more +plausible reason than he has offered against the evidence in the case--I +suggest to him it will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, +takes on dignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word +in Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has +only arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of +reasoning. There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends on +Trumbull's word. If you have ever studied geometry, you remember that by +a course of reasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a triangle are +equal to two right angles. Euclid has shown you how to work it out. Now, +if you undertake to disprove that proposition, and to show that it is +erroneous, would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar? They +tell me that my time is out, and therefore I close. + + + + +FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, + +OCTOBER 7, 1858 + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY. + +MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge +Douglas has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in +print. I do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all.---If I had not +been interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I was able to +make to a very large portion of it had already been more than once made +and published. There has been an opportunity afforded to the public to +see our respective views upon the topics 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 attended to, and ask your attention to them, and I shall +follow him backwards upon some notes which I have taken, reversing the +order, by beginning where he concluded. + +The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and insisted +that negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that it is a +slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that negroes were +meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possible to believe that Mr. +Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have supposed himself +applying the language of that instrument to the negro race, and yet held +a portion of that race in slavery? Would he not at once have freed them? +I only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech (and that, +too, very briefly, for I shall not detain 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, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from +one single man, that the negro was not included in the Declaration of +Independence; I think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said +so, that Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that +any member of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the +whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present policy of +the Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that +affirmation. And I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience that while +Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking +upon this very subject he used the strong language that "he trembled for +his country when he remembered that God was just"; and I will offer the +highest premium in my power to Judge Douglas if he will show that he, in +all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson. + +The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's comments +upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call our public +meetings as Republican meetings; and he instances Tazewell County as one +of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called a public meeting +and have not dared to name it a 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. In the contest of 1856 his party delighted +to call themselves together as the "National Democracy"; but now, if +there should be a notice put up anywhere for a meeting of the "National +Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not come. They would not +suppose themselves invited. They would understand that it was a call for +those hateful postmasters whom he talks about. + +Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine which +Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in very great +contrast to 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 assumes that I do not understand that my +speeches will be put in print and read north and south. I knew all the +while that the speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at +Jonesboro and the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all +the reading and intelligent men in the community would see them and know +all about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, +that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will have +it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality between +the white and black races which justifies us in making them slaves, we +must then insist that there is a degree of equality that requires us to +make them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken a broad distinction +in regard to that matter; and that is all there is in these different +speeches which he arrays here; and the entire reading of either of the +speeches will show that that distinction was made. Perhaps by taking two +parts of the same speech he could have got up as much of a conflict as +the one he has found. I have all the while maintained that in so far as +it should be insisted that there was an equality between the white and +black races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, +it was an impossibility. This you have seen in my printed speeches, and +with it I have said that in their right to "life, liberty, and the +pursuit of happiness," as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the +inferior races are our equals. And these declarations I have constantly +made in reference to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and +consider when we are legislating about any new country which is not +already cursed with the actual presence of the evil,--slavery. I have +never manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the +actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence of +slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have insisted that, +in legislating for new countries where it does not exist there is no just +rule other than that of moral and abstract right! With reference to those +new countries, those maxims as to the right of a people to "life, +liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were the just rules to be +constantly referred to. There is no misunderstanding this, except by men +interested to misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an +intelligent and reading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, +and then judge whether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I +advanced hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different +portions of the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing +as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free +from all error in the opinions I advance. + +The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction +between his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national party, +ours a sectional one. He does this in asking the question whether this +country has any interest in the maintenance of the 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--and be based upon rightful principles--unless it can +announce its principles everywhere. I presume that Judge Douglas could +not go into Russia and announce the doctrine of our national Democracy; +he could not denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies +in Russia; and it may be true of this country that in some places we may +not be able to proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of +democracy, because there is a section so directly opposed to it that they +will not tolerate us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of +a doctrine that in some places people won't let you proclaim it? Is that +the way to test the truth of any doctrine? Why, I understood that at one +time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a certain +favorite doctrine of his. I commend to his consideration the question +whether he takes that as a test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to +preach. + +There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little +while on this occasion. What has always been the evidence brought forward +to prove that the Republican party is a sectional party? The main one was +that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did not let the +Republicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That has been the main +evidence brought forward,--that they had no supporters, or substantially +none, in the Slave States. The South have not taken hold of our +principles as we announce 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. +Judge Douglas and I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have +now for the fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I +have not found either Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of +the Republican platform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is +wrong. I ask you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away from the +platform of principles to the fact that he can find people somewhere who +will not allow us to announce those principles. If he had great +confidence that our principles were wrong, he would take hold of them and +demonstrate them to be wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he +has of their being wrong is in the fact that there are people who won't +allow us to preach them. I ask again, is that the way to test the +soundness of a doctrine? + +I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality he +is himself fast becoming sectional. I ask his attention to the fact that +his speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio River as they +have formerly gone there I ask his attention to the fact that he +felicitates himself to-day that all the Democrats of the free States are +agreeing with him, while he omits to tell us that the Democrats of any +slave State agree with him. If he has not thought of this, I commend to +his consideration the evidence in his own declaration, on this day, of +his becoming sectional too. I see it rapidly approaching. Whatever may be +the result of this ephemeral contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I +see the day rapidly approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he +has been thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will +be crowded down his own throat. + +Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his +speech) about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principles of the +Nebraska Bill, although I have often presented my views upon that +subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you +please, detain you a little with them. I have always maintained, so far +as I was able, that there was nothing of the principle of the Nebraska +Bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all,--nothing whatever. Where can you +find the principle of the Nebraska Bill in that Compromise? If anywhere, +in the two pieces of the Compromise organizing the Territories of New +Mexico and Utah. It was expressly provided in these two acts that when +they came to be admitted into the Union they should be admitted with or +without slavery, as they should choose, by their own constitutions. +Nothing was said in either of those acts as to what was to be done in +relation to slavery during the Territorial existence of those +Territories, while Henry Clay constantly made the declaration (Judge +Douglas recognizing him as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old +Mexican laws would control that question during the Territorial +existence, and that these old Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can that +be used as a principle for declaring that during the Territorial +existence as well as at the time of framing the constitution the people, +if you please, might have slaves if they wanted them? I am not discussing +the question whether it is right or wrong; but how are the New Mexican +and Utah laws patterns for the Nebraska Bill? I maintain that the +organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general 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 allowed to come in in that shape, because in another way it was +paid for, considering that as a part of that system of measures called +the Compromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen acts. It +included the admission of California as a free State, 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 +law. All these things were put together, and, though passed in separate +acts, were nevertheless, in legislation (as the speeches at the time will +show), made to depend upon each other. Each got votes with the +understanding that the other measures were to pass, and by this system of +compromise, in that series of measures, those two bills--the New Mexico +and Utah bills--were passed: and I say for that reason they could not be +taken as models, framed upon their own intrinsic principle, for all +future Territories. And I have the evidence of this in the fact 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 follow them as a pattern at all. + +The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any odious +distinctions between free and slave States. I am altogether unaware that +the Republicans are in favor of making any odious distinctions between +the free and slave States. But there is still 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 +Republicans on the contrary, is, that the Judge is not in favor of making +any difference between slavery and liberty; that he is in favor of +eradicating, of pressing out of view, the questions of preference in this +country for free or slave institutions; and consequently every sentiment +he utters discards the idea that there is any wrong in slavery. +Everything that emanates from him or his coadjutors in their course of +policy carefully excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in +slavery. All their arguments, if you will consider them, will be seen to +exclude the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in slavery. If +you will take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed +sentences expressed by him,--as his declaration that he "don't care +whether slavery is voted up or down,"--you will see at once that this is +perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong. If you do +admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he don't care +whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas declares that if +any community wants slavery they have a right to have it. He can say that +logically, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery; but if you admit +that there is a wrong in it, he cannot 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 founded in right. But if you admit that one of them is wrong, you +cannot institute any equality between right and wrong. And from this +difference of sentiment,--the belief on the part of one that the +institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that belief 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 the wrong from growing larger, and looks +to there never being an end to it through all the existence of +things,--arises the real difference between Judge Douglas and his friends +on the one hand and the Republicans on the other. Now, I confess myself +as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a +moral, social, and political evil, having due regard for its actual +existence amongst us and the difficulties of 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, if not the +seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or +combination between the 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. Buchanan had; though at last, when they +reached it, they quarreled over it, and their friends divided upon it. I +am very free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have no objection to the +division; but I defy the Judge to show any evidence that I have in any +way promoted that division, unless he insists on being a witness himself +in merely 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 +Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess you +do. Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also that he +was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to see all +there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans. What we now +think of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fremont +and Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. + +But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there is +an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the National +Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving him as an +entirely competent witness upon that subject. I want to call to the +Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first one of these +debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order to fix extreme +Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which he +declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in October, +1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken part in that +Convention. It turned out that although a few men calling themselves an +anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at Springfield about that time, +yet neither did I take any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or +any such resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So apparent had it become +that the resolutions which he read had not been passed at Springfield at +all, nor by a State Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days +afterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by +Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L. Harris, +member of Congress in that district, and he promised in that speech that +when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter. Since then +Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made the +investigation; but a month has passed since he has been there, and, so +far as I know, he has made no report of the result of his investigation. +I have waited as I think sufficient time for the report of that +investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A fraud, an +absolute forgery was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced to +the three,--Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed in +any way so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's +report would probably show. + +It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were +published in the Illinois State 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. +The idea that it was done by mistake is absurd. The article in the +Illinois State Register contains part of the real proceedings of that +Springfield Convention, showing that the writer of the article had the +real proceedings before him, and purposely threw out the genuine +resolutions passed by the Convention and fraudulently substituted the +others. Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of the Register, so that +there seems to be but little room for his escape. But then it is to be +borne in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of that +forgery than either of the other two. The main object of that forgery at +that time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to Congress, and that object +was known to be exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris +and Douglas were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, +and although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register, +subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon that +Convention. + +The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both +Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put +it to new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband was +brought home with his body full of eels, said when she was asked what was +to be done with him, "Take the eels out and set 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 Norton 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 Harris--reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. +It has been clung to and played out again and again as an exceedingly +high trump by this blessed trio. And now that it has been discovered +publicly to be a fraud we find that Judge Douglas manifests no surprise +at it at all. He makes no complaint of Lanphier, who must have known it +to be a fraud from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as +cozy now and just as active in the concoction of new schemes as they were +before the general discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is very natural +if they are all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if +any one of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of +honor among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself, +and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a +satisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the three are +agreed that each is "a most honorable man." + +Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a +re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports against +me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which we know to be +utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to think that this one +unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate, will be the least +drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He asks a re-election to +the lower House of Congress without seeming to remember at all that he is +involved in this dishonorable fraud! The Illinois State Register, edited +by Lanphier, then, as now, the central organ of both Harris and Douglas, +continues 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. Lanphier cannot be ignorant of how +and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he be induced to tell, or, +if he has told, can Judge Douglas be 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! + +While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I +answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded +to me, and then 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 decision as a rule of +political action?" + +To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense of +the word. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that it was +possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. He sneered +at me for 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 notwithstanding." + +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 Constitution"! 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 Constitution; +durable as the Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now, +remembering the provision of the Constitution which I have +read--affirming that that instrument is the supreme law of the land; that +the judges of every State shall be bound by it, any law or constitution +of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; that the right of property +in a slave is affirmed in that Constitution, is made, formed into, and +cannot be separated from it without breaking it; durable as the +instrument; part of the instrument;--what follows as a short and even +syllogistic argument from it? I think it follows, and I submit to the +consideration of men capable of arguing whether, as I state it, in +syllogistic form, the argument has any fault in it: + +Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right +distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United +States. + +The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in +the Constitution of the United States. + +Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy +the right of property in a slave. + +I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming the +truth of the 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 is +not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge +Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates +of that decision may search in vain for the place in the Constitution +where the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly +affirmed I say, therefore, that I think one of the premises is not true +in fact. But it is true with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme +Court who pronounced it. They are estopped from denying it, and being +estopped from denying it, the conclusion follows that, the Constitution +of the United States being the supreme law, no constitution or law can +interfere with it. It being affirmed in the decision that the right of +property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the +Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or +constitution can destroy that right. I then say to Judge Douglas and to +all others that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer to show +that those 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 decision, deciding against the right of the people of the +States to exclude slavery, will never be made if that party is not +sustained by the elections. I believe, further, that it is just as sure +to be made as to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained. I +have said, upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course +of arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge +not his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new Dred +Scott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the reasons for +his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. I have turned +his 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 Jefferson 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, retaining for +themselves no appeal from it, their liberties were gone. I have asked his +attention to the fact that the Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he +stands, disregards a time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in +denying the power of Congress to establish a National Bank. I have asked +his attention to the fact that he himself was one of the most active +instruments at one time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the 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 adheres to it,--not as being right upon the merits, as he +conceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being +absolutely obligatory upon every one simply because of the source from +whence it comes, as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may +be,--this is another marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It +marks it in this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, +whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not +investigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong. +So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is right or wrong. +He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing prepares the 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 voted +down,"; that "whoever wants slavery has a right to have it"; that "upon +principles of equality it should be allowed to go everywhere"; that +"there is no inconsistency between free and slave institutions"--in this +he is also preparing (whether purposely or not) the way for making the +institution of slavery national! I repeat again, for I wish no +misunderstanding, that I do not charge that he means it so; but I call +upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best instrument +you could, and then set it to work in the most ingenious way, to prepare +the public mind for this movement, operating in the free States, where +there is now an abhorrence of the institution of slavery, could you find +an instrument so capable of doing it as Judge Douglas, or one employed in +so apt a way to do it? + +I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, when he +was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, that it had +a tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, said that: + +"Those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate +emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the +Colonization Society: they must go back to the era of our liberty and +independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous +return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must +penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love +of liberty!" + +And I do think--I repeat, though I said it on a 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 a right to hold them; that he is penetrating, so far as +lies in his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of reason +and the love of liberty, when he is in every possible way preparing the +public mind, by his vast influence, for making the institution of slavery +perpetual and national. + +There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your +attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I shall +not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may not take me +clear through it. + +Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at +Freeport, there was one in about this language: + +"Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the +United States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?" + +I answered, as I thought, in this way: that I am not generally opposed to +the acquisition 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 calculated to aggravate this slavery +question amongst us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another +interrogatory, which was correlative to that: "Are you in favor of +acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how it may affect us upon +the slavery question?" Judge Douglas answered,--that is, in his own way +he answered it. I believe that, although he took a good many words to +answer it, it was a little more fully answered than any other. The +substance of his answer was that this country would continue to expand; +that it would need additional territory; that it was as absurd to suppose +that we could continue upon our present territory, enlarging in +population as we are, as it would be to hoop a boy twelve years of age, +and expect him to grow to man's size without bursting the hoops. I +believe it was something like that. Consequently, he was in favor of the +acquisition of further territory as fast as we might need it, in +disregard of how it might affect the slavery question. I do not say this +as giving his exact language, but he said so substantially; and he would +leave the question of slavery, where the territory was acquired, to be +settled by the people of the acquired territory. ["That's the doctrine."] +May be it is; let us consider that for a while. This will probably, in +the run of things, become one of the concrete manifestations of this +slavery question. If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question succeeds, +and gets fairly settled down, until all opposition is crushed out, the +next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, an invasion +of the rich lands of South America, then the adjoining islands will +follow, each one of which promises additional slave-fields. And this +question is to be left to the people of those countries for settlement. +When we 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 horror +of an inferior race. + +It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring additional +territory is a power confided to the President and the Senate of the +United States. It is a power not under the control of the representatives +of the people any further than they, the President and the Senate, can be +considered the representatives of the 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 insisted 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 insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an +assurance that any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition +in it, so far as the House of Representatives was concerned. But at last +the President and Senate acquired the territory without asking the House +of Representatives anything about it, and took it without that +prohibition. They have the power of acquiring territory without the +immediate representatives of the people being called upon to say anything +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 slavery agitation. It is therefore, as +I think, a very important question for due 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 easy to +assert, but much less easy to disprove, that it is necessary for the +wants of the country. + +And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very grave +question for the people of this Union to consider, whether, in view of +the fact that this slavery question has been the only one that has ever +endangered our Republican institutions, 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, discarding +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 consider the importance of +the question, and arrive at a just conclusion as to whether it is or is +not wise in the people of this Union, in the acquisition of new +territory, to consider whether it will add to the disturbance that is +existing amongst us--whether it will add to the one only danger that has +ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union or our own liberties. I think +it is extremely important that they shall decide, 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 topic so as to treat it fully, +without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment think of +doing. I give way to Judge Douglas. + + + + +SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, + +AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, 1858. + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have had no immediate conference with Judge +Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree +that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will be +most agreeable to us. + +In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois which +have since been consolidated into the Republican party assembled together +in a State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted at that time what, in +political language, is called a platform. In June of the same year the +elements of the Republican party in the nation assembled together in a +National Convention at Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the +National Platform. In June, 1858,--the present year,--the Republicans of +Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted +again their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essential +particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding something +in relation to the new developments of political progress in the country. + +The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be +one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the +United States Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this +canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms. We are now met together +on the 13th of October of the same year, only four months from the +adoption of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this canvass, +from the beginning until to-day, any one of our adversaries has taken +hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon anything that he calls +wrong in them. + +In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator Douglas +and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these platforms, +or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to hold me +responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the meeting of +either one of these conventions of which I have spoken. And as a ground +for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he assumed that they +had been passed at a State Convention of the Republican party, and that I +took part in that Convention. It was discovered afterward that this was +erroneous, that the resolutions which he endeavored to hold me +responsible for had not been passed by any State Convention anywhere, had +not been passed at Springfield, where he supposed they had, or assumed +that they had, and that they had been passed in no convention in which I +had taken part. The Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the +point that he was endeavoring to make upon me, and he 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 hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of where I was +when it met, nor one in which I took any part at all. He also introduced +other resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by combining the whole, +although they were all antecedent to the two State Conventions and the +one National Convention I have mentioned, still he insisted, and now +insists, as I understand, that I am in some way responsible for them. + +At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I was in +no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this local +meeting or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in which I was +in no way embraced; but I insisted to him that if he thought I was +responsible for every man or every set of men everywhere, who happen to +be my friends, the rule ought to work both ways, and he ought to be +responsible for the acts and resolutions of all men or sets of men who +were or are now his supporters and friends, and gave him a pretty long +string of resolutions, passed by men who are now his friends, and +announcing doctrines for which he does not 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 understand him. But in addition to +that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, last week, undertakes to +establish that I am guilty of a species of double dealing with the +public; that I make speeches of a certain sort in the north, among the +Abolitionists, which I would not make in the south, and that I make +speeches of a certain sort in the south which I would not make in the +north. I apprehend, in the course I have marked out for myself, that I +shall not have to dwell at very great length upon this subject. + +As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had an +opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something in +answer to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech of mine +delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he brought forward +an extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted that +I was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that his conclusion followed, +that I was playing a double part, and speaking in one region one way, and +in another region another way. I have not time now to dwell on this as +long as I would like, and wish only now to requote that portion of my +speech at Charleston which the Judge quoted, and then make some comments +upon it. This he quotes from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I +believe correctly: + +"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of +bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white +and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making +voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor +to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, +that there is a physical difference between the white and black races +which will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of +social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while +they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and +inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior +position assigned to the white race." + +This, I believe, is the entire quotation from Charleston speech, as Judge +Douglas made it his comments are as follows: + +"Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right when +he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that he +discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and +inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for +Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in +the Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared +equal, and endowed by divine law with equality. And down South, with the +old-line Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians and the +Tennesseeans, he tells you that there is a physical difference between +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 Judges comments. Now, I wish to show you that a month, or +only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech at +Charleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say +substantially the same thing It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa--and +I will say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was in, after +a while--but at 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 that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting +while I was giving it, but afterward went away without getting it from +me. At the end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at +Ottawa, I made the comments which were reported at that time, and which I +will now read, and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the same as +Judge Douglas says were delivered by me down in Egypt. After reading, I +added these words: + +"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great 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 that +argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the +negro, is but a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which a +man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, +while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, +to interfere with the institution in the States where it exists. I +believe I have no right to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have +no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white +and black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in +my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the +footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that +there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of +the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never +said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, +there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the +rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,--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 my +equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." + +I 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 Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc., but +would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of the +Abolition element. I now make this 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 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 print 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 said 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 Declaration of Independence I am entirely borne out by the sentiments +advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I have the book here to +show it from but because I have already occupied more time than I +intended to do on that topic, I pass over it. + +At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, 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 decision declaring that the States had not the power to exclude +slavery from their limits, he would adopt and follow that decision as a +rule of political action; and because he had not directly answered that +question, but had merely contented himself with sneering at it, I again +introduced it, and tried to show that the conclusion that I stated +followed inevitably and logically from the proposition already decided by +the court. Judge Douglas had the privilege of replying to me at +Galesburgh, and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether he would +or would not sustain such a decision if made. I give him his 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 +decided by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the +thought of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his +remarks upon this subject uses the language which I will now read. +Speaking of me, the Judge says: + +"He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry slavery +into the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself says the +contrary." And he adds: + +"Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that +holds that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their opinions +held the reverse." + +I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying that +I have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge Douglas to +lay his finger upon the place in the entire opinions of the court where +any one of them "says the contrary." It is very hard to affirm a negative +with entire confidence. I say, 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 was exactly, in +substance, the Nebraska Bill,--that the States had the exclusive 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 have been voted +down by the majority of the judges, just as Chase's amendment was voted +down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it was offered to the +Nebraska Bill. + +Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield +resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at Ottawa, +and commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as presented, +not genuine. Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to be somewhat +exasperated. He said he would never have believed that Abraham Lincoln, +as he kindly called me, would have attempted such a thing as I had +attempted upon that occasion; and among other expressions which he used +toward me, was that I dared to say forgery, that I had dared to say +forgery [turning to Judge Douglas]. Yes, Judge, I did dare to say +forgery. But in this political canvass the Judge ought to remember that I +was not the first who dared to say forgery. At Jacksonville, Judge +Douglas made a speech in answer to something said by Judge Trumbull, and +at the close of what he said upon that subject, he dared to say that +Trumbull had forged his evidence. He said, too, that he should not +concern 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 said he would hold me responsible for it, I +spread out before him the statements of the evidence that Judge Trumbull +had used, and I asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger +upon one piece of all that evidence that he would say was a forgery! When +I went through with each and every piece, Judge Douglas did not dare then +to say that any piece of it was a 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 is the same thing with you.] + +Yes, sir, it is the same thing with me. I do dare to say forgery when it +is true, and don't dare to say forgery when it is false. Now I will say +here to this audience and to Judge Douglas I have not dared to say he +committed a forgery, and I never shall until I know it; but I did dare to +say--just to suggest to the Judge--that a forgery had been committed, +which by his own showing had been traced to him and two of his friends. I +dared to suggest to him that he had expressly promised in one of his +public speeches to investigate that matter, and I dared to suggest to him +that there was an implied promise that when he investigated it he would +make known the result. I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could not +expect to be quite clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the time +that promise was made he had been with those friends, and had not kept +his promise in regard to the investigation and the report upon it. I am +not a very daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much +scared about it yet. When the Judge says he would n't have believed of +Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that he +reminds me of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the purpose +to treat me courteously; that touched me somewhat. It 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 +audiences before which it was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home +from Washington and made his first speech in Chicago, the evening +afterward I made some sort of a reply to it. His second speech was made +at Bloomington, in which he commented upon my speech at Chicago and said +that I had used language ingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions, +or words to that effect. Now, I understand that this is an imputation +upon my veracity and my candor. I do not know what the Judge understood +by it, but in our first discussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a +bargain, somewhat corrupt in its character, upon Trumbull and +myself,--that we had entered into a bargain, one of the terms of which +was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize the old Democratic party, and I +(Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig party; I pretending 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 treating me in a dignified way, as a man of honor and truth, as he +now claims he was disposed to treat me. Even after that time, at +Galesburgh, when he brings forward an extract from a speech made at +Chicago and an extract from a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I +was trying to play a double part, that I was trying to cheat the public, +and get votes upon one set of principles at one place, and upon another +set of principles at another place,--I do not understand but what he +impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does this, +I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground for it, +to keep my hands off of him. As soon as I learned that Judge Douglas was +disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of my speeches that +I should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble resources I might +have,--to adopt a new course with him. I was not entirely sure that I +should be able to hold my own with him, but I at least had the purpose +made to do as well as I could upon him; and now I say that I will not be +the first to cry "Hold." I think it originated with the Judge, and when +he quits, I probably will. But I shall not ask any favors at all. He asks +me, or he asks the audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point +of personal difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make a mistake, in one +of his early speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though perhaps +he did when he called me an "intelligent" man. It really hurts me very +much to suppose that I have wronged anybody on earth. I again tell him, +no! I very much prefer, when this canvass shall be over, however it may +result, that we at least part without any bitter recollections of +personal difficulties. + +The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was +pushing this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the responsibility +for the enormity of my principles. I say to the Judge and this audience, +now, that I will again state our principles, as well as I hastily can, in +all their enormity, and if the Judge hereafter chooses to confine himself +to a war upon these principles, he will probably not find me departing +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 element. It is the opinion +of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it is a +dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in regard to it. That +controversy necessarily springs from difference of opinion; and if we can +learn exactly--can reduce to the lowest elements--what that difference of +opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for discussing the +different systems of policy that we would propose in regard to that +disturbing element. I suggest that the difference of opinion, reduced to +its lowest of terms, is no other than the difference between the men who +think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican +party think it wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a political +wrong. We think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons +or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to +say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole nation. +Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal +with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, in so far as +we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the +run of time there may be some promise of an end to it. We have a due +regard to the actual presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of +getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional +obligations thrown about it. I suppose that in reference both to its +actual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we +have no right at all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we +profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the +right to do it. We go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it +where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us. We +think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the District of +Columbia. Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it should be in +terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely soon to agree +to,--the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and compensating the +unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the constitutional right, we +restrain ourselves in reference to the actual existence of the +institution and the difficulties thrown about it. We also oppose it as an +evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. We insist on the policy that +shall restrict it to its present limits. We don't suppose that in doing +this we violate anything due to the actual presence of the institution, +or anything due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it. + +We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I ought +perhaps to address you a few words. We do not propose that when Dred +Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will +decide him to be free. We do not propose that, when any other one, or one +thousand, shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any +violent way disturb the rights of property thus settled; but we +nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule which shall be +binding on the voter to vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall +be binding on the members of Congress or the President to favor no +measure that does not actually concur with the principles of that +decision. We do not propose to be bound by it as a political rule in that +way, because we think it lays the foundation, not merely of enlarging and +spreading out what we consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for +spreading that evil into the States themselves. We propose so resisting +it as to have it reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established +upon this subject. + +I will add this: that if there be any man who does not believe that +slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in any +one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while on the +other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is impatient +over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and is impatient +of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and would act in +disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with us. He will find +his place somewhere else; for we have a due regard, so far as we are +capable of understanding them, for all these things. This, gentlemen, as +well as I can give it, is a plain statement of our principles in all +their enormity. I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country +contrary to me,--a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and +therefore it goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as +a wrong. That policy is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is the +Democratic sentiment. If there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this +vast audience that this is really the central idea of the 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 proposition. 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 anything wrong in it. If you will examine the arguments that are +made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea that +there is 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? +Do you not constantly argue that this is not the right place to oppose +it? You say it must not be opposed in the free States, because slavery is +not here; it must not be 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 place 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 Douglas Says he "don't care +whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he means that as an +individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his +views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue +logically if he don't see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so +logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would +as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that +whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have +them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the +institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say +that anybody has a right to do wrong. When he says that slave property +and horse and hog property are alike to be allowed to go into the +Territories, upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if +there is no difference between them as property; but if the one is +property held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no +equality between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in anyway you can, +in all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that policy +itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is +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 REJOINDER. + +MY FRIENDS:--Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion that +he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said in an +hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in half an +hour all that he said in an hour and a half. + +I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public +annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of policy +in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it shall last +forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of this +controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. Judge +Douglas asks you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why +cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made +it, forever? In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make +this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I +insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did +not make it so but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid +of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a +matter of choice, the fathers of the government made this nation part +slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More +than that: when the fathers of the government cut off the source of +slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of +restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I +maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men +understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge +Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him +why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it? + +It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of +slavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers placed +it upon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly said, that +when this government was established, no one expected the institution of +slavery to last until this day, and that the men who formed this +government were wiser and better than the men of these days; but the men +of these days had experience which the fathers had not, and that +experience had taught them the invention of the cotton-gin, and this had +made the perpetuation of the institution of slavery a necessity in this +country. Judge Douglas could not let it stand upon the basis which our +fathers placed it, but removed it, and put it upon the cotton-gin basis. +It is a question, therefore, for him and his friends to answer, why they +could not let it remain where the fathers of the government originally +placed it. I hope nobody has understood me as trying to sustain the +doctrine that we have a right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or +any of the slave States, about the institution of slavery,--thus giving +the Judge an opportunity to be eloquent and valiant against us in +fighting for their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech that +I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the +existence of, the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or +Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery Or any other existing +institution. Then what becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the +rights of States, which are assailed by no living man? + +But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge has +informed me, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is +laboring for my election to the United States Senate. This is news to +me,--not very ungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. W. H. Carlin, who +was on the stand]--I hope that Carlin will be elected to the State +Senate, and will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] Carlin don't +fall in, I perceive, and I suppose he will not do much for me; but I am +glad of all the support I can get, anywhere, if I can get it without +practicing any deception to obtain it. In respect to this large portion +of Judge Douglas's speech in which he tries to show that in the +controversy between himself and the Administration party he is in the +right, I do not feel myself at all competent or inclined to answer him. I +say to him, "Give it to them,--give it to them just all you can!" and, on +the other hand, I say to Carlin, and Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley +up here in Hancock, "Give it to Douglas, just pour it into him!" + +Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to say a +word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a decision is +made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude slavery, he +will support it or not. He obstinately refuses to say what he will do in +that case. The judges of the Supreme Court as obstinately refused to say +what they would do on this subject. Before this I reminded him that at +Galesburgh he said the judges had expressly declared the contrary, and +you remember that in my Opening speech I told him I had the book +containing that decision here, and I would thank him to lay his finger on +the place where any such thing was said. He has occupied his hour and a +half, and he has not ventured to try to sustain his assertion. He never +will. But he is desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred +Scott decision. Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his +political friends find a way to reverse the decision of that same court +in favor of the constitutionality of the National Bank? Didn't they find +a way to do it so effectually that they have reversed it as completely as +any decision ever was reversed, so far as its practical operation is +concerned? + +And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the +decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father--old +Governor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a Secretary of +State? Did he not appeal to the "MOBS," as he calls them? Did he not make +speeches in the lobby to show how villainous that decision was, and how +it ought to be overthrown? Did he not succeed, too, in getting an act +passed by the Legislature to have it overthrown? And did n't he himself +sit down on that bench as one of the five added judges, who were to +overslaugh the four old ones, getting his name of "judge" in that way, +and no other? If there is a villainy in using disrespect or making +opposition to Supreme Court decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's +earnest consideration. I know of no man in the State of Illinois who +ought to know so well about how much villainy it takes to oppose a +decision of the Supreme Court as our honorable friend Stephen A. Douglas. + +Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are +bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not. In the +sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you what I +have said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day. I have said that +as the Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and that the +extension of slavery is affirmed in the National Constitution, they are +bound to support it as such; and I will tell you here that General +Jackson once said each man was bound to support the Constitution "as he +understood it." Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according +to the Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he +understands it. I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to +support it in the way in which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas +believes that decision to be correct, I will remake that argument if I +have time to do so. Let me talk to some gentleman down there among you +who looks me in the face. We will say you are a member of the Territorial +Legislature, and, like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to take +and hold slaves there is a constitutional right The first thing you do is +to swear you will support the Constitution, and all rights guaranteed +therein; that you will, whenever your neighbor needs your legislation to +support his constitutional rights, not withhold that legislation. If you +withhold that necessary legislation for the support of the Constitution +and constitutional rights, do you not commit perjury? I ask every +sensible man if that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so, say what you +please. Now, that is precisely what Judge Douglas says, that this is a +constitutional right. Does the Judge mean to say that the Territorial +Legislature in legislating may, by withholding necessary laws, or by +passing unfriendly laws, nullify that constitutional right? Does he mean +to say that? Does he mean to ignore the proposition so long and well +established in law, that what you cannot do directly, you cannot do +indirectly? Does he mean that? The truth about the matter is this: Judge +Douglas has sung paeans to his "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his +Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter +Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery about +Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented this sort of do-nothing +sovereignty,--that the people may exclude slavery by a sort of +"sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is not that +running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not got down as thin +as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon +that had starved to death? But at last, when it is brought to the test of +close reasoning, there is not even that thin decoction of it left. It is +a presumption impossible in the domain of thought. It is precisely no +other than the putting of that most unphilosophical proposition, that two +bodies can occupy the same space at the same time. The Dred Scott +decision covers the whole ground, and while it occupies it, there is no +room even for the shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground. + +Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a previous +occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an extract from at +Charleston, says it only shows that I practiced the deception twice. Now, +my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to swallow that? Judge Douglas +had said I had made a speech at Charleston that I would not make up +north, and I turned around and answered him by showing I had made that +same speech up north,--had made it at Ottawa; made it in his hearing; +made it in the Abolition District,--in Lovejoy's District,--in the +personal presence of Lovejoy himself,--in the same atmosphere exactly in +which I had made my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much. + +Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation from +the Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me to +handle. Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the Chicago +speech I delivered two years ago in "Egypt," as he calls it. It was down +at Springfield. That speech is here in this book, and I could turn to it +and read it to you but for the lack of time. I have not now the time to +read it. ["Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I am obliged to use +discretion in disposing most advantageously of my brief time. The Judge +has taken great exception to my adopting the heretical statement in the +Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal," and he has +a great deal to say about negro equality. I want to say that in sometimes +alluding to the Declaration of Independence, I have only uttered the +sentiments that Henry Clay used to hold. Allow me to occupy your time a +moment with what he said. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in +Indiana, and in a way that I suppose was very insulting, to liberate his +slaves; and he made a written reply to that application, and one portion +of it is in these words: + +"What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate the +slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the act +announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American +colonies, that men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, +there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it is desirable +in the original construction of society, and in organized societies, to +keep it in view as a great fundamental principle." + +When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in new +countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we should +keep that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I want a +negro wife. He never can be brought to understand that there is any +middle ground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth year, and +have never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, and I think I +can live fifty centuries, for that matter, without having had one for +either. I maintain that you may take Judge Douglas's quotations from my +Chicago speech, and from my Charleston speech, and the Galesburgh +speech,--in his speech of to-day,--and compare them over, and I am +willing to trust them with you upon his proposition that they show +rascality or double-dealing. I deny that they do. + +The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he is +disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath would +not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. +Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It is certainly not +for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these gentlemen, but I will tell +Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I "dared" to say they proved a +forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh that the publication of these +resolutions in the Illinois State Register could not have been the result +of accident, as the proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable +evidence of being done by a man who knew it was a forgery; that it was a +publication partly taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and +partly from the proceedings of a convention at another place, which +showed that he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part +of the resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and +fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also that +his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time and now +is, must have known how it was done. Now, whether he did it, or got some +friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he certainly knew all +about it. I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in his Freeport speech he +had promised to investigate that matter. Does he now say that he did not +make that promise? I have a right to ask why he did not keep it. I call +upon him to tell here to-day why he did not keep that promise? That fraud +has been traced up so that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier. +There is little room for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge +good service, and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. He +desires Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his +newspaper. He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; +and when this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where +the guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate +it, and implied that he would tell us the result of his investigation, I +demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, if he did not; and +if he did, why he won't tell the result. I call upon him for that. + +This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned +about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against Norton +on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public records of the +country show that he himself attempted it upon Trumbull a month before +Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had the opportunity of learning +it from him, rather than he from Harris. I now ask his attention to that +part of the record on the case. My friends, I am not disposed to detain +you longer in regard to that matter. + +I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another matter I +wish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered there was a +mistake in that case, he came forward magnanimously, without my calling +his attention to it, and explained it. I will tell you how he became so +magnanimous. When the newspapers of our side had discovered and published +it, and put it beyond his power to deny it, then he came forward and made +a virtue of necessity by acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the +point there was in those resolutions, although never passed at +Springfield, is retained by their being passed at other localities. Is +that true? He said I had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech, +that I was in the convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutions +touch me at all? It strikes me there is some difference between holding a +man responsible for an act which he has not done and holding him +responsible for an act that he has done. You will judge whether there is +any difference in the "spots." And he has taken credit for great +magnanimity in coming forward and acknowledging what is proved on him +beyond even the capacity of Judge Douglas to deny; and he has more +capacity in that way than any other living man. + +Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a +conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he made. +May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is proven false on +me as that was proven false on him. I will add a little more than that, I +will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man shall be brought to believe +that the charge is not true. I have asked Judge Douglas's attention to +certain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy to +nationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue +because Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the +Dred Scott case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that +I say the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did +say that I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never +uttered it. [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated affirmatively at +Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say I did, I tell you +myself that I never said the "Democratic" owners of Dred Scott got up the +case. I have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were +Democrats, or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers or Border Ruffians. I have +said that there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a +made-up case, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that +that evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was +declared to be a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he +had had the case tried and the question settled for such use as could be +made of that decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared +to be his by that decision. But my time is out, and I can say no more. + + + +LAST DEBATE, + +AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858 + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have been somewhat, in my own mind, complimented +by a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech,--I mean that portion which +he devotes to the controversy 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 improving in +regard to his war with the Administration. At Quincy, day before +yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the Administration 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 re-commend 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 leave this branch of the +discussion,--although I do not consider it much of my business, anyway. 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; 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 the Missouri Compromise. I want to know if +Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? Has +Douglas the exclusive right, 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 Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it was +about me, it is my business to pay some attention 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 complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had +decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the United States. I +have omitted by some accident heretofore to analyze 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 especially 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 foundation 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 my 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 could not be a citizen; that 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 rights +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 into the State of Illinois and holding 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 prohibited 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 them in a lump, taken in connection with the introduction of +the Nebraska Bill, and the amendment 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 +these 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 fabrication of my +purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between the +white and black races. His assertion 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 allusions. 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, without reading, to-day to a portion +of a speech which I delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that +speech, as he has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were +taken in 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 convey. 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 +published 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 we did secure if we +grasped for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does +not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let 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 institution 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 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 +inalienable rights, among which are life, 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, constantly 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 myself chose to say in regard to it. + +At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, 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 reassert 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 astonishment to me if they +shall be able to find that one human being three years ago had ever +uttered the astounding sentiment 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 mouth of some +Southern men for a period of years, ending at last in that shameful, +though rather 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 believe +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 irresistible +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 Times, 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 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 men +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 Declaration. 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 authority. While he was in +Indiana a man presented a petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. +Clay) made a speech in answer to it, which I suppose he carefully wrote +out himself and 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 did n't suppose the +negro was included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay +said: + +"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate +the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the +act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American +colonies, that 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 apprehend +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, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always +probably remain subject to the government of another portion of the +community. + +"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, 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? Would Virginia and other Southern States +have ever united in a declaration 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 recognized 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 does it do so? In what way has it +a tendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an abstract +principle that all men are created equal, but that we cannot practically +apply it in all eases. 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. Clay 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. I wish +every slave in the United States was in the country of his 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 would be more strongly opposed than I should be to +incorporate the institution of slavery amongst 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 Independence, is no such statement on his +part, but the declaration that it is a great fundamental truth which +should be constantly kept in view in the organization of society and in +societies already 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 I am 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 recognizing what he +recognized as the great principle of free government? + +And when this new principle--this new proposition that no human being +ever thought of three years ago--is brought forward, I combat it as +having an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as having a +tendency to dehumanize the 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 +constantly 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, 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 would be more strongly opposed than I should be to +incorporate the institution of slavery amongst 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 nothing 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 society in our Territories +where it does not exist, he would be opposed 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 hurtful to him. + +Judge 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 language: + +"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 a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house divided +against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure +permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, +but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one +thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the +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." + +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 were 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? We were to have no more +agitation 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 that time to allay. We were for a little while quiet on the +troublesome thing, and that very allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's +stirred it up again. But was it not understood or intimated with the +"confident promise" of putting an end to the slavery agitation? 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 +Constitution, every speech on that Nebraska Bill was full of his +felicitations that we were just at the end of the slavery agitation. 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 that Nebraska +policy, which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a superior +degree of self-government, beyond 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 earth 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 living, 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 be 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 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 the 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 its ultimate 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 regard to the prohibition of the African slave-trade? It runs +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: + +"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several +States which may be included within this Union, according to their +respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding 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 consequence 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 purpose, 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 institution of slavery +had passed from among us,--there should be nothing on the face of the +great charter of liberty suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery +had ever existed among us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers +of the government 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 that I desire to see the +further spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which +the fathers have first done. 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 extinction, 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 puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within +itself,--was introduced by the framers of the Constitution. The exact +truth is, that they found the institution 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 +difficulty--the absolute impossibility--of its immediate removal. And +when Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it remain part slave and +part free, as the fathers of the government 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 +government had adopted in relation to this element among us was the best +policy in the world, the only wise policy, the only policy that we can +ever safely continue upon that will ever give us peace, unless this +dangerous element masters us all and becomes a national institution,--I +turn upon him and ask him why he could not leave it 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 so +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. I ask you, when +he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and slave States at war, +when the institution was placed in that attitude by those who made the +Constitution, did they make any war? If we had no war 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 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 democratic +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 productions 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 barrel 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 house,"--figuratively expressing the Union,--they tend to +sustain it; they are the props 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 amongst ourselves about the cranberry laws of +Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine-lumber laws of +Maine, or 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 amongst 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 spring 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 annexation of Texas. Go +back to the troubles that led to the Compromise 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 disturbance 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 Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What +disturbed the Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has +jarred and shaken the great American Tract Society recently, 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 literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of +life? Is this the work of politicians? Is that irresistible power, which +for fifty years has shaken the government and agitated the people, to be +stifled and subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly 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 disturbed 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 undertakes to build up a +system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing +that everybody does care the most about--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 controversy 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 Government, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We +profess constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the +power of the government to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to +defend ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights +of the Sates. What 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 right all his way, and you have no part +of it your way. If he goes in and makes it a slave Territory, and by +consequence a slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have +it a free State were on equal ground? Let me suggest it in a different +way. How many Democrats are there about here ["A thousand"] 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 Territory to go to? And when hereafter, for +any cause, the people in this place shall desire to find new homes, if +they wish to be rid of the institution, where will they find the place to +go to? + +Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether +there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of +our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a +home,--may find some spot where they can better their condition; where +they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in +favor of this, not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for +our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white +people everywhere the world over--in which Hans, and Baptiste, and +Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and +better their conditions in life. + +I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what +I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge +Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the +free and the slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, +when he assumes that I am in favor of producing 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 institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that +does not look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the +institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the +Republican party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all +their arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They +look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while +they contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its +actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in +any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations thrown +about it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in +regard to it that looks to its not creating any more danger. They insist +that it should, as far as may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the +methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow +no larger. They also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of +slavery at some time. These are the views they entertain in regard to it +as I understand them; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and +propositions, are brought within this range. I have said, and I repeat it +here, that if there be a man amongst us who does not think that the +institution of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have +spoken, he is misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a +man amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its +actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly +in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations +thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We +disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly +with us. + +On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let +me say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union +save and except this very institution of slavery? What is it that we hold +most dear amongst us? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever +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. That is the +peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers +themselves set us the example. + +On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it as +not being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not +mean to say that every man who stands within that range positively +asserts that it is right. That class will include all who positively +assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as +indifferent and do not say it is either 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 supposes that he, as a +Democrat, can consider himself "as much opposed to slavery as anybody," I +would like to reason with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other +thing that you consider as a wrong do you deal with as you deal with +that? Perhaps you say it is wrong--but your leader never does, and you +quarrel with 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 the security of "my place." +There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say +yourself it is a wrong. But, finally, you will screw yourself up to the +belief that if the people of the slave States should adopt a system of +gradual emancipation on the slavery question, you would be in favor of +it. You would be in favor of it. You say that is getting it in the right +place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. But you are deceiving +yourself. You all know that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in +St. Louis, undertook to introduce that system in Missouri. They fought as +valiantly as they could for the system of 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 +exclude 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 pretending to +respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish that it might sometime, in some +peaceful way, come to an end. The Democratic policy in regard to that +institution will not tolerate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of +the least degree of wrong about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas's +arguments. He says he "don't care whether it is voted up or voted down" +in the Territories. I do not care myself, in dealing with that +expression, whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual +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 indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must +logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing. He +contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them. +So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say +people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality +slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property. +This is strictly logical if there is no difference between it and other +property. If it and other property are equal, this argument is entirely +logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there +is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn +over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether +in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the +Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape +it takes in short maxim-like arguments,--it everywhere carefully excludes +the idea that there is anything wrong in it. + +That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this +country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be +silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles--right +and wrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles that have +stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to +struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the +divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it +develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and +earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether +from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own +nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as +an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical +principle. I was glad to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express +it here, to Judge Douglas,--that he looks to no end of the institution of +slavery. That will help the people to see where the struggle really is. +It will 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 between the parties, this controversy will soon be settled, +and it will be done peaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. It +will be placed again where the wisest and best men of the world placed +it. Brooks of South Carolina once declared that when this Constitution +was framed its framers did not look to the institution existing until +this day. When he said this, I think he stated a fact that is fully borne +out by the history of the times. But he also said they were better and +wiser men than the men of these days, yet the men of these days had +experience which they had not, and by the invention of the cotton-gin it +became a necessity in this country that slavery should be perpetual. I +now say that, willingly or unwillingly--purposely or without purpose, +Judge Douglas has been the most prominent 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's cotton-gin basis; placing it where he openly confesses he has no +desire there shall ever be an end of it. + +I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying 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 constantly said, before the decision, that whether they could or +not, was a question for the Supreme Court. But after the court had made +the decision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme +Court, but for the people. And how is it he tells us they can exclude it? +He says it needs "police regulations," and that admits of "unfriendly +legislation." Although it is a right established by the Constitution of +the United States to take a slave into a Territory of the United States +and hold him as property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will +give friendly legislation, and more especially if they adopt unfriendly +legislation, they can practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this +proposition as a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real +constitutional obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the +face before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial +Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to swear that he will +support the Constitution of the United States. His neighbor by his side +in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial legislation to enable +him to enjoy that constitutional right. Can he withhold the legislation +which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in +his favor in the Constitution of the United States which he has sworn to +support? Can he withhold it without violating his oath? And, more +especially, can he pass unfriendly legislation to violate his oath? Why, +this is a monstrous sort of talk about the Constitution of the United +States! There has never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the +mouth of any respectable man on earth. I do not believe it is a +constitutional right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States. +I believe the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it. +Judge Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision. +But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself +stands. I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine +uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. + +I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of the +Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law,--that +is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to +them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a +"barren right," which needs legislation before it can become efficient +and valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is +constitutional, I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it, and +that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no +taste for running and 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 legislation to support slavery in a +Territory, who believes it is a constitutional right to have it there. No +man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the +obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a Fugitive State law. +Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say if +that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a +Territory is equally a constitutional right with the right of a +slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one can show the distinction +between them. The one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is +construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision +to be correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by +unfriendly legislation, in spite of that constitutional right, slavery +may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument +by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and +claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder +to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such an arguement may strike a +popular assembly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body of men +whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show +that there is an iota of difference between the constitutional right to +reclaim a fugitive and the constitutional right to hold a slave, in a +Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct, I defy any man +to make an argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a +slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will not +equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument +for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not such an +Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all! such an Abolitionist in +the nation as Douglas, after all! + + + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, +Volume 4, by Abraham Lincoln + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WRITINGS OF LINCOLN *** + +***** This file should be named 2656.txt or 2656.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.net/2/6/5/2656/ + +Produced by David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.net/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.net + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/20060816.2656.zip b/old/20060816.2656.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..457e4b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/20060816.2656.zip diff --git a/old/4linc10.txt b/old/4linc10.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aa176c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/4linc10.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3707 @@ +Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 4 + +Volume 4 of 7 + +Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check +the copyright laws for your country before posting these files!! + +Please take a look at the important information in this header. +We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an +electronic path open for the next readers. Do not remove this. + +*It must legally be the first thing seen when opening the book.* +In fact, our legal advisors said we can't even change margins. + +**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts** + +**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971** + +*These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Donations* + +Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and +further information is included below. We need your donations. + + +Title: The Writings of Abraham Lincoln + +Author: Abraham Lincoln + +June, 2001 [Etext #2656] + + +Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 4 +*******This file should be named 4linc10.txt or 4linc10.zip****** + +Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, 4linc11.txt +VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, 4linc10a.txt + + +Etext prepared for Gutenberg by David Widger, widger@cecomet.net + +Project Gutenberg Etexts are usually created from multiple editions, +all of which are in the Public Domain in the United States, unless a +copyright notice is included. Therefore, we usually do NOT keep any +of these books in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +We are now trying to release all our books one month in advance +of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing. + +Please note: neither this list nor its contents are final till +midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement. +The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at +Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A +preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment +and editing by those who wish to do so. To be sure you have an +up to date first edition [xxxxx10x.xxx] please check file sizes +in the first week of the next month. Since our ftp program has +a bug in it that scrambles the date [tried to fix and failed] a +look at the file size will have to do, but we will try to see a +new copy has at least one byte more or less. + + +Information about Project Gutenberg (one page) + +We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The +time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours +to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright +searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. This +projected audience is one hundred million readers. If our value +per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2 +million dollars per hour this year as we release thirty-six text +files per month, or 432 more Etexts in 1999 for a total of 2000+ +If these reach just 10% of the computerized population, then the +total should reach over 200 billion Etexts given away this year. + +The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext +Files by December 31, 2001. [10,000 x 100,000,000 = 1 Trillion] +This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers, +which is only ~5% of the present number of computer users. + +At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third +of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 3,333 Etexts unless we +manage to get some real funding; currently our funding is mostly +from Michael Hart's salary at Carnegie-Mellon University, and an +assortment of sporadic gifts; this salary is only good for a few +more years, so we are looking for something to replace it, as we +don't want Project Gutenberg to be so dependent on one person. + +We need your donations more than ever! + + +All donations should be made to "Project Gutenberg/CMU": and are +tax deductible to the extent allowable by law. (CMU = Carnegie- +Mellon University). + +For these and other matters, please mail to: + +Project Gutenberg +P. O. Box 2782 +Champaign, IL 61825 + +When all other email fails. . .try our Executive Director: +Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com> +hart@pobox.com forwards to hart@prairienet.org and archive.org +if your mail bounces from archive.org, I will still see it, if +it bounces from prairienet.org, better resend later on. . . . + +We would prefer to send you this information by email. + +****** + +To access Project Gutenberg etexts, use any Web browser +to view http://promo.net/pg. This site lists Etexts by +author and by title, and includes information about how +to get involved with Project Gutenberg. You could also +download our past Newsletters, or subscribe here. This +is one of our major sites, please email hart@pobox.com, +for a more complete list of our various sites. + +To go directly to the etext collections, use FTP or any +Web browser to visit a Project Gutenberg mirror (mirror +sites are available on 7 continents; mirrors are listed +at http://promo.net/pg). + +Mac users, do NOT point and click, typing works better. + +Example FTP session: + +ftp metalab.unc.edu +login: anonymous +password: your@login +cd pub/docs/books/gutenberg +cd etext90 through etext99 or etext00 through etext01, etc. +dir [to see files] +get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files] +GET GUTINDEX.?? [to get a year's listing of books, e.g., GUTINDEX.99] +GET GUTINDEX.ALL [to get a listing of ALL books] + +*** + +**Information prepared by the Project Gutenberg legal advisor** + +(Three Pages) + + +***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START*** +Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers. +They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with +your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from +someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our +fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement +disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how +you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to. + +*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT +By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept +this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive +a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by +sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person +you got it from. If you received this etext on a physical +medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request. + +ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS +This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG- +tm etexts, is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor +Michael S. Hart through the Project Gutenberg Association at +Carnegie-Mellon University (the "Project"). Among other +things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright +on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and +distribute it in the United States without permission and +without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth +below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext +under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark. + +To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable +efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain +works. Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any +medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other +things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged +disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer +codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. + +LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES +But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below, +[1] the Project (and any other party you may receive this +etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including +legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR +UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT, +INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE +OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE +POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. + +If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of +receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) +you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that +time to the person you received it from. If you received it +on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and +such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement +copy. If you received it electronically, such person may +choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to +receive it electronically. + +THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS +TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A +PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or +the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the +above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you +may have other legal rights. + +INDEMNITY +You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors, +officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost +and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or +indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause: +[1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification, +or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect. + +DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm" +You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by +disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this +"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg, +or: + +[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this + requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the + etext or this "small print!" statement. You may however, + if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable + binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, + including any form resulting from conversion by word pro- + cessing or hypertext software, but only so long as + *EITHER*: + + [*] The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and + does *not* contain characters other than those + intended by the author of the work, although tilde + (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may + be used to convey punctuation intended by the + author, and additional characters may be used to + indicate hypertext links; OR + + [*] The etext may be readily converted by the reader at + no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent + form by the program that displays the etext (as is + the case, for instance, with most word processors); + OR + + [*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at + no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the + etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC + or other equivalent proprietary form). + +[2] Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this + "Small Print!" statement. + +[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the + net profits you derive calculated using the method you + already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you + don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are + payable to "Project Gutenberg Association/Carnegie-Mellon + University" within the 60 days following each + date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare) + your annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return. + +WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO? +The Project gratefully accepts contributions in money, time, +scanning machines, OCR software, public domain etexts, royalty +free copyright licenses, and every other sort of contribution +you can think of. Money should be paid to "Project Gutenberg +Association / Carnegie-Mellon University". + +We are planning on making some changes in our donation structure +in 2000, so you might want to email me, hart@pobox.com beforehand. + + + + +*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.04.29.93*END* + + + + + +Etext prepared for Gutenberg by David Widger, widger@cecomet.net + + + + + +VOLUME IV + +THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II + + + + +LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH JOINT DEBATE, + +AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--It will be very difficult for an audience so +large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and +consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as +possible. + +While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me +to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality +between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to +myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the +question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes +in saying something in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am +not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the +social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am +not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of +negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry +with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is +a physical difference between the white and black races which I +believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of +social and political equality. And in as much 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 superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon +this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have +the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do +not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I +must necessarily want her for a wife. My 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 a 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 entirely satisfied of its +correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend +Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have +made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I +have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would +marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it; but as Judge +Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they +might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most +solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this +State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I +will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand +that there is any place where an alteration of the social and +political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, +except in the State Legislature,--not in the Congress of the United +States; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such +thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror +that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best +means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the +State Legislature to fight the measure. I do not propose dwelling +longer at this time on this subject. + +When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to +Illinois in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in +which he made what may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, +which I understand proved to be very offensive to him. The Judge was +at that time out upon one of his speaking tours through the country, +and when the news of it reached him, as I am informed, he denounced +Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for having said what he did in +regard to that matter. I was traveling at that time, and speaking at +the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent days, and when I +heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and what Douglas +had said back again, I felt that I was in a position where I could +not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter. Consequently, +upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no +other wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by +Trumbull against Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to +say nothing about it; that I did personally know Judge Trumbull; that +I believed him to be a man of veracity; that I believed him to be a +man of capacity sufficient to know very well whether an assertion he +was making, as a conclusion drawn from a set of facts, was true or +false; and as a conclusion of my own from that, I stated it as my +belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove +everything he had said. I said this upon two or three occasions. +Upon a subsequent occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before an +audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his +charge against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to +substantiate it. This speech was published at length; and +subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In +the course of his speech, and near the close of it, he stated in +regard to myself what I will now read: + +"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter +occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, +Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he +should hold him (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders." + +I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this +invitation to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not +originally been my purpose to discuss that matter at all But in-as- +much as it seems to be the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me +responsible for it, then for once in my life I will play General +Jackson, and to the just extent I take the responsibility. + +I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that +portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this +matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at +Jacksonville in answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of +this debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and +Douglas. I cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take +half of my first hour to do so. I can only make some comments upon +them. Trumbull's charge is in the following words: + +"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a +constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the +people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in +the plot." + +I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an +opportunity of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings +forward what he regards as sufficient evidence to substantiate this +charge. + +It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon +the floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference +among the senators, in which conference it was determined to have an +enabling act passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution +under, and in this conference it was agreed among them that it was +best not to have a provision for submitting the constitution to a +vote of the people after it should be formed. He then brings forward +to show, and showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the +bill back to the Senate with that clause stricken out. He then shows +that there was a new clause inserted into the bill, which would in +its nature prevent a reference of the constitution back for a vote of +the people,--if, indeed, upon a mere silence in the law, it could be +assumed that they had the right to vote upon it. These are the +general statements that he has made. + +I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he +attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to +examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he +makes is: + +"Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and +that I struck it out,--is that a proof of a plot to force a +constitution upon them against their will?" + +His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the +bill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken +out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would +say, in the first place, that that would be a most manifest reason +for it. It is true, as Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial +bills have passed without having such a provision in them. I believe +it is true, though I am not certain, that in some instances +constitutions framed under such bills have been submitted to a vote +of the people with the law silent upon the subject; but it does not +appear that they once had their enabling acts framed with an express +provision for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of +the people, then that they were stricken out when Congress did not +mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have been bills +which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when was +that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does +the evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, +when we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill +almost simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a +conference among certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a +bill should be passed leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering +Trumbull, omits to attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was +a meeting in which it was agreed they should so frame the bill that +there should be no submission of the constitution to a vote of the +people. The Judge does not notice this part of it. If you take this +as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that simultaneously +Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to be +submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty +fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter +into a plot to put in force a constitution for Kansas, without giving +the people any opportunity of voting upon it. + +But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is +this: + +"But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did +contain a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted." + +This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. +I only want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that +these words were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill +from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out,--a bill +which goes by the name of Toomb's, because he originally brought it +forward? I ask why, if the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with +Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition Trumbull made in his +speech, and say it was not stricken out? Trumbull has given the +exact words that he says were in the Toomb's bill, and he alleges +that when the bill came back, they were stricken out. Judge Douglas +does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken out +were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision in the +Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We +see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the +words. He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about +these words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to +it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, +if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be +upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken +out, I have before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the +Toomb's bill, in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says +were in it were, in fact, originally there. If there be any dispute +upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show they were there. +If there be any controversy upon the sense of the words,--whether +these words which were stricken out really constituted a provision +for submitting the matter to a vote of the people,--as that is a +matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull's own +argument. He says that the proposition is in these words: + +"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered +to the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their +free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention +and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the +constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said +State of Kansas." + +Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the +bill when it came back, and he says this was a provision for +submitting the constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument +is this: + +"Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the +election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an +election was to be held?" + +This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the +charge at all, but he stands up and says there was no such +proposition in that bill for submitting the constitution to be framed +to a vote of the people. Trumbull admits that the language is not a +direct provision for submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily +implied from another provision. He asks you how it is possible to +ratify the land proposition at the election for the adoption of the +constitution, if there was no election to be held for the adoption of +the constitution. And he goes on to show that it is not any less a +law because the provision is put in that indirect shape than it would +be if it were put directly. But I presume I have said enough to draw +attention to this point, and I pass it by also. + +Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and +at very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, +said in a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to +be made would have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if +Trumbull thought so then, what ground is there for anybody thinking +otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, this much may be said in reply: That +bill had been in the hands of a party to which Trumbull did not +belong. It had been in the hands of the committee at the head of +which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had a printed copy of +the original Toomb's bill. I have not the evidence on that point +except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of business +there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of altering, +were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, until +the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterwards, when it was +reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull +in reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the +bearings of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, +and it does not follow that because there was something in it +Trumbull did not perceive, that something did not exist. More than +this, is it true that what Trumbull did can have any effect on what +Douglas did? Suppose Trumbull had been in the plot with these other +men, would that let Douglas out of it? Would it exonerate Douglas +that Trumbull did n't then perceive he was in the plot? He also asks +the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose to amend the bill, if he +thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe that everything +Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection with this +question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of +the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his +friends. He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to +anything on this subject would receive the slightest consideration. +Judge Trumbull did bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the +fact that there was no provision for submitting the constitution +about to be made for the people of Kansas to a vote of the people. I +believe I may venture to say that Judge Douglas made some reply to +this speech of Judge Trumbull's, but he never noticed that part of it +at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, then, the fact that +Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not throw much blame upon +him; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact as to what +Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself been +in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it +from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial +it should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, +but that the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at +all touch the question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck +that they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to +be guilty too. + +Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is, +that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the +fact that the bill had the provision in it for submitting the +constitution to a vote of the people when it went into his Judge +Douglas's) hands, that it was missing when he reported it to the +Senate, and that in a public speech he had subsequently said the +alterations in the bill were made while it was in committee, and that +they were made in consultation between him (Judge Douglas) and +Toomb's. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of +Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill +not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with +another clause and another provision in it, saying that "until the +complete execution of this Act there shall be no election in said +Territory,"--which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the +provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but +was adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from +exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the +question. Now, in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the +issue, that he shifts his ground,--and I believe he uses the term +that, "it being proven false, he has changed ground," I call upon all +of you, when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's speech +(for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trumbull has +shifted his ground or not. I say he did not shift his ground, but +that he brought forward his original charge and the evidence to +sustain it yet more fully, +but precisely as he originally made it. Then, in addition thereto, +he brought in a new piece of evidence. He shifted no ground. He +brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with his former +testimony; but he brought a new piece, tending, as he thought, and as +I think, to prove his proposition. To illustrate: A man brings an +accusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge +introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a second trial he +introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and +a third witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives +further testimony corroborative of the charge. So with Trumbull. +There was no shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony +between the new piece of evidence and what he originally introduced. + +But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last +provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and +a substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is +true that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. +Trumbull has not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it +was so stricken out. He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as +Judge Douglas reported it back. It was amended somewhat in the +Senate before it passed, but I am speaking of it as he brought it +back." Now, when Judge Douglas parades the fact that the provision +was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he asserts nothing +contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only said that he +originally put it in, not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull +says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. When it +came back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made +by him in consultation with Toomb's. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as +his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants +to contradict Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not +put it in, and not that he did n't take it out again. It is said +that a bear is sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I +presume it was in this case. I presume the truth is that Douglas put +it in, and afterward took it out. That, I take it, is the truth +about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing, Douglas says another thing, +and the two don't contradict one another at all. The question is, +what did he put it in for? In the first place, what did he take the +other provision out of the bill for,--the provision which Trumbull +argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of the +people? What did he take that out for; and, having taken it out, +what did he put this in for? I say that in the run of things it is +not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge +Douglas to take that latter clause out again. The question that +Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in; and he don't meet +Trumbull at all unless he denies that. + +In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses +this language toward Judge Trumbull. He says: + +"He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the +record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge." + +Well, that is a pretty serious statement--Trumbull forges his +evidence from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say +that it is not true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that +Trumbull has brought forward. When you come to read the speech, as +you will be able to, examine whether the evidence is a forgery from +beginning to end. He had the bill or document in his hand like that +[holding up a paper]. He says that is a copy of the Toomb's bill,-- +the amendment offered by Toomb's. He says that is a copy of the bill +as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas's hands. Now, does +Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? That is one thing Trumbull +brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning to +end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does Douglas say that is +a forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent +examination upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another +document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it +came back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does +Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? Does he say it in his general +sweeping charge? Does he say so now? If he does not, then take this +Toomb's bill and the bill in the amended form, and it only needs to +compare them to see that the provision is in the one and not in the +other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken out. + +But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what +Trumbull's other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will +read. Trumbull says there are in this original Toomb's bill these +words: + +"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered +to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for +their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the +Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the +adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United +States and the said State of Kansas." + +Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper +here and see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes +along, that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in +the Senate, December 9, 1857: + +"I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the +bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, +whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote +of the people. It was held by those most intelligent on the subject +that, in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the +danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be +better there should be no such provision in the Toomb's bill; and it +was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the +Convention would make a constitution, and send it here, without +submitting it to the popular vote." + +Then Trumbull follows on: + +"In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 +[Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said: + +"'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or +confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. +Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. +My recollection was clear that I left the conference under the +impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit +Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and +that for delegates to this Convention. This impression was stronger +because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine +of non-intervention, to which I had great aversion; but with the hope +of accomplishing a great good, and as no movement had been made in +that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and +concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of testimony as +to the correctness of these impressions, and with their submission I +shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the senator +from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission +of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows: + +"That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered +to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for +their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the +Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the +adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United +States and the said State of Kansas." + +The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of +June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the +same section word for word. Both these bills were under +consideration at the conference referred to; but, sir, when the +senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate with +amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the +third section which indicated to the Convention that the constitution +should be approved by the people. The words "and ratified by the +people at the election for the adoption of the constitution" had been +stricken out.'" + +Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor +of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the +Congressional Globe on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is +a forgery? Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional +Globe? What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his +evidence from beginning to end? So again he says in another place +that Judge Douglas, in his speech, December 9, 1857 (Congressional +Globe, part I., page 15), stated: + +"That during the last session of Congress, I (Mr. Douglas] reported a +bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of +Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. +Subsequently the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a +substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and +myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate." + +Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and +is recorded in the Congressional Globe. Is it a forgery? Is it +there or not? It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take +these pieces of evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he +dare do it. + +[A voice:"He will."] + +Well, sir, you had better not commit him. He gives other +quotations,--another from Judge Douglas. He says: + +"I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member +of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the +Union, from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be +submitted to the people. I will venture to say that on all sides of +the chamber it was so understood at the time. If the opponents of +the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on +it; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it, +and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President +found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would +be done, which ought in fairness to have been done." + +Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. +Does Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true? Trumbull +says somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any +one who will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the +notice of those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that +provision; and then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge +Douglas, where Judge Trumbull uses this language: + +"Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, +probably recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had +objected to the Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for +a submission of the constitution to the people, made another +statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the Globe, page +22, in which he says: +'That the bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention +was called to that about the time it was passed; and I took the fair +construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that +of course the constitution would be submitted to the people.' + +"Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before +made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or +that it was a new discovery, you will determine." + +So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and +yet maintain his position that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from +beginning to end." I will remark that I have not got these +Congressional Globes with me. They are large books, and difficult to +carry about, and if Judge Douglas shall say that on these points +where Trumbull has quoted from them there are no such passages there, +I shall not be able to prove they are there upon this occasion, but I +will have another chance. Whenever he points out the forgery and +says, "I declare that this particular thing which Trumbull has +uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then my attention +will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest, stating +now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find +every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the question +is, How can Douglas call that a forgery? How can he make out that it +is a forgery? What is a forgery? It is the bringing forward +something in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect +when it is altogether untrue. If you come forward with my note for +one hundred dollars when I have never given such a note, there is a +forgery. If you come forward with a letter purporting to be written +by me which I never wrote, there is another forgery. If you produce +anything in writing or in print saying it is so and so, the document +not being genuine, a forgery has been committed. How do you make +this forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine? If Judge +Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false and forged, +he has a full right to do so; but until he does it specifically, we +don't know how to get at him. If he does say they are false and +forged, I will then look further into it, and presume I can procure +the certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies. +I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where +Trumbull says it is. Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in +making his sweeping charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged +from beginning to end, at all meets the case,--if that is the way to +get at the facts. I repeat again, if he will point out which one is +a forgery, I will carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one +of them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it +any longer. I have always wanted to deal with everyone I meet +candidly and honestly. If I have made any assertion not warranted by +facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully. +But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and the +evidence he has brought forward branded in general terms "a forgery +from beginning to end." This is not the legal way of meeting a +charge, and I submit it to all intelligent persons, both friends of +Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is. + +The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill that went into his +hands had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to +the people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision +for a submission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was +known that the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge +Douglas, it was not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the +declaration, when you got it, for a submission of the constitution to +the people. And now, my direct question to Judge Douglas is, to +answer why, if he deemed the bill silent on this point, he found it +necessary to strike out those particular harmless words. If he had +found the bill silent and without this provision, he might say what +he does now. If he supposes it was implied that the constitution +would be submitted to a vote of the people, how could these two lines +so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to strike them out? +How could he infer that a submission was still implied, after its +express provision had been stricken from the bill? I find the bill +vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it out, and +although he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a +vote of the people, I ask, Why did you first put it in? I ask him +whether he took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges +was in the bill. If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he +did it for. It looks to us as if he had altered the bill. If it +looks differently to him,--if he has a different reason for his +action from the one we assign him--he can tell it. I insist upon +knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point when it was vocal +before he put his hands upon it. + +I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three +minutes of being out. I presume it is expired now; I therefore +close. + + + + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. + +FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour +answer to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried +one. I shall only be able to touch upon a few of the points +suggested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I +shall have to totally omit others for the want of time. + +Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from +me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro +citizenship. So far as I know the Judge never asked me the question +before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell +him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. This +furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I +mentioned in a certain speech of mine, which has been printed, that +the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made +a citizen; and without saying what was my ground of complaint in +regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge +Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he +ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the +negroes and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he +will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course +of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I +had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was +when I did not tell them myself. Now, my opinion is that the +different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the +Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott +decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of +Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it. +That is all I have to say about it. + +Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my +speeches south; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the +north and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very +different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different +points. I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully +misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take these +speeches and read them, and I dare him to point out any difference +between my speeches north and south. While I am here perhaps I ought +to say a word, if I have the time, in regard to the latter portion of +the Judge's speech, which was a sort of declamation in reference to +my having said I entertained the belief that this government would +not endure half slave and half free. I have said so, and I did not +say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhaps +would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in +detail; but let me ask you a few questions. Have we ever had any +peace on this slavery question? When are we to have peace upon it, +if it is kept in the position it now occupies? How are we ever to +have peace upon it? That is an important question. To be sure, if +we will all stop, and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march on +in their present career until they plant the institution all over the +nation, here and wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in +it, there will be peace. But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is +going to get the people to do that? They have been wrangling over +this question for at least forty years. This was the cause of the +agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise; this produced the +troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the +territory acquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was the trouble +which was quieted by the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled +"forever " as both the great political parties declared in their +National Conventions. That "forever" turned out to be just four +years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. When is it likely to +come to an end? He introduced the Nebraska Bill in 1854 to put +another end to the slavery agitation. He promised that it would +finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since, +until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton +Constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the +end of the slavery agitation. But in one speech, I think last +winter, he did say that he did n't quite see when the end of the +slavery agitation would come. Now he tells us again that it is all +over and the people of Kansas have voted down the Lecompton +Constitution. How is it over? That was only one of the attempts at +putting an end to the slavery agitation--one of these "final +settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formed a constitution +that she is likely to come in under? Is not the slavery agitation +still an open question in that Territory? Has the voting down of +that constitution put an end to all the trouble? Is that more likely +to settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the +slavery agitation? Now, at this day in the history of the world we +can no more foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be +than we can see the end of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas +Bill was introduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation +is ever to come to an end we may say we are four years and a half +nearer the end. So, too, we can say we are four years and a half +nearer the end of the world, and we can just as clearly see the end +of the world as we can see the end of this agitation. The Kansas +settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should sink to-day, and +leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed +question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of +putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back +upon the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out +of our new Territories,--to restrict it forever to the old States +where it now exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief +that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of +putting an end to the slavery agitation. + +The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his +friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease +speaking of it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the +common matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our +horses and cattle. But while it drives on in its state of progress +as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I +have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end +to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other. I do +not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will +be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that +in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than +a hundred years at least; but that it will occur in the best way for +both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt. But, my +friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this +point. + +Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a +bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854: +Judge Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, +except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he +told a cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral +principles that Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the +simple truth. I do not care greatly for the story, but this is the +truth of it: and I have twice told Judge Douglas to his face that +from beginning to end there is not one word of truth in it. I have +called upon him for the proof, and he does not at all meet me as +Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just talking, by +producing the record. He did n't bring the record because there was +no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready to indorse +Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply +that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would not be likely +to indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity +because neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years +that I have known Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his +word or tell a falsehood large or small. It is for that reason that +I indorse Lyman Trumbull. + +[Mr. JAMES BROWN (Douglas postmaster): "What does Ford's History say +about him?"] + +Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My own +recollection is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful +terms in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal +worse of Judge Douglas. I refer you, sir, to the History for +examination. + +Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on +the part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to +attend to that suggestion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly +accused of dealing illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either +in court or in a political canvass or anywhere else. I would despise +myself if I supposed myself ready to deal less liberally with an +adversary than I was willing to be treated myself. Judge Douglas in +a general way, without putting it in a direct shape, revives the old +charge against me in reference to the Mexican War. He does not take +the responsibility of putting it in a very definite form, but makes a +general reference to it. That charge is more than ten years old. He +complains of Trumbull and myself because he says we bring charges +against him one or two years old. He knows, too, that in regard to +the Mexican War story the more respectable papers of his own party +throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and +acknowledge that it was a lie. + +[Here Mr. LINCOLN turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting +HON. ORLANDO B. FICKLIN, led him forward and said:] + +I do not mean to do anything with Mr. FICKLIN except to present his +face and tell you that he personal1y knows it to be a lie! He was a +member of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [FICKLIN] +knows that whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine +which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to +give such indorsement and voted against it; but I never voted against +the supplies for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, +that whenever a dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise +for the benefit of the soldiers I gave all the votes that FICKLIN or +Douglas did, and perhaps more. + +[Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the +matter: Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as +Judge Douglas and myself. In reference to this Mexican War, my +recollection is that when Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered +by Mr. Ashmun of Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican +War was unnecessary and unconstitutionally commenced by the President +-my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.] + +That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution +censuring the President for the manner in which the war was begun. +You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by +which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of +their country. I say that FICKLIN knows it is false. When that +charge was brought forward by the Chicago Times, the Springfield +Register [Douglas's organ] reminded the Times that the charge really +applied to John Henry; and I do know that John Henry is now making +speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. If the Judge now +says that he offers this as a sort of setoff to what I said to-day in +reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that he made this +charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He brought this +forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the +opening speech that Judge Douglas made he attacked me in regard to a +matter ten years old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about +people making charges against him only two years old! + +The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon +this charge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in +my opening speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said +that when Judge Douglas was speaking at place--where I spoke on the +succeeding day he used very harsh language about this charge. Two or +three times afterward I said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's +veracity and intelligence; and my own opinion was, from what I knew +of the character of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his +position and prove whatever he had stated to be true. This I +repeated two or three times; and then I dropped it, without saying +anything more on the subject for weeks--perhaps a month. I passed it +by without noticing it at all till I found, at Jacksonville, Judge +Douglas in the plenitude of his power is not willing to answer +Trumbull and let me alone, but he comes out there and uses this +language: "He should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such +charges made by Trumbull but that, Lincoln having indorsed the +character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln] +responsible for the slanders." What was Lincoln to do? Did he not +do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas +here, to tell him he was ready for the responsibility? I ask a +candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the +assailant rather than I? Here I meet him face to face, and say I am +ready to take the responsibility, so far as it rests on me. + +Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the question +whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge +Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it? You all heard me call +upon him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery. +Does he say that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs +bill is a forgery? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the +bill reported by himself is a forgery, or what is presented as a +transcript from the Globe of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a +forgery? Does he say the quotations from his own speech are +forgeries? Does he say this transcript from Trumbull's speech is a +forgery? + +["He didn't deny one of them."] + +I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of +a story is true the whole story turns out false. I take it these +people have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is +playing cuttle-fish, a small species of fish that has no mode of +defending itself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid, +which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it +escapes. Ain't the Judge playing the cuttle-fish? + +Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge +Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech +of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces +of testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown +to be such. Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery. Then I +ask the original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is +true, how is it possible that the whole is a falsehood? + +In regard to Trumbull's charge that he Douglas] inserted a provision +into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the +people, what was his answer? He comes here and reads from the +Congressional Globe to show that on his motion that provision was +struck out of the bill. Why, Trumbull has not said it was not +stricken out, but Trumbull says he [Douglas] put it in; and it is no +answer to the charge to say he afterwards took it out. Both are +perhaps true. It was in regard to that thing precisely that I told +him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows you that by his +introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to that +assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially +say that Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case, does it +answer Trumbull? I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are +here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you +were in Mattoon yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your +head, and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head. That is +the whole force of Douglas's argument. + +Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that +Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a +constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does +Judge Douglas deny that fact? Does be deny that the provision which +Trumbull reads was put in that bill? Then Trumbull says he struck it +out. Does he dare to deny that? He does not, and I have the right +to repeat the question ,--Why Judge Douglas took it out? Bigler has +said there was a combination of certain senators, among whom he did +not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas +Bill should have a clause in it not to have the constitution formed +under it submitted to a vote of the people. He did not say that +Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the +same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken +out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in +concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and +done with a mutual understanding after the conference; and while we +do not know that it was absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that +we have a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it +was done to tell what the true reason was. When he will not tell +what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude of an accused +thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to +account refuses to tell where he got them. Not only is this the +evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision +stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then but since, that these +alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, in +consultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells us +the same to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in +the bill in committee that he did not vote for. I ask you to +remember, while certain amendments were made which he disapproved of, +but which a majority of the committee voted in, he has himself told +us that in this particular the alterations and modifications were +made by him, upon consultation with Toombs. We have his own word +that these alterations were made by him, and not by the committee. +Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about coming +to the exact question? What is the reason he will not tell you +anything about How it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that he +remembers it being made at all? Why does he stand playing upon the +meaning of words and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? If +he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have the right +to infer that Judge Douglas understood it was the purpose of his +party, in engineering that bill through, to make a constitution, and +have Kansas come into the Union with that constitution, without its +being submitted to a vote of the people. If he will explain his +action on this question, by giving a better reason for the facts that +happened than he has done, it will be satisfactory. But until he +does that--until he gives a better or more plausible reason than he +has offered against the evidence in the case--I suggest to him it +will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, takes on +dignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word in +Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has +only arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of +reasoning. There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends +on Trumbull's word. If you have ever studied geometry, you remember +that by a course of reasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a +triangle are equal to two right angles. Euclid has shown you how to +work it out. Now, if you undertake to disprove that proposition, and +to show that it is erroneous, would you prove it to be false by +calling Euclid a liar? They tell me that my time is out, and +therefore I close. + + + + +FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, + +OCTOBER 7, 1858 + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY. + +MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge +Douglas has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in +print. I do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all.--- If I +had not been interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I +was able to make to a very large portion of it had already been more +than once made and published. There has been an opportunity afforded +to the public to see our respective views upon the topics 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 attended to, and ask your +attention to them, and I shall follow him backwards upon some notes +which I have taken, reversing the order, by beginning where he +concluded. + +The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and +insisted that negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that +it is a slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that +negroes were meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possible to +believe that Mr. Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have +supposed himself applying the language of that instrument to the +negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery? Would he +not at once have freed them? I only have to remark upon this part of +the Judge's speech (and that, too, very briefly, for I shall not +detain 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, may be +searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single man, +that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence; I +think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that +Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any +member of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the +whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present policy +of the Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that +affirmation. And I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience that +while Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, +in speaking upon this very subject he used the strong language that +"he trembled for his country when he remembered that God was just"; +and I will offer the highest premium in my power to Judge Douglas if +he will show that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at +all akin to that of Jefferson. + +The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's +comments upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call +our public meetings as Republican meetings; and he instances Tazewell +County as one of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called +a public meeting and have not dared to name it a 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. In the contest of 1856 his party +delighted to call themselves together as the "National Democracy"; +but now, if there should be a notice put up anywhere for a meeting of +the "National Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not +come. They would not suppose themselves invited. They would +understand that it was a call for those hateful postmasters whom he +talks about. + +Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine +which Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in +very great contrast to 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 assumes that I do not understand that my speeches will be +put in print and read north and south. I knew all the while that the +speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at Jonesboro and +the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all the reading +and intelligent men in the community would see them and know all +about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, +that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will +have it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality +between the white and black races which justifies us in making them +slaves, we must then insist that there is a degree of equality that +requires us to make them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken +a broad distinction in regard to that matter; and that is all there +is in these different speeches which he arrays here; and the entire +reading of either of the speeches will show that that distinction was +made. Perhaps by taking two parts of the same speech he could have +got up as much of a conflict as the one he has found. I have all the +while maintained that in so far as it should be insisted that there +was an equality between the white and black races that should produce +a perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility. +This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have said +that in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," +as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our +equals. And these declarations I have constantly made in reference +to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we +are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed +with the actual presence of the evil,--slavery. I have never +manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the +actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence +of slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have +insisted that, in legislating for new countries where it does not +exist there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract +right! With reference to those new countries, those maxims as to the +right of a people to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" +were the just rules to be constantly referred to. There is no +misunderstanding this, except by men interested to misunderstand it. +I take it that I have to address an intelligent and reading +community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge +whether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I advanced +hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions +of the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as +the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free +from all error in the opinions I advance. + +The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction +between his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national +party, ours a sectional one. He does this in asking the question +whether this country has any interest in the maintenance of the +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--and be based upon rightful +principles--unless it can announce its principles everywhere. I +presume that Judge Douglas could not go into Russia and announce the +doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not denounce the +doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Russia; and it may +be true of this country that in some places we may not be able to +proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of democracy, +because there is a section so directly opposed to it that they will +not tolerate us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of +a doctrine that in some places people won't let you proclaim it? Is +that the way to test the truth of any doctrine? Why, I understood +that at one time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas +preach a certain favorite doctrine of his. I commend to his +consideration the question whether he takes that as a test of the +unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. + +There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little +while on this occasion. What has always been the evidence brought +forward to prove that the Republican party is a sectional party? The +main one was that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did +not let the Republicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That +has been the main evidence brought forward,--that they had no +supporters, or substantially none, in the Slave States. The South +have not taken hold of our principles as we announce 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. Judge Douglas and +I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have now for the +fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I have not +found either Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of the +Republican platform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is +wrong. I ask you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away +from the platform of principles to the fact that he can find people +somewhere who will not allow us to announce those principles. If he +had great confidence that our principles were wrong, he would take +hold of them and demonstrate them to be wrong. But he does not do +so. The only evidence he has of their being wrong is in the fact +that there are people who won't allow us to preach them. I ask +again, is that the way to test the soundness of a doctrine? + +I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality +he is himself fast becoming sectional. I ask his attention to the +fact that his speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio +River as they have formerly gone there I ask his attention to the +fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all the Democrats of the +free States are agreeing with him, while he omits to tell us that the +Democrats of any slave State agree with him. If he has not thought +of this, I commend to his consideration the evidence in his own +declaration, on this day, of his becoming sectional too. I see it +rapidly approaching. Whatever may be the result of this ephemeral +contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day rapidly +approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has been +thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be +crowded down his own throat. + +Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his +speech) about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principles of the +Nebraska Bill, although I have often presented my views upon that +subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you +please, detain you a little with them. I have always maintained, so +far as I was able, that there was nothing of the principle of the +Nebraska Bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all,--nothing whatever. +Where can you find the principle of the Nebraska Bill in that +Compromise? If anywhere, in the two pieces of the Compromise +organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was expressly +provided in these two acts that when they came to be admitted into +the Union they should be admitted with or without slavery, as they +should choose, by their own constitutions. Nothing was said in +either of those acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery +during the Territorial existence of those Territories, while Henry +Clay constantly made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him +as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control +that question during the Territorial existence, and that these old +Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can that be used as a principle +for declaring that during the Territorial existence as well as at the +time of framing the constitution the people, if you please, might +have slaves if they wanted them? I am not discussing the question +whether it is right or wrong; but how are the New Mexican and Utah +laws patterns for the Nebraska Bill? I maintain that the +organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general +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 allowed to +come in in that shape, because in another way it was paid for, +considering that as a part of that system of measures called the +Compromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen acts. It +included the admission of California as a free State, 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 law. All these things +were put together, and, though passed in separate acts, were +nevertheless, in legislation (as the speeches at the time will show), +made to depend upon each other. Each got votes with the +understanding that the other measures were to pass, and by this +system of compromise, in that series of measures, those two bills-- +the New Mexico and Utah bills--were passed: and I say for that reason +they could not be taken as models, framed upon their own intrinsic +principle, for all future Territories. And I have the evidence of +this in the fact 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 follow them as a pattern at all. + +The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any +odious distinctions between free and slave States. I am altogether +unaware that the Republicans are in favor of making any odious +distinctions between the free and slave States. But there is still 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 Republicans on the contrary, is, that the Judge +is not in favor of making any difference between slavery and liberty; +that he is in favor of eradicating, of pressing out of view, the +questions of preference in this country for free or slave +institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the +idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Everything that emanates +from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully +excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery. All +their arguments, if you will consider them, will be seen to exclude +the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in slavery. If you +will take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed +sentences expressed by him,--as his declaration that he "don't care +whether slavery is voted up or down,"--you will see at once that this +is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong. If +you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he +don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas +declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to +have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no +wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he +cannot 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 founded in right. But if you admit that one of them is +wrong, you cannot institute any equality between right and wrong. +And from this difference of sentiment,--the belief on the part of one +that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that +belief 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 the +wrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end to +it through all the existence of things,--arises the real difference +between Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand and the +Republicans on the other. Now, I confess myself as belonging to that +class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and +political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us +and the difficulties of 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, if not the +seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or +combination between the 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. Buchanan had; +though at last, when they reached it, they quarreled over it, and +their friends divided upon it. I am very free to confess to Judge +Douglas that I have no objection to the division; but I defy the +Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way promoted that +division, unless he insists on being a witness himself in merely +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 +Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess +you do. Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also +that he was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to +see all there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans. +What we now think of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought +of the Fremont and Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. + +But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there +is an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the +National Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving +him as an entirely competent witness upon that subject. I want to +call to the Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first +one of these +debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order to fix extreme +Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which +he declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in +October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken +part in that Convention. It turned out that although a few men +calling themselves an anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at +Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take any part in it, +nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as Judge +Douglas read. So apparent had it become that the resolutions which +he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by a State +Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days afterward, at +Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by Charles +H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L. Harris, +member of Congress in that district, and he promised in that speech +that when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter. +Since then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has +made the investigation; but a month has passed since he has been +there, and, so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of +his investigation. I have waited as I think sufficient time for the +report of that investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and +hear it. A fraud, an absolute forgery was committed, and the +perpetration of it was traced to the three,--Lanphier, Harris, and +Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed in any way so as to exonerate +any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's report would probably show. + +It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were +published in the Illinois State 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. The idea that it was done by mistake +is absurd. The article in the Illinois State Register contains part +of the real proceedings of that Springfield Convention, showing that +the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him, and +purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the Convention +and fraudulently substituted the others. Lanphier then, as now, was +the editor of the Register, so that there seems to be but little room +for his escape. But then it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had +less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the other +two. The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat Yates +and elect Harris to Congress, and that object was known to be +exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and Douglas +were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, and +although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register, +subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon +that Convention. + +The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both +Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to +put it to new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband +was brought home with his body full of eels, said when she was asked +what was to be done with him, "Take the eels out and set 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 Norton 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 Harris--reattempted it +upon me at Ottawa. It has been clung to and played out again and +again as an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio. And now +that it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud we find that Judge +Douglas manifests no surprise at it at all. He makes no complaint of +Lanphier, who must have known it to be a fraud from the beginning. +He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as cozy now and just as active in +the concoction of new schemes as they were before the general +discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is very natural if they are +all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any one +of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honor +among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself, +and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a +satisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the three +are agreed that each is "a most honorable man." + +Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a +re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports +against me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which +we know to be utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to think +that this one unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate, +will be the least drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He +asks a re-election to the lower House of Congress without seeming to +remember at all that he is involved in this dishonorable fraud! The +Illinois State Register, edited by Lanphier, then, as now, the +central organ of both Harris and Douglas, continues 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. Lanphier cannot be +ignorant of how and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he be +induced to tell, or, if he has told, can Judge Douglas be 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! + +While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I +answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded +to me, and then 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 decision as a rule of +political action?" + +To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense +of the word. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that +it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. +He sneered at me for 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 notwithstanding." + +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 Constitution"! 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 +Constitution; durable as the Constitution, and part of the +Constitution. Now, remembering the provision of the Constitution +which I have read--affirming that that instrument is the supreme law +of the land; that the judges of every State shall be bound by it, any +law or constitution of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; +that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that +Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be separated from it +without breaking it; durable as the instrument; part of the +instrument;--what follows as a short and even syllogistic argument +from it? I think it follows, and I submit to the consideration of +men capable of arguing whether, as I state it, in syllogistic form, +the argument has any fault in it: + +Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right +distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United +States. + +The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed +in the Constitution of the United States. + +Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can +destroy the right of property in a slave. + +I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming +the truth of the 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 is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the +Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the +Supreme Court and the advocates of that decision may search in vain +for the place in the Constitution where the right of property in a +slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed I say, therefore, that I +think one of the premises is not true in fact. But it is true with +Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced it. +They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying +it, the conclusion follows that, the Constitution of the United +States being the supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere +with it. It being affirmed in the decision that the right of +property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the +Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or +constitution can destroy that right. I then say to Judge Douglas and +to all others that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer +to show that those 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 decision, +deciding against the right of the people of the States to exclude +slavery, will never be made if that party is not sustained by the +elections. I believe, further, that it is just as sure to be made as +to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained. I have said, +upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course of +arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge +not his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new +Dred Scott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the +reasons for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. +I have turned his 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 Jefferson +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, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their +liberties were gone. I have asked his attention to the fact that the +Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, disregards a +time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the power of +Congress to establish a National Bank. I have asked his attention to +the fact that he himself was one of the most active instruments at +one time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the 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 adheres +to it,--not as being right upon the merits, as he conceives (because +he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory +upon every one simply because of the source from whence it comes, as +that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be,--this is another +marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it in +this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it +comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not +investigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or +wrong. So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is +right or wrong. He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing +prepares the 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 voted down,"; that +"whoever wants slavery has a right to have it"; that "upon principles +of equality it should be allowed to go everywhere"; that "there is no +inconsistency between free and slave institutions "- in this he is +also preparing (whether purposely or not) the way for making the +institution of slavery national! I repeat again, for I wish no +misunderstanding, that I do not charge that he means it so; but I +call upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best +instrument you could, and then set it to work in the most ingenious +way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, operating in the +free States, where there is now an abhorrence of the institution of +slavery, could you find an instrument so capable of doing it as Judge +Douglas, or one employed in so apt a way to do it? + +I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, +when he was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, +that it had a tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, +said that: + +"those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate +emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the +Colonization Society: they must go back to the era of our liberty and +independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous +return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must +penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the +love of liberty!" + +And I do think--I repeat, though I said it on a 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 a right to hold them; that he +is penetrating, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and +eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty, when he is +in every possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast +influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual and +national. + +There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your +attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I +shall not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may +not take me clear through it. + +Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at +Freeport, there was one in about this language: + +"Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the +United States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?" + +I answered, as I thought, in this way: that I am not generally +opposed to the acquisition 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 calculated to aggravate +this slavery question amongst us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas +another interrogatory, which was correlative to that: "Are you in +favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how it may +affect us upon the slavery question?" Judge Douglas answered,--that +is, in his own way he answered it. I believe that, although he took +a good many words to answer it, it was a little more fully answered +than any other. The substance of his answer was that this country +would continue to expand; that it would need additional territory; +that it was as absurd to suppose that we could continue upon our +present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as it would be +to hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow to man's +size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was something like +that. Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of further +territory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might +affect the slavery question. I do not say this as giving his exact +language, but he said so substantially; and he would leave the +question of slavery, where the territory was acquired, to be settled +by the people of the acquired territory. ["That's the doctrine."] +May be it is; let us consider that for a while. This will probably, +in the run of things, become one of the concrete manifestations of +this slavery question. If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question +succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until all opposition is +crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor +Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the +adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promises additional +slave-fields. And this question is to be left to the people of those +countries for settlement. When we 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 horror of an inferior race. + +It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring +additional territory is a power confided to the President and the +Senate of the United States. It is a power not under the control of +the representatives of the people any further than they, the +President and the Senate, can be considered the representatives of +the 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 insisted 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 +insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an assurance +that any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it, +so far as the House of Representatives was concerned. But at last +the President and Senate acquired the territory without asking the +House of Representatives anything about it, and took it without that +prohibition. They have the power of acquiring territory without the +immediate representatives of the people being called upon to say +anything 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 slavery +agitation. It is therefore, as I think, a very important question +for due 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 easy to assert, but much less +easy to disprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country. + +And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very grave +question for the people of this Union to consider, whether, in view +of the fact that this slavery question has been the only one that has +ever endangered our Republican institutions, 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, discarding 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 consider the importance of the +question, and arrive at a just conclusion as to whether it is or is +not wise in the people of this Union, in the acquisition of new +territory, to consider whether it will add to the disturbance that is +existing amongst us--whether it will add to the one only danger that +has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union or our own liberties. +I think it is extremely important that they shall decide, 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 topic so as to treat it +fully, without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment +think of doing. I give way to Judge Douglas. + + + + +SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, + +AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, 1858. + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have had no immediate conference with Judge +Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree +that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will +be most agreeable to us. + +In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois +which have since been consolidated into the Republican party +assembled together in a State Convention at Bloomington. They +adopted at that time what, in political language, is called a +platform. In June of the same year the elements of the Republican +party in the nation assembled together in a National Convention at +Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the National Platform. In +June, 1858,--the present year,--the Republicans of Illinois +reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again +their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essential +particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding +something in relation to the new developments of political progress +in the country. + +The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be +one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the +United States Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this +canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms. We are now met +together on the 13th of October of the same year, only four months +from the adoption of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this +canvass, from the beginning until to-day, any one of our adversaries +has taken hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon anything +that he calls wrong in them. + +In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator +Douglas and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these +platforms, or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to +hold me responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the +meeting of either one of these conventions of which I have spoken. +And as a ground for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he +assumed that they had been passed at a State Convention of the +Republican party, and that I took part in that Convention. It was +discovered afterward that this was erroneous, that the resolutions +which he endeavored to hold me responsible for had not been passed by +any State Convention anywhere, had not been passed at Springfield, +where he supposed they had, or assumed that they had, and that they +had been passed in no convention in which I had taken part. The +Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the point that he was +endeavoring to make upon me, and he 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 hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of +where I was when it met, nor one in which I took any part at all. He +also introduced other resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by +combining the whole, although they were all antecedent to the two +State Conventions and the one National Convention I have mentioned, +still he insisted, and now insists, as I understand, that I am in +some way responsible for them. + +At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I +was in no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this +local meeting or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in +which I was in no way embraced; but I insisted to him that if he +thought I was responsible for every man or every set of men +everywhere, who happen to be my friends, the rule ought to work both +ways, and he ought to be responsible for the acts and resolutions of +all men or sets of men who were or are now his supporters and +friends, and gave him a pretty long string of resolutions, passed by +men who are now his friends, and announcing doctrines for which he +does not 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 understand him. +But in addition to that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, +last week, undertakes to establish that I am guilty of a species of +double dealing with the public; that I make speeches of a certain +sort in the north, among the Abolitionists, which I would not make in +the south, and that I make speeches of a certain sort in the south +which I would not make in the north. I apprehend, in the course I +have marked out for myself, that I shall not have to dwell at very +great length upon this subject. + +As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had +an opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something +in answer to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech +of mine delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he +brought forward an extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in +which he insisted that I was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that +his conclusion followed, that I was playing a double part, and +speaking in one region one way, and in another region another way. I +have not time now to dwell on this as long as I would like, and wish +only now to requote that portion of my speech at Charleston which the +Judge quoted, and then make some comments upon it. This he quotes +from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I believe correctly: + +"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of +bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the +white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of +making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold +office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in +addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the +white and black races which will forever forbid the two races living +together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as +they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the +position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in +favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." + +This, I believe, is the entire quotation from Charleston speech, as +Judge Douglas made it his comments are as follows: + +"Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right +when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares +that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a +superior and inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and +expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of +races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man +and negro were declared equal, and endowed by divine law with +equality. And down South, with the old-line Whigs, with the +Kentuckians, the Virginians and the Tennesseeans, he tells you that +there is a physical difference between 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 Judges comments. Now, I wish to show you that a month, +or only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech at +Charleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say +substantially the same thing It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa- +-and I will say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was +in, after a while--but at 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 +that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while I was +giving it, but afterward went away without getting it from me. At +the end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at Ottawa, +I made the comments which were reported at that time, and which I +will now read, and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the +same as Judge Douglas says were delivered by me down in Egypt. After +reading, I added these words: + +"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great 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 that argues me into his idea of perfect social and +political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastical +arrangement of words by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be +a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I +have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the +institution in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right +to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to +introduce political and social equality between the white and black +races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my +judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the +footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity +that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in +favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I +have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, +notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the +negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration +of Independence,--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 my equal and +the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." + +I 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 Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc., +but would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of +the Abolition element. I now make this 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 +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 print +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 +said 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 Declaration of Independence I am entirely borne out +by the sentiments advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I +have the book here to show it from but because I have already +occupied more time than I intended to do on that topic, I pass over +it. + +At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, +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 decision declaring that the States had +not the power to exclude slavery from their limits, he would adopt +and follow that decision as a rule of political action; and because +he had not directly answered that question, but had merely contented +himself with sneering at it, I again introduced it, and tried to show +that the conclusion that I stated followed inevitably and logically +from the proposition already decided by the court. Judge Douglas had +the privilege of replying to me at Galesburgh, and again he gave me +no direct answer as to whether he would or would not sustain such a +decision if made. I give him his 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 decided +by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thought +of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his +remarks upon this subject uses the language which I will now read. +Speaking of me, the Judge says: + +"He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry +slavery into the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself +says the contrary." And he adds: + +"Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that +holds that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their +opinions held the reverse. + +I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying +that I have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge +Douglas to lay his finger upon the place in the entire opinions of +the court where any one of them "says the contrary." It is very hard +to affirm a negative with entire confidence. I say, 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 was exactly, in substance, the +Nebraska Bill,--that the States had the exclusive 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 +have been voted down by the majority of the judges, just as Chase's +amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it +was offered to the Nebraska Bill. + +Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield +resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at +Ottawa, and commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as +presented, not genuine. Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to +be somewhat exasperated. He said he would never have believed that +Abraham Lincoln, as he kindly called me, would have attempted such a +thing as I had attempted upon that occasion; and among other +expressions which he used toward me, was that I dared to say forgery, +that I had dared to say forgery [turning to Judge Douglas]. Yes, +Judge, I did dare to say forgery. But in this political canvass the +Judge ought to remember that I was not the first who dared to say +forgery. At Jacksonville, Judge Douglas made a speech in answer to +something said by Judge Trumbull, and at the close of what he said +upon that subject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged his +evidence. He said, too, that he should not concern 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 said he would hold me responsible for it, I spread out before him +the statements of the evidence that Judge Trumbull had used, and I +asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger upon one piece +of all that evidence that he would say was a forgery! When I went +through with each and every piece, Judge Douglas did not dare then to +say that any piece of it was a 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 is the same thing with you.] + +Yes, sir, it is the same thing with me. I do dare to say forgery +when it is true, and don't dare to say forgery when it is false. Now +I will say here to this audience and to Judge Douglas I have not +dared to say he committed a forgery, and I never shall until I know +it; but I did dare to say--just to suggest to the Judge--that a +forgery had been committed, which by his own showing had been traced +to him and two of his friends. I dared to suggest to him that he had +expressly promised in one of his public speeches to investigate that +matter, and I dared to suggest to him that there was an implied +promise that when he investigated it he would make known the result. +I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could not expect to be quite +clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the time that promise was +made he had been with those friends, and had not kept his promise in +regard to the investigation and the report upon it. I am not a very +daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much scared +about it yet. When the Judge says he would n't have believed of +Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that he +reminds me of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the +purpose to treat me courteously; that touched me somewhat. It 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 audiences before which it +was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and +made his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some +sort of a reply to it. His second speech was made at Bloomington, in +which he commented upon my speech at Chicago and said that I had used +language ingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions, or words to +that effect. Now, I understand that this is an imputation upon my +veracity and my candor. I do not know what the Judge understood by +it, but in our first discussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a +bargain, somewhat corrupt in its character, upon Trumbull and +myself,--that we had entered into a bargain, one of the terms of +which was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize the old Democratic party, +and I (Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig party; I pretending +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 treating me in a dignified +way, as a man of honor and truth, as he now claims he was disposed to +treat me. Even after that time, at Galesburgh, when he brings +forward an extract from a speech made at Chicago and an extract from +a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I was trying to play a +double part, that I was trying to cheat the public, and get votes +upon one set of principles at one place, and upon another set of +principles at another place,--I do not understand but what he +impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does +this, I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground +for it, to keep my hands off of him. As soon as I learned that Judge +Douglas was disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of +my speeches that I should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble +resources I might have,--to adopt a new course with him. I was not +entirely sure that I should be able to hold my own with him, but I at +least had the purpose made to do as well as I could upon him; and now +I say that I will not be the first to cry "Hold." I think it +originated with the Judge, and when he quits, I probably will. But I +shall not ask any favors at all. He asks me, or he asks the +audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of personal +difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make a mistake, in one of +his early speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though +perhaps he did when he called me an "intelligent" man. It really +hurts me very much to suppose that I have wronged anybody on earth. +I again tell him, no! I very much prefer, when this canvass shall be +over, however it may result, that we at least part without any bitter +recollections of personal difficulties. + +The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was +pushing this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the +responsibility for the enormity of my principles. I say to the Judge +and this audience, now, that I will again state our principles, as +well as I hastily can, in all their enormity, and if the Judge +hereafter chooses to confine himself to a war upon these principles, +he will probably not find me departing 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 element. It is +the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon +it, that it is a dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in +regard to it. That controversy necessarily springs from difference +of opinion; and if we can learn exactly--can reduce to the lowest +elements--what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be +better prepared for discussing the different systems of policy that +we would propose in regard to that disturbing element. I suggest +that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest of terms, is no +other than the difference between the men who think slavery a wrong +and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican party think it +wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. We +think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the +States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to +say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole +nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy +that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any +other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and +so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of +an end to it. We have a due regard to the actual presence of it +amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any +satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about +it. I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the +nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at +all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that +we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to +do it. We go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it +where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us. +We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the +District of Columbia. Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it +should be in terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely +soon to agree to,--the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and +compensating the unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the +constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the +actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about +it. We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread +itself. We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its +present limits. We don't suppose that in doing this we violate +anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything +due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it. + +We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I +ought perhaps to address you a few words. We do not propose that +when Dred Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a +mob, will decide him to be free. We do not propose that, when any +other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be +slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property +thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a +political rule which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody +who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members of +Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually +concur with the principles of that decision. We do not propose to be +bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays +the foundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we +consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil +into the States themselves. We propose so resisting it as to have it +reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established upon this +subject. + +I will add this: that if there be any man who does not believe that +slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in +any one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while +on the other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is +impatient over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and +is impatient of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and +would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with +us. He will find his place somewhere else; for we have a due regard, +so far as we are capable of understanding them, for all these things. +This, gentlemen, as well as I can give it, is a plain statement of +our principles in all their enormity. +I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to +me,--a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore +it goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a +wrong. That policy is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is +the Democratic sentiment. If there be a doubt in the mind of any one +of this vast audience that this is really the central idea of the +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 +proposition. 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 anything wrong in it. If you will examine the arguments that are +made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea +that there is 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? Do you not constantly argue that this is not +the right place to oppose it? You say it must not be opposed in the +free States, because slavery is not here; it must not be 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 +place 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 Douglas Says he +"don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he +means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a +sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true +to say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything +wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery +is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up +as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever +community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is +perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but +if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody +has a right to do wrong. When he says that slave property and horse +and hog property are alike to be allowed to go into the Territories, +upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if there is +no difference between them as property; but if the one is property +held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no equality +between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in anyway you can, in +all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that +policy itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that +there is 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 REJOINDER. + +MY FRIENDS:--Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion +that he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said +in an hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in +half an hour all that he said in an hour and a half. + +I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public +annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of +policy in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it +shall last forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of +this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. +Judge Douglas asks you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or +rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as +our fathers made it, forever? In the first place, I insist that our +fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part +slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of +slavery existing here. They did not make it so but they left it so +because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When +Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the +fathers of the government made this nation part slave and part free, +he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: when +the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the +abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it +from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that +they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men +understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when +Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, +I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our +fathers made it? + +It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of +slavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers +placed it upon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly +said, that when this government was established, no one expected the +institution of slavery to last until this day, and that the men who +formed this government were wiser and better than the men of these +days; but the men of these days had experience which the fathers had +not, and that experience had taught them the invention of the +cotton-gin, and this had made the perpetuation of the institution of +slavery a necessity in this country. Judge Douglas could not let it +stand upon the basis which our fathers placed it, but removed it, and +put it upon the cotton-gin basis. It is a question, therefore, for +him and his friends to answer, why they could not let it remain where +the fathers of the government originally placed it. I hope nobody +has understood me as trying to sustain the doctrine that we have a +right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or any of the slave +States, about the institution of slavery,--thus giving the Judge an +opportunity to be eloquent and valiant against us in fighting for +their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech that I had +neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence +of, the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in +doing as they pleased with slavery Or any other existing institution. +Then what becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the rights of +States, which are assailed by no living man? + +But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge has +informed me, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is +laboring for my election to the United States Senate. This is news +to me,--not very ungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. W. H. +Carlin, who was on the stand]--I hope that Carlin will be elected to +the State Senate, and will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] +Carlin don't fall in, I perceive, and I suppose he will not do much +for me; but I am glad of all the support I can get, anywhere, if I +can get it without practicing any deception to obtain it. In respect +to this large portion of Judge Douglas's speech in which he tries to +show that in the controversy between himself and the Administration +party he is in the right, I do not feel myself at all competent or +inclined to answer him. I say to him, "Give it to them,--give it to +them just all you can!" and, on the other hand, I say to Carlin, and +Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in Hancock, "Give it to +Douglas, just pour it into him! + +Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to +say a word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a +decision is made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude +slavery, he will support it or not. He obstinately refuses to say +what he will do in that case. The judges of the Supreme Court as +obstinately refused to say what they would do on this subject. +Before this I reminded him that at Galesburgh he said the judges had +expressly declared the contrary, and you remember that in my Opening +speech I told him I had the book containing that decision here, and I +would thank him to lay his finger on the place where any such thing +was said. He has occupied his hour and a half, and he has not +ventured to try to sustain his assertion. He never will. But he is +desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred Scott +decision. Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his +political friends find a way to reverse the decision of that same +court in favor of the constitutionality of the National Bank? Didn't +they find a way to do it so effectually that they have reversed it as +completely as any decision ever was reversed, so far as its practical +operation is concerned? + +And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the +decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father-- +old Governor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a +Secretary of State? Did he not appeal to the "MOBS," as he calls +them? Did he not make speeches in the lobby to show how villainous +that decision was, and how it ought to be overthrown? Did he not +succeed, too, in getting an act passed by the Legislature to have it +overthrown? And did n't he himself sit down on that bench as one of +the five added judges, who were to overslaugh the four old ones, +getting his name of "judge" in that way, and no other? If there is a +villainy in using disrespect or making opposition to Supreme Court +decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration. I +know of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know so well +about how much villainy it takes to oppose a decision of the Supreme +Court as our honorable friend Stephen A. Douglas. + +Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are +bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not. In +the sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you +what I have said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day. I have +said that as the Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and +that the extension of slavery is affirmed in the National +Constitution, they are bound to support it as such; and I will tell +you here that General Jackson once said each man was bound to support +the Constitution "as he understood it." Now, Judge Douglas +understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, +and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it +another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in +which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas believes that decision +to be correct, I will remake that argument if I have time to do so. +Let me talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in +the face. We will say you are a member of the Territorial +Legislature, and, like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to +take and hold slaves there is a constitutional right The first thing +you do is to swear you will support the Constitution1, and all rights +guaranteed therein; that you will, whenever your neighbor needs your +legislation to support his constitutional rights, not withhold that +legislation. If you withhold that necessary legislation for the +support of the Constitution and constitutional rights, do you not +commit perjury? I ask every sensible man if that is not so? That is +undoubtedly just so, say what you please. Now, that is precisely +what Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutional right. Does +the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in legislating +may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly laws, +nullify that constitutional right? Does he mean to say that? Does +he mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in +law, that what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? +Does he mean that? The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas +has sung paeans to his "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his +Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter +Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery +about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented this sort of +do-nothing sovereignty,--that the people may exclude slavery by a +sort of "sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is +not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not +got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the +shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death? But at last, when it +is brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even that +thin decoction of it left. It is a presumption impossible in the +domain of thought. It is precisely no other than the putting of that +most unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same +space at the same time. The Dred Scott decision covers the whole +ground, and while it occupies it, there is no room even for the +shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground. + +Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a +previous occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an +extract from at Charleston, says it only shows that I practiced the +deception twice. Now, my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to +swallow that? Judge Douglas had said I had made a speech at +Charleston that I would not make up north, and I turned around and +answered him by showing I had made that same speech up north,--had +made it at Ottawa; made it in his hearing; made it in the Abolition +District,--in Lovejoy's District,--in the personal presence of +Lovejoy himself,--in the same atmosphere exactly in which I had made +my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much. + +Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation +from the Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me +to handle. Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the +Chicago speech I delivered two years ago in "Egypt," as he calls it. +It was down at Springfield. That speech is here in this book, and I +could turn to it and read it to you but for the lack of time. I have +not now the time to read it. ["Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I +am obliged to use discretion in disposing most advantageously of my +brief time. The Judge has taken great exception to my adopting the +heretical statement in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men +are created equal," and he has a great deal to say about negro +equality. I want to say that in sometimes alluding to the +Declaration of Independence, I have only uttered the sentiments that +Henry Clay used to hold. Allow me to occupy your time a moment with +what he said. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indiana, and +in a way that I suppose was very insulting, to liberate his slaves; +and he made a written reply to that application, and one portion of +it is in these words: + +"What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate +the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in +the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen +American colonies, that men are created equal. Now, as an abstract +principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it +is desirable in the original construction of society, and in +organized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundamental +principle." + +When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in +new countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we +should keep that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I +want a negro wife. He never can be brought to understand that there +is any middle ground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth +year, and have never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, +and I think I can live fifty centuries, for that matter, without +having had one for either. I maintain that you may take Judge +Douglas's quotations from my Chicago speech, and from my Charleston +speech, and the Galesburgh speech,--in his speech of to-day,--and +compare them over, and I am willing to trust them with you upon his +proposition that they show rascality or double-dealing. I deny that +they do. + +The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he +is disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath +would not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or +Thomas L. Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It +is certainly not for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these +gentlemen, but I will tell Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I +"dared" to say they proved a forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh +that the publication of these resolutions in the Illinois State +Register could not have been the result of accident, as the +proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable evidence of being done +by a man who knew it was a forgery; that it was a publication partly +taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and partly from +the proceedings of a convention at another place, which showed that +he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part of the +resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and +fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also +that his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time +and now is, must have known how it was done. Now, whether he did it, +or got some friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he +certainly knew all about it. I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in +his Freeport speech he had promised to investigate that matter. +Does he now say that he did not make that promise? I have a right +to ask why he did not keep it. I call upon him to tell here to-day +why he did not keep that promise? That fraud has been traced up so +that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier. There is little room +for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge good service, +and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. He desires +Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his newspaper. +He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; and when +this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where the +guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate +it, and implied that he would tell us the result of his +investigation, I demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, +if he did not; and if he did, why he won't tell the result. I call +upon him for that. + +This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned +about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against +Norton on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public +records of the country show that he himself attempted it upon +Trumbull a month before Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had +the opportunity of learning it from him, rather than he from Harris. +I now ask his attention to that part of the record on the case. My +friends, I am not disposed to detain you longer in regard to that +matter. + +I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another +matter I wish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered +there was a mistake in that case, he came forward magnanimously, +without my calling his attention to it, and explained it. I will +tell you how he became so magnanimous. When the newspapers of our +side had discovered and published it, and put it beyond his power to +deny it, then he came forward and made a virtue of necessity by +acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the point there was in +those resolutions, although never passed at Springfield, is retained +by their being passed at other localities. Is that true? He said I +had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech, that I was in the +convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutions touch me at +all? It strikes me there is some difference between holding a man +responsible for an act which he has not done and holding him +responsible for an act that he has +done. You will judge whether there is any difference in the "spots." +And he has taken credit for great magnanimity in coming forward and +acknowledging what is proved on him beyond even the capacity of Judge +Douglas to deny; and he has more capacity in that way than any other +living man. + +Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a +conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he +made. May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is +proven false on me as that was proven false on him. I will add a +little more than that, I will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man +shall be brought to believe that the charge is not true. I have +asked Judge Douglas's attention to certain matters of fact tending to +prove the charge of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery, and he says +he convinces me that this is all untrue because Buchanan was not in +the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott case had not +then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say the +Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say +that I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never +uttered it. [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated +affirmatively at Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say +I did, I tell you myself that I never said the "Democratic" owners of +Dred Scott got up the case. I have never pretended to know whether +Dred Scott's owners were Democrats, or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers +or Border Ruffians. I have said that there is evidence about the +case tending to show that it was a made-up case, for the purpose of +getting that decision. I have said that that evidence was very +strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be a slave, +the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the case +tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that +decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his +by that decision. But my time is out, and I can say no more. + + + +LAST JOINT DEBATE, + +AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858 + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have been somewhat, in my own mind, +complimented by a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech,--I mean +that portion which he devotes to the controversy 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 improving in regard to his war with the Administration. At +Quincy, day before yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the +Administration 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 +re-commend 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 leave this branch of +the discussion,--although I do not consider it much of my business, +anyway. 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; 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 the Missouri Compromise. I want to know if Buchanan has +not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? Has Douglas the +exclusive right, 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 Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it +was about me, it is my business to pay some attention 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 complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred +Scott case had decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the +United States. I have omitted by some accident heretofore to analyze +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 especially 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 foundation 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 my 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 +could not be a citizen; that 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 rights 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 into the State of Illinois and +holding 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 prohibited 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 them in a lump, taken in +connection with the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, and the +amendment 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 these 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 fabrication of my +purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between +the white and black races. His assertion 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 allusions. 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, without reading, to-day to a portion of a speech which I +delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that speech, as he has +made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken in 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 convey. 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 published 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 we did secure if we grasped for more; and having +by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the +principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let 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 institution 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 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 inalienable rights, among which are life, +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, constantly 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 myself chose to say in regard to it. + +At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, +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 +reassert 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 astonishment to me if they shall be able to find that one +human being three years ago had ever uttered the astounding sentiment +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 mouth of some Southern men for a period +of years, ending at last in that shameful, though rather 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 +believe 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 irresistible 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 Times, +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 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 men 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 Declaration. 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 authority. +While he was in Indiana a man presented a petition to liberate his +negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made a speech in answer to it, which I +suppose he carefully wrote out himself and 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 did n't suppose the negro was included in the +Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay said: + +"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to +liberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general +declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of +the thirteen American colonies, that 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 apprehend 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, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always probably +remain subject to the government of another portion of the community. + +"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, 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? Would Virginia and other Southern States have ever united in +a declaration 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 recognized 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 does it do so? In what +way has it a tendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an +abstract principle that all men are created equal, but that we cannot +practically apply it in all eases. 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. Clay 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. I wish every slave in the United States was in the +country of his 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 would be more +strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of +slavery amongst 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 Independence, is no such +statement on his part, but the declaration that it is a great +fundamental truth which should be constantly kept in view in the +organization of society and in societies already 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 I am 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 recognizing +what he recognized as the great principle of free government? + +And when this new principle--this new proposition that no human being +ever thought of three years ago--is brought forward, I combat it as +having an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as +having a tendency to dehumanize the 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 constantly 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, 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 would be more +strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of +slavery amongst 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 nothing 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 society in our Territories where it does not +exist, he would be opposed 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 hurtful to him. + +Judge 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 language: + +"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 a crisis shall have been reached +and passed. 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe +this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. +I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to +be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either +the opponents of slavery will arrest the 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." + +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 were 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? We were +to have no more agitation 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 that time to allay. We were +for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and that very +allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again. But was it +not understood or intimated with the "confident promise" of putting +an end to the slavery agitation? 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 Constitution, +every speech on that Nebraska Bill was full of his felicitations that +we were just at the end of the slavery agitation. 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 that Nebraska +policy, which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a +superior degree of self-government, beyond 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 earth 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 living, 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 be 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 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 the +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 its ultimate 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 regard to the prohibition of +the African slave-trade? It runs 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: + +"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the +several States which may be included within this Union, according to +their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding 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 consequence 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 purpose, 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 institution of slavery had passed from among us,-- +there should be nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty +suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed among +us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the government +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 that I desire to see the further +spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the +fathers have first done. 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 extinction, 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 puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful +thing within itself,--was introduced by the framers of the +Constitution. The exact truth is, that they found the institution +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 difficulty--the absolute impossibility-- +of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks me why we +cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the +government 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 government had adopted in +relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world, +the only wise policy, the only policy that we can ever safely +continue upon that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous +element masters us all and becomes a national institution,--I turn +upon him and ask him why he could not leave it 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 so 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. +I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and +slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude +by those who made the Constitution, did they make any war? If we had +no war 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 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 democratic 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 productions 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 +barrel 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 house,"--figuratively expressing the Union,--they tend to +sustain it; they are the props 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 amongst ourselves about the +cranberry laws of Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the +pine-lumber laws of Maine, or 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 amongst 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 spring 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 annexation of Texas. Go back to the troubles that led to +the Compromise 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 disturbance 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 +Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What disturbed the +Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has jarred +and shaken the great American Tract Society recently, 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 literature, in morals, in all the manifold +relations of life? Is this the work of politicians? Is that +irresistible power, which for fifty years has shaken the government +and agitated the people, to be stifled and subdued by pretending that +it is an exceedingly 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 disturbed 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 undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of +caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most +about--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 controversy 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 Government, to disturb +slavery in the States where it exists. We profess constantly that we +have no more inclination than belief in the power of the government +to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from +the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the Sates. +What 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 right +all his way, and you have no part of it your way. If he goes in and +makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence a slave State, is it +not time that those who desire to have it a free State were on equal +ground? Let me suggest it in a different way. How many Democrats +are there about here ["A thousand"] 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 Territory to go to? And when +hereafter, for any cause, the people in this place shall desire to +find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will +they find the place to go to? + +Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether +there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor +of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may +find a home,--may find some spot where they can better their +condition; where they can settle upon new soil and better their +condition in life. I am in favor of this, not merely (I must say it +here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, +but as an outlet for free white people everywhere the world over--in +which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the +world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life. + +I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, +what I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between +Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war +between the free and the slave States, there has been no issue +between us. So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of producing +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 institution of +slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it +as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution of +slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican +party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their +arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They +look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while +they contemplate it a, such, they nevertheless have due regard for +its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of +it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations +thrown about it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a +policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more +danger. They insist that it should, as far as may be, be treated as +a wrong; and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make +provision that it shall grow no larger. They also desire a policy +that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some time. These are the +views they entertain in regard to it as I understand them; and all +their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are brought +within this range. I have said, and I repeat it here, that if there +be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of +slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he +is misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man +amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its +actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it +suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional +obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our +platform. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He is +not placed properly with us. + +On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, +let me say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of +this Union save and except this very institution of slavery? What is +it that we hold most dear amongst us? Our own liberty and +prosperity. What has ever 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. That is the +peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers +themselves set us the example. + +On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it +as not being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I +do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range +positively asserts that it is right. That class will include all who +positively assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, +treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either 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 supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself "as much +opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with him. You +never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you consider as a +wrong do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you say it is +wrong--but your leader never does, and you quarrel with 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 the security +of "my place." There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, +although you say yourself it is a wrong. But, finally, you will +screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the slave +States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the slavery +question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor of it. +You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad +to see it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself. You all know +that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook +to introduce that system in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as +they could for the system of 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 exclude 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 pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering +a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. +The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate +the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong +about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he +"don't care whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories. +I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is +intended to be expressive of his individual 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 indifferent thing is voted +up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing +and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves +has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But +if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He +says that upon the score of equality slaves should be allowed to go +in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if +there is no difference between it and other property. If it and +other property are equal, this argument is entirely logical. But if +you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to +institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn over +everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in +the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the +Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the +shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,--it everywhere +carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. + +That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this +country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be +silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles-- +right and wrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles +that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will +ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, +and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in +whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, +"You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in +what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to +bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their +labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another +race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I was glad to express my +gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, to Judge Douglas,-- +that he looks to no end of the institution of slavery. That will +help the people to see where the struggle really is. It will +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 between the parties, this controversy will soon +be settled, and it will be done peaceably too. There will be no war, +no violence. It will be placed again where the wisest and best men +of the world placed it. Brooks of South Carolina once declared that +when this Constitution was framed its framers did not look to the +institution existing until this day. When he said this, I think he +stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history of the times. +But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men of these +days, yet the men of these days had experience which they had not, +and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this +country that slavery should be perpetual. I now say that, willingly +or unwillingly--purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been +the most prominent 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's cotton-gin +basis; placing it where he openly confesses he has no desire there +shall ever be an end of it. + +I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying +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 constantly said, before the decision, that +whether they could or not, was a question for the Supreme Court. But +after the court had made the decision he virtually says it is not a +question for the Supreme Court, but for the people. And how is it he +tells us they can exclude it? He says it needs "police regulations," +and that admits of "unfriendly legislation." Although it is a right +established by the Constitution of the United States to take a slave +into a Territory of the United States and hold him as property, yet +unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation, +and more especially if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can +practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition as a +matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional +obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face +before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial +Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to swear that he +will support the Constitution of the United States. His neighbor by +his side in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial +legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional right. Can he +withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment +of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Constitution of the +United States which he has sworn to support? Can he withhold it +without violating his oath? And, more especially, can he pass +unfriendly legislation to violate his oath? Why, this is a monstrous +sort of talk about the Constitution of the United States! There has +never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any +respectable man on earth. I do not believe it is a constitutional +right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States. I believe +the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it. Judge +Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision. +But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself +stands. I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine +uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. + +I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of +the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave +law,--that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be +made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the +Judge's language, it is a "barren right," which needs legislation +before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it +is guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional, I agree that the +legislation shall be granted to it, and that not that we like the +institution of slavery. We profess to have no taste for running and +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 legislation to support slavery in a +Territory, who believes it is a constitutional right to have it +there. No man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument +to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a +Fugitive State law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition +argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, +then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a +constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his +runaway returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The +one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to +be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be +correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by +unfriendly legislation, in spite of that constitutional right, +slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing +an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return +fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right +of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such +an arguement may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy +anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to +estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of +difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive and +the constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided +this Dred Scott decision is correct, I defy any man to make an +argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a +slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will +not equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an +argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not +such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all! + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 4 + diff --git a/old/4linc10.zip b/old/4linc10.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8f20418 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/4linc10.zip diff --git a/old/4linc11.txt b/old/4linc11.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..448b1d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/4linc11.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3777 @@ +The Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, v4 +#4 in our series of the Writings of Abraham Lincoln + +Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the +copyright laws for your country before distributing this or any other +Project Gutenberg file. + +We encourage you to keep this file, exactly as it is, on your +own disk, thereby keeping an electronic path open for future +readers. Please do not remove this. + +This header should be the first thing seen when anyone starts to +view the etext. Do not change or edit it without written permission. +The words are carefully chosen to provide users with the +information they need to understand what they may and may not +do with the etext. + + +**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts** + +**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971** + +*****These Etexts Are Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!***** + +Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get etexts, and +further information, is included below. We need your donations. + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a 501(c)(3) +organization with EIN [Employee Identification Number] 64-6221541 + + + +Title: The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, v4 + +Author: Abraham Lincoln + +Release Date: May, 2001 [Etext #2656] +[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule] +[Most recently updated: December 4, 2001] + +Edition: 11 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +The Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, v4 +*******This file should be named 4linc11.txt or 4linc11.zip******* + +Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, 4linc12.txt +VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, 4linc11a.txt + +This etext was produced by David Widger <widger@cecomet.net> + +Project Gutenberg Etexts are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we usually do not +keep etexts in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +We are now trying to release all our etexts one year in advance +of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing. +Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections, +even years after the official publication date. + +Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til +midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement. +The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at +Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A +preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment +and editing by those who wish to do so. + +Most people start at our sites at: +http://gutenberg.net or +http://promo.net/pg + +These Web sites include award-winning information about Project +Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new +etexts, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!). + + +Those of you who want to download any Etext before announcement +can get to them as follows, and just download by date. This is +also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the +indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an +announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter. + +http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03 or +ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03 + +Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90 + +Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want, +as it appears in our Newsletters. + + +Information about Project Gutenberg (one page) + +We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The +time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours +to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright +searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. Our +projected audience is one hundred million readers. If the value +per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2 +million dollars per hour in 2001 as we release over 50 new Etext +files per month, or 500 more Etexts in 2000 for a total of 4000+ +If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total +should reach over 300 billion Etexts given away by year's end. + +The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext +Files by December 31, 2001. [10,000 x 100,000,000 = 1 Trillion] +This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers, +which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users. + +At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third +of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 4,000 Etexts. We need +funding, as well as continued efforts by volunteers, to maintain +or increase our production and reach our goals. + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created +to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium. + +We need your donations more than ever! + +As of November, 2001, contributions are being solicited from people +and organizations in: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, +Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, +Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New +Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, +Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, +Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, +and Wyoming. + +*In Progress + +We have filed in about 45 states now, but these are the only ones +that have responded. + +As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list +will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states. +Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state. + +In answer to various questions we have received on this: + +We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally +request donations in all 50 states. If your state is not listed and +you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have, +just ask. + +While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are +not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting +donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to +donate. + +International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about +how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made +deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are +ways. + +All donations should be made to: + +Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +PMB 113 +1739 University Ave. +Oxford, MS 38655-4109 + +Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment +method other than by check or money order. + + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by +the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN +[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154. Donations are +tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law. As fundraising +requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be +made and fundraising will begin in the additional states. + +We need your donations more than ever! + +You can get up to date donation information at: + +http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html + + +*** + +If you can't reach Project Gutenberg, +you can always email directly to: + +Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com> + +Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message. + +We would prefer to send you information by email. + + +**The Legal Small Print** + + +(Three Pages) + +***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START*** +Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers. +They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with +your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from +someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our +fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement +disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how +you may distribute copies of this etext if you want to. + +*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT +By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept +this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive +a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by +sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person +you got it from. If you received this etext on a physical +medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request. + +ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS +This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etexts, +is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart +through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project"). +Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright +on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and +distribute it in the United States without permission and +without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth +below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext +under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark. + +Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market +any commercial products without permission. + +To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable +efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain +works. Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any +medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other +things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged +disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer +codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. + +LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES +But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below, +[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may +receive this etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims +all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including +legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR +UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT, +INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE +OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE +POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. + +If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of +receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) +you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that +time to the person you received it from. If you received it +on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and +such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement +copy. If you received it electronically, such person may +choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to +receive it electronically. + +THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS +TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A +PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or +the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the +above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you +may have other legal rights. + +INDEMNITY +You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation, +and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated +with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including +legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the +following that you do or cause: [1] distribution of this etext, +[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the etext, +or [3] any Defect. + +DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm" +You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by +disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this +"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg, +or: + +[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this + requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the + etext or this "small print!" statement. You may however, + if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable + binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, + including any form resulting from conversion by word + processing or hypertext software, but only so long as + *EITHER*: + + [*] The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and + does *not* contain characters other than those + intended by the author of the work, although tilde + (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may + be used to convey punctuation intended by the + author, and additional characters may be used to + indicate hypertext links; OR + + [*] The etext may be readily converted by the reader at + no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent + form by the program that displays the etext (as is + the case, for instance, with most word processors); + OR + + [*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at + no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the + etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC + or other equivalent proprietary form). + +[2] Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this + "Small Print!" statement. + +[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the + gross profits you derive calculated using the method you + already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you + don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are + payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation" + the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were + legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent + periodic) tax return. Please contact us beforehand to + let us know your plans and to work out the details. + +WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO? +Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of +public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed +in machine readable form. + +The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time, +public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses. +Money should be paid to the: +"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or +software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at: +hart@pobox.com + +[Portions of this header are copyright (C) 2001 by Michael S. Hart +and may be reprinted only when these Etexts are free of all fees.] +[Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be used in any sales +of Project Gutenberg Etexts or other materials be they hardware or +software or any other related product without express permission.] + +*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.10/04/01*END* + + + + + +This etext was produced by David Widger <widger@cecomet.net> + + + + + +THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Volume Four + +CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION + + + + +THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II + + + +LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH JOINT DEBATE, + +AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--It will be very difficult for an audience so +large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and +consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as +possible. + +While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me +to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality +between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to +myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the +question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes +in saying something in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am +not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the +social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am +not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of +negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry +with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is +a physical difference between the white and black races which I +believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of +social and political equality. And in as much 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 superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon +this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have +the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do +not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I +must necessarily want her for a wife. My 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 a 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 entirely satisfied of its +correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend +Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have +made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I +have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would +marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it; but as Judge +Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they +might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most +solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this +State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I +will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand +that there is any place where an alteration of the social and +political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, +except in the State Legislature,--not in the Congress of the United +States; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such +thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror +that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best +means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the +State Legislature to fight the measure. I do not propose dwelling +longer at this time on this subject. + +When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to +Illinois in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in +which he made what may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, +which I understand proved to be very offensive to him. The Judge was +at that time out upon one of his speaking tours through the country, +and when the news of it reached him, as I am informed, he denounced +Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for having said what he did in +regard to that matter. I was traveling at that time, and speaking at +the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent days, and when I +heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and what Douglas +had said back again, I felt that I was in a position where I could +not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter. Consequently, +upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no +other wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by +Trumbull against Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to +say nothing about it; that I did personally know Judge Trumbull; that +I believed him to be a man of veracity; that I believed him to be a +man of capacity sufficient to know very well whether an assertion he +was making, as a conclusion drawn from a set of facts, was true or +false; and as a conclusion of my own from that, I stated it as my +belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove +everything he had said. I said this upon two or three occasions. +Upon a subsequent occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before an +audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his +charge against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to +substantiate it. This speech was published at length; and +subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In +the course of his speech, and near the close of it, he stated in +regard to myself what I will now read: + +"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter +occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, +Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he +should hold him (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders." + +I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this +invitation to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not +originally been my purpose to discuss that matter at all But in-as- +much as it seems to be the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me +responsible for it, then for once in my life I will play General +Jackson, and to the just extent I take the responsibility. + +I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that +portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this +matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at +Jacksonville in answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of +this debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and +Douglas. I cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take +half of my first hour to do so. I can only make some comments upon +them. Trumbull's charge is in the following words: + +"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a +constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the +people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in +the plot." + +I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an +opportunity of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings +forward what he regards as sufficient evidence to substantiate this +charge. + +It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon +the floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference +among the senators, in which conference it was determined to have an +enabling act passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution +under, and in this conference it was agreed among them that it was +best not to have a provision for submitting the constitution to a +vote of the people after it should be formed. He then brings forward +to show, and showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the +bill back to the Senate with that clause stricken out. He then shows +that there was a new clause inserted into the bill, which would in +its nature prevent a reference of the constitution back for a vote of +the people,--if, indeed, upon a mere silence in the law, it could be +assumed that they had the right to vote upon it. These are the +general statements that he has made. + +I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he +attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to +examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he +makes is: + +"Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and +that I struck it out,--is that a proof of a plot to force a +constitution upon them against their will?" + +His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the +bill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken +out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would +say, in the first place, that that would be a most manifest reason +for it. It is true, as Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial +bills have passed without having such a provision in them. I believe +it is true, though I am not certain, that in some instances +constitutions framed under such bills have been submitted to a vote +of the people with the law silent upon the subject; but it does not +appear that they once had their enabling acts framed with an express +provision for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of +the people, then that they were stricken out when Congress did not +mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have been bills +which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when was +that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does +the evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, +when we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill +almost simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a +conference among certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a +bill should be passed leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering +Trumbull, omits to attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was +a meeting in which it was agreed they should so frame the bill that +there should be no submission of the constitution to a vote of the +people. The Judge does not notice this part of it. If you take this +as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that simultaneously +Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to be +submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty +fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter +into a plot to put in force a constitution for Kansas, without giving +the people any opportunity of voting upon it. + +But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is +this: + +"But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did +contain a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted." + +This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. +I only want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that +these words were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill +from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out,--a bill +which goes by the name of Toomb's, because he originally brought it +forward? I ask why, if the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with +Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition Trumbull made in his +speech, and say it was not stricken out? Trumbull has given the +exact words that he says were in the Toomb's bill, and he alleges +that when the bill came back, they were stricken out. Judge Douglas +does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken out +were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision in the +Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We +see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the +words. He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about +these words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to +it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, +if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be +upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken +out, I have before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the +Toomb's bill, in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says +were in it were, in fact, originally there. If there be any dispute +upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show they were there. +If there be any controversy upon the sense of the words,--whether +these words which were stricken out really constituted a provision +for submitting the matter to a vote of the people,--as that is a +matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull's own +argument. He says that the proposition is in these words: + +"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered +to the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their +free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention +and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the +constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said +State of Kansas." + +Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the +bill when it came back, and he says this was a provision for +submitting the constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument +is this: + +"Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the +election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an +election was to be held?" + +This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the +charge at all, but he stands up and says there was no such +proposition in that bill for submitting the constitution to be framed +to a vote of the people. Trumbull admits that the language is not a +direct provision for submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily +implied from another provision. He asks you how it is possible to +ratify the land proposition at the election for the adoption of the +constitution, if there was no election to be held for the adoption of +the constitution. And he goes on to show that it is not any less a +law because the provision is put in that indirect shape than it would +be if it were put directly. But I presume I have said enough to draw +attention to this point, and I pass it by also. + +Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and +at very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, +said in a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to +be made would have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if +Trumbull thought so then, what ground is there for anybody thinking +otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, this much may be said in reply: That +bill had been in the hands of a party to which Trumbull did not +belong. It had been in the hands of the committee at the head of +which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had a printed copy of +the original Toomb's bill. I have not the evidence on that point +except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of business +there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of altering, +were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, until +the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterwards, when it was +reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull +in reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the +bearings of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, +and it does not follow that because there was something in it +Trumbull did not perceive, that something did not exist. More than +this, is it true that what Trumbull did can have any effect on what +Douglas did? Suppose Trumbull had been in the plot with these other +men, would that let Douglas out of it? Would it exonerate Douglas +that Trumbull did n't then perceive he was in the plot? He also asks +the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose to amend the bill, if he +thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe that everything +Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection with this +question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of +the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his +friends. He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to +anything on this subject would receive the slightest consideration. +Judge Trumbull did bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the +fact that there was no provision for submitting the constitution +about to be made for the people of Kansas to a vote of the people. I +believe I may venture to say that Judge Douglas made some reply to +this speech of Judge Trumbull's, but he never noticed that part of it +at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, then, the fact that +Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not throw much blame upon +him; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact as to what +Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself been +in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it +from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial +it should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, +but that the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at +all touch the question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck +that they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to +be guilty too. + +Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is, +that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the +fact that the bill had the provision in it for submitting the +constitution to a vote of the people when it went into his Judge +Douglas's hands, that it was missing when he reported it to the +Senate, and that in a public speech he had subsequently said the +alterations in the bill were made while it was in committee, and that +they were made in consultation between him (Judge Douglas) and +Toomb's. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of +Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill +not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with +another clause and another provision in it, saying that "until the +complete execution of this Act there shall be no election in said +Territory,"--which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the +provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but +was adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from +exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the +question. Now, in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the +issue, that he shifts his ground,--and I believe he uses the term +that, "it being proven false, he has changed ground," I call upon all +of you, when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's speech +(for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trumbull has +shifted his ground or not. I say he did not shift his ground, but +that he brought forward his original charge and the evidence to +sustain it yet more fully, +but precisely as he originally made it. Then, in addition thereto, +he brought in a new piece of evidence. He shifted no ground. He +brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with his former +testimony; but he brought a new piece, tending, as he thought, and as +I think, to prove his proposition. To illustrate: A man brings an +accusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge +introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a second trial he +introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and +a third witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives +further testimony corroborative of the charge. So with Trumbull. +There was no shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony +between the new piece of evidence and what he originally introduced. + +But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last +provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and +a substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is +true that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. +Trumbull has not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it +was so stricken out. He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as +Judge Douglas reported it back. It was amended somewhat in the +Senate before it passed, but I am speaking of it as he brought it +back." Now, when Judge Douglas parades the fact that the provision +was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he asserts nothing +contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only said that he +originally put it in, not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull +says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. When it +came back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made +by him in consultation with Toomb's. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as +his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants +to contradict Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not +put it in, and not that he did n't take it out again. It is said +that a bear is sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I +presume it was in this case. I presume the truth is that Douglas put +it in, and afterward took it out. That, I take it, is the truth +about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing, Douglas says another thing, +and the two don't contradict one another at all. The question is, +what did he put it in for? In the first place, what did he take the +other provision out of the bill for,--the provision which Trumbull +argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of the +people? What did he take that out for; and, having taken it out, +what did he put this in for? I say that in the run of things it is +not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge +Douglas to take that latter clause out again. The question that +Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in; and he don't meet +Trumbull at all unless he denies that. + +In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses +this language toward Judge Trumbull. He says: + +"He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the +record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge." + +Well, that is a pretty serious statement--Trumbull forges his +evidence from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say +that it is not true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that +Trumbull has brought forward. When you come to read the speech, as +you will be able to, examine whether the evidence is a forgery from +beginning to end. He had the bill or document in his hand like that +[holding up a paper]. He says that is a copy of the Toomb's bill,-- +the amendment offered by Toomb's. He says that is a copy of the bill +as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas's hands. Now, does +Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? That is one thing Trumbull +brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning to +end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does Douglas say that is +a forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent +examination upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another +document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it +came back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does +Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? Does he say it in his general +sweeping charge? Does he say so now? If he does not, then take this +Toomb's bill and the bill in the amended form, and it only needs to +compare them to see that the provision is in the one and not in the +other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken out. + +But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what +Trumbull's other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will +read. Trumbull says there are in this original Toomb's bill these +words: + +"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered +to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for +their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the +Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the +adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United +States and the said State of Kansas." + +Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper +here and see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes +along, that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in +the Senate, December 9, 1857: + +"I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the +bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, +whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote +of the people. It was held by those most intelligent on the subject +that, in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the +danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be +better there should be no such provision in the Toomb's bill; and it +was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the +Convention would make a constitution, and send it here, without +submitting it to the popular vote." + +Then Trumbull follows on: + +"In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 +[Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said: + +"'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or +confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. +Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. +My recollection was clear that I left the conference under the +impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit +Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and +that for delegates to this Convention. This impression was stronger +because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine +of non-intervention, to which I had great aversion; but with the hope +of accomplishing a great good, and as no movement had been made in +that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and +concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of testimony as +to the correctness of these impressions, and with their submission I +shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the senator +from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission +of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows: + +"That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered +to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for +their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the +Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the +adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United +States and the said State of Kansas." + +The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of +June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the +same section word for word. Both these bills were under +consideration at the conference referred to; but, sir, when the +senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate with +amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the +third section which indicated to the Convention that the constitution +should be approved by the people. The words 'and ratified by the +people at the election for the adoption of the constitution" had been +stricken out.'" + +Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor +of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the +Congressional Globe on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is +a forgery? Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional +Globe? What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his +evidence from beginning to end? So again he says in another place +that Judge Douglas, in his speech, December 9, 1857 (Congressional +Globe, part I., page 15), stated: + +"That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a +bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of +Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. +Subsequently the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a +substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and +myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate." + +Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and +is recorded in the Congressional Globe. Is it a forgery? Is it +there or not? It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take +these pieces of evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he +dare do it. + +[A voice: "He will."] + +Well, sir, you had better not commit him. He gives other quotations, +--another from Judge Douglas. He says: + +"I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member +of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the +Union, from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be +submitted to the people. I will venture to say that on all sides of +the chamber it was so understood at the time. If the opponents of +the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on +it; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it, +and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President +found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would +be done, which ought in fairness to have been done." + +Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. +Does Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true? Trumbull +says somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any +one who will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the +notice of those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that +provision; and then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge +Douglas, where Judge Trumbull uses this language: + +"Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, +probably recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had +objected to the Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for +a submission of the constitution to the people, made another +statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the Globe, page +22, in which he says: +'That the bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention +was called to that about the time it was passed; and I took the fair +construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that +of course the constitution would be submitted to the people.' + +"Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before +made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or +that it was a new discovery, you will determine." + +So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and +yet maintain his position that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from +beginning to end." I will remark that I have not got these +Congressional Globes with me. They are large books, and difficult to +carry about, and if Judge Douglas shall say that on these points +where Trumbull has quoted from them there are no such passages there, +I shall not be able to prove they are there upon this occasion, but I +will have another chance. Whenever he points out the forgery and +says, "I declare that this particular thing which Trumbull has +uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then my attention +will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest, stating +now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find +every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the question +is, How can Douglas call that a forgery? How can he make out that it +is a forgery? What is a forgery? It is the bringing forward +something in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect +when it is altogether untrue. If you come forward with my note for +one hundred dollars when I have never given such a note, there is a +forgery. If you come forward with a letter purporting to be written +by me which I never wrote, there is another forgery. If you produce +anything in writing or in print saying it is so and so, the document +not being genuine, a forgery has been committed. How do you make +this forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine? If Judge +Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false and forged, +he has a full right to do so; but until he does it specifically, we +don't know how to get at him. If he does say they are false and +forged, I will then look further into it, and presume I can procure +the certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies. +I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where +Trumbull says it is. Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in +making his sweeping charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged +from beginning to end, at all meets the case,--if that is the way to +get at the facts. I repeat again, if he will point out which one is +a forgery, I will carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one +of them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it +any longer. I have always wanted to deal with everyone I meet +candidly and honestly. If I have made any assertion not warranted by +facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully. +But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and the +evidence he has brought forward branded in general terms "a forgery +from beginning to end." This is not the legal way of meeting a +charge, and I submit it to all intelligent persons, both friends of +Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is. + +The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill that went into his +hands had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to +the people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision +for a submission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was +known that the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge +Douglas, it was not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the +declaration, when you got it, for a submission of the constitution to +the people. And now, my direct question to Judge Douglas is, to +answer why, if he deemed the bill silent on this point, he found it +necessary to strike out those particular harmless words. If he had +found the bill silent and without this provision, he might say what +he does now. If he supposes it was implied that the constitution +would be submitted to a vote of the people, how could these two lines +so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to strike them out? +How could he infer that a submission was still implied, after its +express provision had been stricken from the bill? I find the bill +vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it out, and +although he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a +vote of the people, I ask, Why did you first put it in? I ask him +whether he took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges +was in the bill. If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he +did it for. It looks to us as if he had altered the bill. If it +looks differently to him,--if he has a different reason for his +action from the one we assign him--he can tell it. I insist upon +knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point when it was vocal +before he put his hands upon it. + +I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three +minutes of being out. I presume it is expired now; I therefore +close. + + + + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. + +FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour +answer to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried +one. I shall only be able to touch upon a few of the points +suggested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I +shall have to totally omit others for the want of time. + +Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from +me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro +citizenship. So far as I know the Judge never asked me the question +before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell +him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. This +furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I +mentioned in a certain speech of mine, which has been printed, that +the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made +a citizen; and without saying what was my ground of complaint in +regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge +Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he +ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the +negroes and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he +will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course +of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I +had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was +when I did not tell them myself. Now, my opinion is that the +different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the +Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott +decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of +Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it. +That is all I have to say about it. + +Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my +speeches south; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the +north and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very +different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different +points. I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully +misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take these +speeches and read them, and I dare him to point out any difference +between my speeches north and south. While I am here perhaps I ought +to say a word, if I have the time, in regard to the latter portion of +the Judge's speech, which was a sort of declamation in reference to +my having said I entertained the belief that this government would +not endure half slave and half free. I have said so, and I did not +say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhaps +would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in +detail; but let me ask you a few questions. Have we ever had any +peace on this slavery question? When are we to have peace upon it, +if it is kept in the position it now occupies? How are we ever to +have peace upon it? That is an important question. To be sure, if +we will all stop, and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march on +in their present career until they plant the institution all over the +nation, here and wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in +it, there will be peace. But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is +going to get the people to do that? They have been wrangling over +this question for at least forty years. This was the cause of the +agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise; this produced the +troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the +territory acquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was the trouble +which was quieted by the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled +"forever" as both the great political parties declared in their +National Conventions. That "forever" turned out to be just four +years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. When is it likely to +come to an end? He introduced the Nebraska Bill in 1854 to put +another end to the slavery agitation. He promised that it would +finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since, +until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton +Constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the +end of the slavery agitation. But in one speech, I think last +winter, he did say that he did n't quite see when the end of the +slavery agitation would come. Now he tells us again that it is all +over and the people of Kansas have voted down the Lecompton +Constitution. How is it over? That was only one of the attempts at +putting an end to the slavery agitation--one of these "final +settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formed a constitution +that she is likely to come in under? Is not the slavery agitation +still an open question in that Territory? Has the voting down of +that constitution put an end to all the trouble? Is that more likely +to settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the +slavery agitation? Now, at this day in the history of the world we +can no more foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be +than we can see the end of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas +Bill was introduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation +is ever to come to an end we may say we are four years and a half +nearer the end. So, too, we can say we are four years and a half +nearer the end of the world, and we can just as clearly see the end +of the world as we can see the end of this agitation. The Kansas +settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should sink to-day, and +leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed +question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of +putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back +upon the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out +of our new Territories,--to restrict it forever to the old States +where it now exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief +that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of +putting an end to the slavery agitation. + +The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his +friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease +speaking of it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the +common matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our +horses and cattle. But while it drives on in its state of progress +as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I +have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end +to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other. I do +not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will +be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that +in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than +a hundred years at least; but that it will occur in the best way for +both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt. But, my +friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this +point. + +Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a +bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854: +Judge Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, +except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he +told a cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral +principles that Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the +simple truth. I do not care greatly for the story, but this is the +truth of it: and I have twice told Judge Douglas to his face that +from beginning to end there is not one word of truth in it. I have +called upon him for the proof, and he does not at all meet me as +Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just talking, by +producing the record. He did n't bring the record because there was +no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready to indorse +Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply +that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would not be likely +to indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity +because neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years +that I have known Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his +word or tell a falsehood large or small. It is for that reason that +I indorse Lyman Trumbull. + +[Mr. JAMES BROWN (Douglas postmaster): "What does Ford's History say +about him?"] + +Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My own +recollection is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful +terms in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal +worse of Judge Douglas. I refer you, sir, to the History for +examination. + +Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on +the part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to +attend to that suggestion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly +accused of dealing illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either +in court or in a political canvass or anywhere else. I would despise +myself if I supposed myself ready to deal less liberally with an +adversary than I was willing to be treated myself. Judge Douglas in +a general way, without putting it in a direct shape, revives the old +charge against me in reference to the Mexican War. He does not take +the responsibility of putting it in a very definite form, but makes a +general reference to it. That charge is more than ten years old. He +complains of Trumbull and myself because he says we bring charges +against him one or two years old. He knows, too, that in regard to +the Mexican War story the more respectable papers of his own party +throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and +acknowledge that it was a lie. + +[Here Mr. LINCOLN turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting +HON. ORLANDO B. FICKLIN, led him forward and said:] + +I do not mean to do anything with Mr. FICKLIN except to present his +face and tell you that he personally knows it to be a lie! He was a +member of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [FICKLIN] +knows that whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine +which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to +give such indorsement and voted against it; but I never voted against +the supplies for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, +that whenever a dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise +for the benefit of the soldiers I gave all the votes that FICKLIN or +Douglas did, and perhaps more. + +[Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the +matter: Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as +Judge Douglas and myself. In reference to this Mexican War, my +recollection is that when Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered +by Mr. Ashmun of Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican +War was unnecessary and unconstitutionally commenced by the President +-my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.] + +That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution +censuring the President for the manner in which the war was begun. +You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by +which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of +their country. I say that FICKLIN knows it is false. When that +charge was brought forward by the Chicago Times, the Springfield +Register [Douglas's organ] reminded the Times that the charge really +applied to John Henry; and I do know that John Henry is now making +speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. If the Judge now +says that he offers this as a sort of setoff to what I said to-day in +reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that he made this +charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He brought this +forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the +opening speech that Judge Douglas made he attacked me in regard to a +matter ten years old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about +people making charges against him only two years old! + +The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon +this charge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in +my opening speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said +that when Judge Douglas was speaking at place--where I spoke on the +succeeding day he used very harsh language about this charge. Two or +three times afterward I said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's +veracity and intelligence; and my own opinion was, from what I knew +of the character of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his +position and prove whatever he had stated to be true. This I +repeated two or three times; and then I dropped it, without saying +anything more on the subject for weeks--perhaps a month. I passed it +by without noticing it at all till I found, at Jacksonville, Judge +Douglas in the plenitude of his power is not willing to answer +Trumbull and let me alone, but he comes out there and uses this +language: "He should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such +charges made by Trumbull but that, Lincoln having indorsed the +character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln] +responsible for the slanders." What was Lincoln to do? Did he not +do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas +here, to tell him he was ready for the responsibility? I ask a +candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the +assailant rather than I? Here I meet him face to face, and say I am +ready to take the responsibility, so far as it rests on me. + +Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the question +whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge +Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it? You all heard me call +upon him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery. +Does he say that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs +bill is a forgery? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the +bill reported by himself is a forgery, or what is presented as a +transcript from the Globe of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a +forgery? Does he say the quotations from his own speech are +forgeries? Does he say this transcript from Trumbull's speech is a +forgery? + +["He didn't deny one of them."] + +I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of +a story is true the whole story turns out false. I take it these +people have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is +playing cuttle-fish, a small species of fish that has no mode of +defending itself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid, +which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it +escapes. Ain't the Judge playing the cuttle-fish? + +Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge +Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech +of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces +of testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown +to be such. Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery. Then I +ask the original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is +true, how is it possible that the whole is a falsehood? + +In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision +into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the +people, what was his answer? He comes here and reads from the +Congressional Globe to show that on his motion that provision was +struck out of the bill. Why, Trumbull has not said it was not +stricken out, but Trumbull says he [Douglas] put it in; and it is no +answer to the charge to say he afterwards took it out. Both are +perhaps true. It was in regard to that thing precisely that I told +him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows you that by his +introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to that +assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially +say that Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case, does it +answer Trumbull? I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are +here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you +were in Mattoon yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your +head, and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head. That is +the whole force of Douglas's argument. + +Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that +Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a +constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does +Judge Douglas deny that fact? Does be deny that the provision which +Trumbull reads was put in that bill? Then Trumbull says he struck it +out. Does he dare to deny that? He does not, and I have the right +to repeat the question ,--Why Judge Douglas took it out? Bigler has +said there was a combination of certain senators, among whom he did +not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas +Bill should have a clause in it not to have the constitution formed +under it submitted to a vote of the people. He did not say that +Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the +same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken +out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in +concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and +done with a mutual understanding after the conference; and while we +do not know that it was absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that +we have a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it +was done to tell what the true reason was. When he will not tell +what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude of an accused +thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to +account refuses to tell where he got them. Not only is this the +evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision +stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then but since, that these +alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, in +consultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells us +the same to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in +the bill in committee that he did not vote for. I ask you to +remember, while certain amendments were made which he disapproved of, +but which a majority of the committee voted in, he has himself told +us that in this particular the alterations and modifications were +made by him, upon consultation with Toombs. We have his own word +that these alterations were made by him, and not by the committee. +Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about coming +to the exact question? What is the reason he will not tell you +anything about How it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that he +remembers it being made at all? Why does he stand playing upon the +meaning of words and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? If +he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have the right +to infer that Judge Douglas understood it was the purpose of his +party, in engineering that bill through, to make a constitution, and +have Kansas come into the Union with that constitution, without its +being submitted to a vote of the people. If he will explain his +action on this question, by giving a better reason for the facts that +happened than he has done, it will be satisfactory. But until he +does that--until he gives a better or more plausible reason than he +has offered against the evidence in the case--I suggest to him it +will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, takes on +dignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word in +Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has +only arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of +reasoning. There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends +on Trumbull's word. If you have ever studied geometry, you remember +that by a course of reasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a +triangle are equal to two right angles. Euclid has shown you how to +work it out. Now, if you undertake to disprove that proposition, and +to show that it is erroneous, would you prove it to be false by +calling Euclid a liar? They tell me that my time is out, and +therefore I close. + + + + +FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, + +OCTOBER 7, 1858 + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY. + +MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge +Douglas has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in +print. I do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all.--- If I +had not been interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I +was able to make to a very large portion of it had already been more +than once made and published. There has been an opportunity afforded +to the public to see our respective views upon the topics 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 attended to, and ask your +attention to them, and I shall follow him backwards upon some notes +which I have taken, reversing the order, by beginning where he +concluded. + +The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and +insisted that negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that +it is a slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that +negroes were meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possible to +believe that Mr. Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have +supposed himself applying the language of that instrument to the +negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery? Would he +not at once have freed them? I only have to remark upon this part of +the Judge's speech (and that, too, very briefly, for I shall not +detain 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, may be +searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single man, +that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence; I +think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that +Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any +member of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the +whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present policy +of the Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that +affirmation. And I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience that +while Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, +in speaking upon this very subject he used the strong language that +"he trembled for his country when he remembered that God was just"; +and I will offer the highest premium in my power to Judge Douglas if +he will show that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at +all akin to that of Jefferson. + +The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's +comments upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call +our public meetings as Republican meetings; and he instances Tazewell +County as one of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called +a public meeting and have not dared to name it a 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. In the contest of 1856 his party +delighted to call themselves together as the "National Democracy"; +but now, if there should be a notice put up anywhere for a meeting of +the "National Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not +come. They would not suppose themselves invited. They would +understand that it was a call for those hateful postmasters whom he +talks about. + +Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine +which Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in +very great contrast to 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 assumes that I do not understand that my speeches will be +put in print and read north and south. I knew all the while that the +speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at Jonesboro and +the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all the reading +and intelligent men in the community would see them and know all +about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, +that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will +have it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality +between the white and black races which justifies us in making them +slaves, we must then insist that there is a degree of equality that +requires us to make them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken +a broad distinction in regard to that matter; and that is all there +is in these different speeches which he arrays here; and the entire +reading of either of the speeches will show that that distinction was +made. Perhaps by taking two parts of the same speech he could have +got up as much of a conflict as the one he has found. I have all the +while maintained that in so far as it should be insisted that there +was an equality between the white and black races that should produce +a perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility. +This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have said +that in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," +as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our +equals. And these declarations I have constantly made in reference +to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we +are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed +with the actual presence of the evil,--slavery. I have never +manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the +actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence +of slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have +insisted that, in legislating for new countries where it does not +exist there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract +right! With reference to those new countries, those maxims as to the +right of a people to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" +were the just rules to be constantly referred to. There is no +misunderstanding this, except by men interested to misunderstand it. +I take it that I have to address an intelligent and reading +community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge +whether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I advanced +hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions +of the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as +the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free +from all error in the opinions I advance. + +The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction +between his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national +party, ours a sectional one. He does this in asking the question +whether this country has any interest in the maintenance of the +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--and be based upon rightful +principles--unless it can announce its principles everywhere. I +presume that Judge Douglas could not go into Russia and announce the +doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not denounce the +doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Russia; and it may +be true of this country that in some places we may not be able to +proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of democracy, +because there is a section so directly opposed to it that they will +not tolerate us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of +a doctrine that in some places people won't let you proclaim it? Is +that the way to test the truth of any doctrine? Why, I understood +that at one time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas +preach a certain favorite doctrine of his. I commend to his +consideration the question whether he takes that as a test of the +unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. + +There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little +while on this occasion. What has always been the evidence brought +forward to prove that the Republican party is a sectional party? The +main one was that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did +not let the Republicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That +has been the main evidence brought forward,--that they had no +supporters, or substantially none, in the Slave States. The South +have not taken hold of our principles as we announce 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. Judge Douglas and +I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have now for the +fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I have not +found either Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of the +Republican platform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is +wrong. I ask you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away +from the platform of principles to the fact that he can find people +somewhere who will not allow us to announce those principles. If he +had great confidence that our principles were wrong, he would take +hold of them and demonstrate them to be wrong. But he does not do +so. The only evidence he has of their being wrong is in the fact +that there are people who won't allow us to preach them. I ask +again, is that the way to test the soundness of a doctrine? + +I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality +he is himself fast becoming sectional. I ask his attention to the +fact that his speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio +River as they have formerly gone there I ask his attention to the +fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all the Democrats of the +free States are agreeing with him, while he omits to tell us that the +Democrats of any slave State agree with him. If he has not thought +of this, I commend to his consideration the evidence in his own +declaration, on this day, of his becoming sectional too. I see it +rapidly approaching. Whatever may be the result of this ephemeral +contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day rapidly +approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has been +thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be +crowded down his own throat. + +Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his +speech) about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principles of the +Nebraska Bill, although I have often presented my views upon that +subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you +please, detain you a little with them. I have always maintained, so +far as I was able, that there was nothing of the principle of the +Nebraska Bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all,--nothing whatever. +Where can you find the principle of the Nebraska Bill in that +Compromise? If anywhere, in the two pieces of the Compromise +organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was expressly +provided in these two acts that when they came to be admitted into +the Union they should be admitted with or without slavery, as they +should choose, by their own constitutions. Nothing was said in +either of those acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery +during the Territorial existence of those Territories, while Henry +Clay constantly made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him +as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control +that question during the Territorial existence, and that these old +Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can that be used as a principle +for declaring that during the Territorial existence as well as at the +time of framing the constitution the people, if you please, might +have slaves if they wanted them? I am not discussing the question +whether it is right or wrong; but how are the New Mexican and Utah +laws patterns for the Nebraska Bill? I maintain that the +organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general +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 allowed to +come in in that shape, because in another way it was paid for, +considering that as a part of that system of measures called the +Compromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen acts. It +included the admission of California as a free State, 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 law. All these things +were put together, and, though passed in separate acts, were +nevertheless, in legislation (as the speeches at the time will show), +made to depend upon each other. Each got votes with the +understanding that the other measures were to pass, and by this +system of compromise, in that series of measures, those two bills-- +the New Mexico and Utah bills--were passed: and I say for that reason +they could not be taken as models, framed upon their own intrinsic +principle, for all future Territories. And I have the evidence of +this in the fact 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 follow them as a pattern at all. + +The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any +odious distinctions between free and slave States. I am altogether +unaware that the Republicans are in favor of making any odious +distinctions between the free and slave States. But there is still 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 Republicans on the contrary, is, that the Judge +is not in favor of making any difference between slavery and liberty; +that he is in favor of eradicating, of pressing out of view, the +questions of preference in this country for free or slave +institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the +idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Everything that emanates +from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully +excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery. All +their arguments, if you will consider them, will be seen to exclude +the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in slavery. If you +will take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed +sentences expressed by him,--as his declaration that he "don't care +whether slavery is voted up or down,"--you will see at once that this +is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong. If +you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he +don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas +declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to +have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no +wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he +cannot 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 founded in right. But if you admit that one of them is +wrong, you cannot institute any equality between right and wrong. +And from this difference of sentiment,--the belief on the part of one +that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that +belief 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 the +wrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end to +it through all the existence of things,--arises the real difference +between Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand and the +Republicans on the other. Now, I confess myself as belonging to that +class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and +political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us +and the difficulties of 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, if not the +seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or +combination between the 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. Buchanan had; +though at last, when they reached it, they quarreled over it, and +their friends divided upon it. I am very free to confess to Judge +Douglas that I have no objection to the division; but I defy the +Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way promoted that +division, unless he insists on being a witness himself in merely +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 +Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess +you do. Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also +that he was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to +see all there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans. +What we now think of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought +of the Fremont and Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. + +But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there +is an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the +National Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving +him as an entirely competent witness upon that subject. I want to +call to the Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first +one of these +debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order to fix extreme +Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which +he declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in +October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken +part in that Convention. It turned out that although a few men +calling themselves an anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at +Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take any part in it, +nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as Judge +Douglas read. So apparent had it become that the resolutions which +he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by a State +Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days afterward, at +Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by Charles +H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L. Harris, +member of Congress in that district, and he promised in that speech +that when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter. +Since then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has +made the investigation; but a month has passed since he has been +there, and, so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of +his investigation. I have waited as I think sufficient time for the +report of that investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and +hear it. A fraud, an absolute forgery was committed, and the +perpetration of it was traced to the three,--Lanphier, Harris, and +Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed in any way so as to exonerate +any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's report would probably show. + +It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were +published in the Illinois State 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. The idea that it was done by mistake +is absurd. The article in the Illinois State Register contains part +of the real proceedings of that Springfield Convention, showing that +the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him, and +purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the Convention +and fraudulently substituted the others. Lanphier then, as now, was +the editor of the Register, so that there seems to be but little room +for his escape. But then it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had +less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the other +two. The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat Yates +and elect Harris to Congress, and that object was known to be +exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and Douglas +were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, and +although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register, +subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon +that Convention. + +The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both +Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to +put it to new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband +was brought home with his body full of eels, said when she was asked +what was to be done with him, "Take the eels out and set 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 Norton 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 Harris--reattempted it +upon me at Ottawa. It has been clung to and played out again and +again as an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio. And now +that it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud we find that Judge +Douglas manifests no surprise at it at all. He makes no complaint of +Lanphier, who must have known it to be a fraud from the beginning. +He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as cozy now and just as active in +the concoction of new schemes as they were before the general +discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is very natural if they are +all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any one +of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honor +among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself, +and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a +satisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the three +are agreed that each is "a most honorable man." + +Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a +re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports +against me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which +we know to be utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to think +that this one unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate, +will be the least drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He +asks a re-election to the lower House of Congress without seeming to +remember at all that he is involved in this dishonorable fraud! The +Illinois State Register, edited by Lanphier, then, as now, the +central organ of both Harris and Douglas, continues 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. Lanphier cannot be +ignorant of how and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he be +induced to tell, or, if he has told, can Judge Douglas be 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! + +While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I +answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded +to me, and then 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 decision as a rule of +political action?" + +To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense +of the word. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that +it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. +He sneered at me for 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 notwithstanding." + +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 Constitution"! 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 +Constitution; durable as the Constitution, and part of the +Constitution. Now, remembering the provision of the Constitution +which I have read--affirming that that instrument is the supreme law +of the land; that the judges of every State shall be bound by it, any +law or constitution of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; +that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that +Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be separated from it +without breaking it; durable as the instrument; part of the +instrument;--what follows as a short and even syllogistic argument +from it? I think it follows, and I submit to the consideration of +men capable of arguing whether, as I state it, in syllogistic form, +the argument has any fault in it: + +Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right +distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United +States. + +The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed +in the Constitution of the United States. + +Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can +destroy the right of property in a slave. + +I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming +the truth of the 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 is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the +Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the +Supreme Court and the advocates of that decision may search in vain +for the place in the Constitution where the right of property in a +slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed I say, therefore, that I +think one of the premises is not true in fact. But it is true with +Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced it. +They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying +it, the conclusion follows that, the Constitution of the United +States being the supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere +with it. It being affirmed in the decision that the right of +property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the +Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or +constitution can destroy that right. I then say to Judge Douglas and +to all others that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer +to show that those 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 decision, +deciding against the right of the people of the States to exclude +slavery, will never be made if that party is not sustained by the +elections. I believe, further, that it is just as sure to be made as +to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained. I have said, +upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course of +arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge +not his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new +Dred Scott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the +reasons for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. +I have turned his 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 Jefferson +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, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their +liberties were gone. I have asked his attention to the fact that the +Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, disregards a +time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the power of +Congress to establish a National Bank. I have asked his attention to +the fact that he himself was one of the most active instruments at +one time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the 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 adheres +to it,--not as being right upon the merits, as he conceives (because +he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory +upon every one simply because of the source from whence it comes, as +that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be,--this is another +marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it in +this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it +comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not +investigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or +wrong. So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is +right or wrong. He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing +prepares the 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 voted down,"; that +"whoever wants slavery has a right to have it"; that "upon principles +of equality it should be allowed to go everywhere"; that "there is no +inconsistency between free and slave institutions"--in this he is +also preparing (whether purposely or not) the way for making the +institution of slavery national! I repeat again, for I wish no +misunderstanding, that I do not charge that he means it so; but I +call upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best +instrument you could, and then set it to work in the most ingenious +way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, operating in the +free States, where there is now an abhorrence of the institution of +slavery, could you find an instrument so capable of doing it as Judge +Douglas, or one employed in so apt a way to do it? + +I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, +when he was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, +that it had a tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, +said that: + +"Those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate +emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the +Colonization Society: they must go back to the era of our liberty and +independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous +return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must +penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the +love of liberty!" + +And I do think--I repeat, though I said it on a 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 a right to hold them; that he +is penetrating, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and +eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty, when he is +in every possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast +influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual and +national. + +There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your +attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I +shall not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may +not take me clear through it. + +Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at +Freeport, there was one in about this language: + +"Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the +United States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?" + +I answered, as I thought, in this way: that I am not generally +opposed to the acquisition 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 calculated to aggravate +this slavery question amongst us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas +another interrogatory, which was correlative to that: "Are you in +favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how it may +affect us upon the slavery question?" Judge Douglas answered,--that +is, in his own way he answered it. I believe that, although he took +a good many words to answer it, it was a little more fully answered +than any other. The substance of his answer was that this country +would continue to expand; that it would need additional territory; +that it was as absurd to suppose that we could continue upon our +present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as it would be +to hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow to man's +size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was something like +that. Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of further +territory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might +affect the slavery question. I do not say this as giving his exact +language, but he said so substantially; and he would leave the +question of slavery, where the territory was acquired, to be settled +by the people of the acquired territory. ["That's the doctrine."] +May be it is; let us consider that for a while. This will probably, +in the run of things, become one of the concrete manifestations of +this slavery question. If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question +succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until all opposition is +crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor +Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the +adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promises additional +slave-fields. And this question is to be left to the people of those +countries for settlement. When we 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 horror of an inferior race. + +It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring +additional territory is a power confided to the President and the +Senate of the United States. It is a power not under the control of +the representatives of the people any further than they, the +President and the Senate, can be considered the representatives of +the 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 insisted 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 +insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an assurance +that any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it, +so far as the House of Representatives was concerned. But at last +the President and Senate acquired the territory without asking the +House of Representatives anything about it, and took it without that +prohibition. They have the power of acquiring territory without the +immediate representatives of the people being called upon to say +anything 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 slavery +agitation. It is therefore, as I think, a very important question +for due 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 easy to assert, but much less +easy to disprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country. + +And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very grave +question for the people of this Union to consider, whether, in view +of the fact that this slavery question has been the only one that has +ever endangered our Republican institutions, 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, discarding 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 consider the importance of the +question, and arrive at a just conclusion as to whether it is or is +not wise in the people of this Union, in the acquisition of new +territory, to consider whether it will add to the disturbance that is +existing amongst us--whether it will add to the one only danger that +has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union or our own liberties. +I think it is extremely important that they shall decide, 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 topic so as to treat it +fully, without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment +think of doing. I give way to Judge Douglas. + + + + +SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, + +AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, 1858. + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have had no immediate conference with Judge +Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree +that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will +be most agreeable to us. + +In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois +which have since been consolidated into the Republican party +assembled together in a State Convention at Bloomington. They +adopted at that time what, in political language, is called a +platform. In June of the same year the elements of the Republican +party in the nation assembled together in a National Convention at +Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the National Platform. In +June, 1858,--the present year,--the Republicans of Illinois +reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again +their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essential +particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding +something in relation to the new developments of political progress +in the country. + +The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be +one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the +United States Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this +canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms. We are now met +together on the 13th of October of the same year, only four months +from the adoption of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this +canvass, from the beginning until to-day, any one of our adversaries +has taken hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon anything +that he calls wrong in them. + +In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator +Douglas and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these +platforms, or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to +hold me responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the +meeting of either one of these conventions of which I have spoken. +And as a ground for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he +assumed that they had been passed at a State Convention of the +Republican party, and that I took part in that Convention. It was +discovered afterward that this was erroneous, that the resolutions +which he endeavored to hold me responsible for had not been passed by +any State Convention anywhere, had not been passed at Springfield, +where he supposed they had, or assumed that they had, and that they +had been passed in no convention in which I had taken part. The +Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the point that he was +endeavoring to make upon me, and he 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 hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of +where I was when it met, nor one in which I took any part at all. He +also introduced other resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by +combining the whole, although they were all antecedent to the two +State Conventions and the one National Convention I have mentioned, +still he insisted, and now insists, as I understand, that I am in +some way responsible for them. + +At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I +was in no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this +local meeting or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in +which I was in no way embraced; but I insisted to him that if he +thought I was responsible for every man or every set of men +everywhere, who happen to be my friends, the rule ought to work both +ways, and he ought to be responsible for the acts and resolutions of +all men or sets of men who were or are now his supporters and +friends, and gave him a pretty long string of resolutions, passed by +men who are now his friends, and announcing doctrines for which he +does not 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 understand him. +But in addition to that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, +last week, undertakes to establish that I am guilty of a species of +double dealing with the public; that I make speeches of a certain +sort in the north, among the Abolitionists, which I would not make in +the south, and that I make speeches of a certain sort in the south +which I would not make in the north. I apprehend, in the course I +have marked out for myself, that I shall not have to dwell at very +great length upon this subject. + +As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had +an opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something +in answer to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech +of mine delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he +brought forward an extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in +which he insisted that I was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that +his conclusion followed, that I was playing a double part, and +speaking in one region one way, and in another region another way. I +have not time now to dwell on this as long as I would like, and wish +only now to requote that portion of my speech at Charleston which the +Judge quoted, and then make some comments upon it. This he quotes +from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I believe correctly: + +"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of +bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the +white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of +making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold +office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in +addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the +white and black races which will forever forbid the two races living +together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as +they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the +position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in +favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." + +This, I believe, is the entire quotation from Charleston speech, as +Judge Douglas made it his comments are as follows: + +"Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right +when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares +that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a +superior and inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and +expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of +races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man +and negro were declared equal, and endowed by divine law with +equality. And down South, with the old-line Whigs, with the +Kentuckians, the Virginians and the Tennesseeans, he tells you that +there is a physical difference between 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 Judges comments. Now, I wish to show you that a month, +or only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech at +Charleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say +substantially the same thing It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa- +-and I will say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was +in, after a while--but at 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 +that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while I was +giving it, but afterward went away without getting it from me. At +the end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at Ottawa, +I made the comments which were reported at that time, and which I +will now read, and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the +same as Judge Douglas says were delivered by me down in Egypt. After +reading, I added these words: + +"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great 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 that argues me into his idea of perfect social and +political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastical +arrangement of words by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be +a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I +have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the +institution in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right +to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to +introduce political and social equality between the white and black +races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my +judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the +footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity +that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in +favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I +have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, +notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the +negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration +of Independence,--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 my equal and +the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." + +I 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 Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc., +but would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of +the Abolition element. I now make this 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 +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 print +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 +said 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 Declaration of Independence I am entirely borne out +by the sentiments advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I +have the book here to show it from but because I have already +occupied more time than I intended to do on that topic, I pass over +it. + +At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, +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 decision declaring that the States had +not the power to exclude slavery from their limits, he would adopt +and follow that decision as a rule of political action; and because +he had not directly answered that question, but had merely contented +himself with sneering at it, I again introduced it, and tried to show +that the conclusion that I stated followed inevitably and logically +from the proposition already decided by the court. Judge Douglas had +the privilege of replying to me at Galesburgh, and again he gave me +no direct answer as to whether he would or would not sustain such a +decision if made. I give him his 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 decided +by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thought +of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his +remarks upon this subject uses the language which I will now read. +Speaking of me, the Judge says: + +"He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry +slavery into the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself +says the contrary." And he adds: + +"Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that +holds that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their +opinions held the reverse." + +I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying +that I have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge +Douglas to lay his finger upon the place in the entire opinions of +the court where any one of them "says the contrary." It is very hard +to affirm a negative with entire confidence. I say, 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 was exactly, in substance, the +Nebraska Bill,--that the States had the exclusive 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 +have been voted down by the majority of the judges, just as Chase's +amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it +was offered to the Nebraska Bill. + +Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield +resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at +Ottawa, and commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as +presented, not genuine. Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to +be somewhat exasperated. He said he would never have believed that +Abraham Lincoln, as he kindly called me, would have attempted such a +thing as I had attempted upon that occasion; and among other +expressions which he used toward me, was that I dared to say forgery, +that I had dared to say forgery [turning to Judge Douglas]. Yes, +Judge, I did dare to say forgery. But in this political canvass the +Judge ought to remember that I was not the first who dared to say +forgery. At Jacksonville, Judge Douglas made a speech in answer to +something said by Judge Trumbull, and at the close of what he said +upon that subject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged his +evidence. He said, too, that he should not concern 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 said he would hold me responsible for it, I spread out before him +the statements of the evidence that Judge Trumbull had used, and I +asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger upon one piece +of all that evidence that he would say was a forgery! When I went +through with each and every piece, Judge Douglas did not dare then to +say that any piece of it was a 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 is the same thing with you.] + +Yes, sir, it is the same thing with me. I do dare to say forgery +when it is true, and don't dare to say forgery when it is false. Now +I will say here to this audience and to Judge Douglas I have not +dared to say he committed a forgery, and I never shall until I know +it; but I did dare to say--just to suggest to the Judge--that a +forgery had been committed, which by his own showing had been traced +to him and two of his friends. I dared to suggest to him that he had +expressly promised in one of his public speeches to investigate that +matter, and I dared to suggest to him that there was an implied +promise that when he investigated it he would make known the result. +I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could not expect to be quite +clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the time that promise was +made he had been with those friends, and had not kept his promise in +regard to the investigation and the report upon it. I am not a very +daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much scared +about it yet. When the Judge says he would n't have believed of +Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that he +reminds me of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the +purpose to treat me courteously; that touched me somewhat. It 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 audiences before which it +was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and +made his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some +sort of a reply to it. His second speech was made at Bloomington, in +which he commented upon my speech at Chicago and said that I had used +language ingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions, or words to +that effect. Now, I understand that this is an imputation upon my +veracity and my candor. I do not know what the Judge understood by +it, but in our first discussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a +bargain, somewhat corrupt in its character, upon Trumbull and +myself,--that we had entered into a bargain, one of the terms of +which was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize the old Democratic party, +and I (Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig party; I pretending +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 treating me in a dignified +way, as a man of honor and truth, as he now claims he was disposed to +treat me. Even after that time, at Galesburgh, when he brings +forward an extract from a speech made at Chicago and an extract from +a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I was trying to play a +double part, that I was trying to cheat the public, and get votes +upon one set of principles at one place, and upon another set of +principles at another place,--I do not understand but what he +impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does +this, I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground +for it, to keep my hands off of him. As soon as I learned that Judge +Douglas was disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of +my speeches that I should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble +resources I might have,--to adopt a new course with him. I was not +entirely sure that I should be able to hold my own with him, but I at +least had the purpose made to do as well as I could upon him; and now +I say that I will not be the first to cry "Hold." I think it +originated with the Judge, and when he quits, I probably will. But I +shall not ask any favors at all. He asks me, or he asks the +audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of personal +difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make a mistake, in one of +his early speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though +perhaps he did when he called me an "intelligent" man. It really +hurts me very much to suppose that I have wronged anybody on earth. +I again tell him, no! I very much prefer, when this canvass shall be +over, however it may result, that we at least part without any bitter +recollections of personal difficulties. + +The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was +pushing this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the +responsibility for the enormity of my principles. I say to the Judge +and this audience, now, that I will again state our principles, as +well as I hastily can, in all their enormity, and if the Judge +hereafter chooses to confine himself to a war upon these principles, +he will probably not find me departing 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 element. It is +the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon +it, that it is a dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in +regard to it. That controversy necessarily springs from difference +of opinion; and if we can learn exactly--can reduce to the lowest +elements--what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be +better prepared for discussing the different systems of policy that +we would propose in regard to that disturbing element. I suggest +that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest of terms, is no +other than the difference between the men who think slavery a wrong +and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican party think it +wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. We +think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the +States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to +say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole +nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy +that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any +other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and +so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of +an end to it. We have a due regard to the actual presence of it +amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any +satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about +it. I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the +nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at +all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that +we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to +do it. We go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it +where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us. +We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the +District of Columbia. Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it +should be in terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely +soon to agree to,--the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and +compensating the unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the +constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the +actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about +it. We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread +itself. We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its +present limits. We don't suppose that in doing this we violate +anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything +due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it. + +We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I +ought perhaps to address you a few words. We do not propose that +when Dred Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a +mob, will decide him to be free. We do not propose that, when any +other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be +slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property +thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a +political rule which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody +who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members of +Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually +concur with the principles of that decision. We do not propose to be +bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays +the foundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we +consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil +into the States themselves. We propose so resisting it as to have it +reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established upon this +subject. + +I will add this: that if there be any man who does not believe that +slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in +any one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while +on the other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is +impatient over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and +is impatient of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and +would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with +us. He will find his place somewhere else; for we have a due regard, +so far as we are capable of understanding them, for all these things. +This, gentlemen, as well as I can give it, is a plain statement of +our principles in all their enormity. +I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to +me,--a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore +it goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a +wrong. That policy is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is +the Democratic sentiment. If there be a doubt in the mind of any one +of this vast audience that this is really the central idea of the +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 +proposition. 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 anything wrong in it. If you will examine the arguments that are +made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea +that there is 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? Do you not constantly argue that this is not +the right place to oppose it? You say it must not be opposed in the +free States, because slavery is not here; it must not be 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 +place 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 Douglas Says he +"don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he +means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a +sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true +to say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything +wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery +is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up +as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever +community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is +perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but +if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody +has a right to do wrong. When he says that slave property and horse +and hog property are alike to be allowed to go into the Territories, +upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if there is +no difference between them as property; but if the one is property +held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no equality +between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in anyway you can, in +all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that +policy itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that +there is 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 REJOINDER. + +MY FRIENDS:--Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion +that he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said +in an hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in +half an hour all that he said in an hour and a half. + +I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public +annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of +policy in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it +shall last forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of +this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. +Judge Douglas asks you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or +rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as +our fathers made it, forever? In the first place, I insist that our +fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part +slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of +slavery existing here. They did not make it so but they left it so +because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When +Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the +fathers of the government made this nation part slave and part free, +he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: when +the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the +abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it +from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that +they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men +understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when +Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, +I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our +fathers made it? + +It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of +slavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers +placed it upon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly +said, that when this government was established, no one expected the +institution of slavery to last until this day, and that the men who +formed this government were wiser and better than the men of these +days; but the men of these days had experience which the fathers had +not, and that experience had taught them the invention of the +cotton-gin, and this had made the perpetuation of the institution of +slavery a necessity in this country. Judge Douglas could not let it +stand upon the basis which our fathers placed it, but removed it, and +put it upon the cotton-gin basis. It is a question, therefore, for +him and his friends to answer, why they could not let it remain where +the fathers of the government originally placed it. I hope nobody +has understood me as trying to sustain the doctrine that we have a +right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or any of the slave +States, about the institution of slavery,--thus giving the Judge an +opportunity to be eloquent and valiant against us in fighting for +their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech that I had +neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence +of, the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in +doing as they pleased with slavery Or any other existing institution. +Then what becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the rights of +States, which are assailed by no living man? + +But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge has +informed me, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is +laboring for my election to the United States Senate. This is news +to me,--not very ungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. W. H. +Carlin, who was on the stand]--I hope that Carlin will be elected to +the State Senate, and will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] +Carlin don't fall in, I perceive, and I suppose he will not do much +for me; but I am glad of all the support I can get, anywhere, if I +can get it without practicing any deception to obtain it. In respect +to this large portion of Judge Douglas's speech in which he tries to +show that in the controversy between himself and the Administration +party he is in the right, I do not feel myself at all competent or +inclined to answer him. I say to him, "Give it to them,--give it to +them just all you can!" and, on the other hand, I say to Carlin, and +Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in Hancock, "Give it to +Douglas, just pour it into him!" + +Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to +say a word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a +decision is made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude +slavery, he will support it or not. He obstinately refuses to say +what he will do in that case. The judges of the Supreme Court as +obstinately refused to say what they would do on this subject. +Before this I reminded him that at Galesburgh he said the judges had +expressly declared the contrary, and you remember that in my Opening +speech I told him I had the book containing that decision here, and I +would thank him to lay his finger on the place where any such thing +was said. He has occupied his hour and a half, and he has not +ventured to try to sustain his assertion. He never will. But he is +desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred Scott +decision. Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his +political friends find a way to reverse the decision of that same +court in favor of the constitutionality of the National Bank? Didn't +they find a way to do it so effectually that they have reversed it as +completely as any decision ever was reversed, so far as its practical +operation is concerned? + +And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the +decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father-- +old Governor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a +Secretary of State? Did he not appeal to the "MOBS," as he calls +them? Did he not make speeches in the lobby to show how villainous +that decision was, and how it ought to be overthrown? Did he not +succeed, too, in getting an act passed by the Legislature to have it +overthrown? And did n't he himself sit down on that bench as one of +the five added judges, who were to overslaugh the four old ones, +getting his name of "judge" in that way, and no other? If there is a +villainy in using disrespect or making opposition to Supreme Court +decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration. I +know of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know so well +about how much villainy it takes to oppose a decision of the Supreme +Court as our honorable friend Stephen A. Douglas. + +Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are +bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not. In +the sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you +what I have said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day. I have +said that as the Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and +that the extension of slavery is affirmed in the National +Constitution, they are bound to support it as such; and I will tell +you here that General Jackson once said each man was bound to support +the Constitution "as he understood it." Now, Judge Douglas +understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, +and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it +another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in +which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas believes that decision +to be correct, I will remake that argument if I have time to do so. +Let me talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in +the face. We will say you are a member of the Territorial +Legislature, and, like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to +take and hold slaves there is a constitutional right The first thing +you do is to swear you will support the Constitution, and all rights +guaranteed therein; that you will, whenever your neighbor needs your +legislation to support his constitutional rights, not withhold that +legislation. If you withhold that necessary legislation for the +support of the Constitution and constitutional rights, do you not +commit perjury? I ask every sensible man if that is not so? That is +undoubtedly just so, say what you please. Now, that is precisely +what Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutional right. Does +the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in legislating +may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly laws, +nullify that constitutional right? Does he mean to say that? Does +he mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in +law, that what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? +Does he mean that? The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas +has sung paeans to his "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his +Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter +Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery +about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented this sort of +do-nothing sovereignty,--that the people may exclude slavery by a +sort of "sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is +not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not +got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the +shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death? But at last, when it +is brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even that +thin decoction of it left. It is a presumption impossible in the +domain of thought. It is precisely no other than the putting of that +most unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same +space at the same time. The Dred Scott decision covers the whole +ground, and while it occupies it, there is no room even for the +shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground. + +Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a +previous occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an +extract from at Charleston, says it only shows that I practiced the +deception twice. Now, my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to +swallow that? Judge Douglas had said I had made a speech at +Charleston that I would not make up north, and I turned around and +answered him by showing I had made that same speech up north,--had +made it at Ottawa; made it in his hearing; made it in the Abolition +District,--in Lovejoy's District,--in the personal presence of +Lovejoy himself,--in the same atmosphere exactly in which I had made +my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much. + +Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation +from the Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me +to handle. Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the +Chicago speech I delivered two years ago in "Egypt," as he calls it. +It was down at Springfield. That speech is here in this book, and I +could turn to it and read it to you but for the lack of time. I have +not now the time to read it. ["Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I +am obliged to use discretion in disposing most advantageously of my +brief time. The Judge has taken great exception to my adopting the +heretical statement in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men +are created equal," and he has a great deal to say about negro +equality. I want to say that in sometimes alluding to the +Declaration of Independence, I have only uttered the sentiments that +Henry Clay used to hold. Allow me to occupy your time a moment with +what he said. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indiana, and +in a way that I suppose was very insulting, to liberate his slaves; +and he made a written reply to that application, and one portion of +it is in these words: + +"What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate +the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in +the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen +American colonies, that men are created equal. Now, as an abstract +principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it +is desirable in the original construction of society, and in +organized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundamental +principle." + +When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in +new countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we +should keep that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I +want a negro wife. He never can be brought to understand that there +is any middle ground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth +year, and have never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, +and I think I can live fifty centuries, for that matter, without +having had one for either. I maintain that you may take Judge +Douglas's quotations from my Chicago speech, and from my Charleston +speech, and the Galesburgh speech,--in his speech of to-day,--and +compare them over, and I am willing to trust them with you upon his +proposition that they show rascality or double-dealing. I deny that +they do. + +The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he +is disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath +would not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or +Thomas L. Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It +is certainly not for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these +gentlemen, but I will tell Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I +"dared" to say they proved a forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh +that the publication of these resolutions in the Illinois State +Register could not have been the result of accident, as the +proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable evidence of being done +by a man who knew it was a forgery; that it was a publication partly +taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and partly from +the proceedings of a convention at another place, which showed that +he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part of the +resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and +fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also +that his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time +and now is, must have known how it was done. Now, whether he did it, +or got some friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he +certainly knew all about it. I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in +his Freeport speech he had promised to investigate that matter. +Does he now say that he did not make that promise? I have a right +to ask why he did not keep it. I call upon him to tell here to-day +why he did not keep that promise? That fraud has been traced up so +that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier. There is little room +for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge good service, +and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. He desires +Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his newspaper. +He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; and when +this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where the +guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate +it, and implied that he would tell us the result of his +investigation, I demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, +if he did not; and if he did, why he won't tell the result. I call +upon him for that. + +This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned +about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against +Norton on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public +records of the country show that he himself attempted it upon +Trumbull a month before Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had +the opportunity of learning it from him, rather than he from Harris. +I now ask his attention to that part of the record on the case. My +friends, I am not disposed to detain you longer in regard to that +matter. + +I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another +matter I wish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered +there was a mistake in that case, he came forward magnanimously, +without my calling his attention to it, and explained it. I will +tell you how he became so magnanimous. When the newspapers of our +side had discovered and published it, and put it beyond his power to +deny it, then he came forward and made a virtue of necessity by +acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the point there was in +those resolutions, although never passed at Springfield, is retained +by their being passed at other localities. Is that true? He said I +had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech, that I was in the +convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutions touch me at +all? It strikes me there is some difference between holding a man +responsible for an act which he has not done and holding him +responsible for an act that he has +done. You will judge whether there is any difference in the "spots." +And he has taken credit for great magnanimity in coming forward and +acknowledging what is proved on him beyond even the capacity of Judge +Douglas to deny; and he has more capacity in that way than any other +living man. + +Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a +conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he +made. May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is +proven false on me as that was proven false on him. I will add a +little more than that, I will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man +shall be brought to believe that the charge is not true. I have +asked Judge Douglas's attention to certain matters of fact tending to +prove the charge of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery, and he says +he convinces me that this is all untrue because Buchanan was not in +the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott case had not +then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say the +Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say +that I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never +uttered it. [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated +affirmatively at Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say +I did, I tell you myself that I never said the "Democratic" owners of +Dred Scott got up the case. I have never pretended to know whether +Dred Scott's owners were Democrats, or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers +or Border Ruffians. I have said that there is evidence about the +case tending to show that it was a made-up case, for the purpose of +getting that decision. I have said that that evidence was very +strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be a slave, +the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the case +tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that +decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his +by that decision. But my time is out, and I can say no more. + + + +LAST JOINT DEBATE, + +AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858 + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have been somewhat, in my own mind, +complimented by a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech,--I mean +that portion which he devotes to the controversy 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 improving in regard to his war with the Administration. At +Quincy, day before yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the +Administration 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 +re-commend 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 leave this branch of +the discussion,--although I do not consider it much of my business, +anyway. 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; 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 the Missouri Compromise. I want to know if Buchanan has +not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? Has Douglas the +exclusive right, 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 Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it +was about me, it is my business to pay some attention 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 complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred +Scott case had decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the +United States. I have omitted by some accident heretofore to analyze +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 especially 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 foundation 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 my 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 +could not be a citizen; that 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 rights 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 into the State of Illinois and +holding 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 prohibited 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 them in a lump, taken in +connection with the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, and the +amendment 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 these 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 fabrication of my +purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between +the white and black races. His assertion 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 allusions. 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, without reading, to-day to a portion of a speech which I +delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that speech, as he has +made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken in 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 convey. 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 published 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 we did secure if we grasped for more; and having +by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the +principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let 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 institution 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 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 inalienable rights, among which are life, +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, constantly 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 myself chose to say in regard to it. + +At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, +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 +reassert 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 astonishment to me if they shall be able to find that one +human being three years ago had ever uttered the astounding sentiment +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 mouth of some Southern men for a period +of years, ending at last in that shameful, though rather 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 +believe 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 irresistible 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 Times, +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 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 men 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 Declaration. 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 authority. +While he was in Indiana a man presented a petition to liberate his +negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made a speech in answer to it, which I +suppose he carefully wrote out himself and 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 did n't suppose the negro was included in the +Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay said: + +"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to +liberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general +declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of +the thirteen American colonies, that 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 apprehend 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, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always probably +remain subject to the government of another portion of the community. + +"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, 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? Would Virginia and other Southern States have ever united in +a declaration 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 recognized 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 does it do so? In what +way has it a tendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an +abstract principle that all men are created equal, but that we cannot +practically apply it in all eases. 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. Clay 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. I wish every slave in the United States was in the +country of his 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 would be more +strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of +slavery amongst 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 Independence, is no such +statement on his part, but the declaration that it is a great +fundamental truth which should be constantly kept in view in the +organization of society and in societies already 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 I am 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 recognizing +what he recognized as the great principle of free government? + +And when this new principle--this new proposition that no human being +ever thought of three years ago--is brought forward, I combat it as +having an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as +having a tendency to dehumanize the 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 constantly 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, 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 would be more +strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of +slavery amongst 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 nothing 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 society in our Territories where it does not +exist, he would be opposed 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 hurtful to him. + +Judge 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 language: + +"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 a crisis shall have been reached +and passed. 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe +this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. +I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to +be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either +the opponents of slavery will arrest the 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." + +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 were 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? We were +to have no more agitation 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 that time to allay. We were +for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and that very +allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again. But was it +not understood or intimated with the "confident promise" of putting +an end to the slavery agitation? 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 Constitution, +every speech on that Nebraska Bill was full of his felicitations that +we were just at the end of the slavery agitation. 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 that Nebraska +policy, which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a +superior degree of self-government, beyond 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 earth 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 living, 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 be 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 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 the +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 its ultimate 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 regard to the prohibition of +the African slave-trade? It runs 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: + +"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the +several States which may be included within this Union, according to +their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding 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 consequence 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 purpose, 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 institution of slavery had passed from among us,-- +there should be nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty +suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed among +us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the government +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 that I desire to see the further +spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the +fathers have first done. 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 extinction, 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 puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful +thing within itself,--was introduced by the framers of the +Constitution. The exact truth is, that they found the institution +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 difficulty--the absolute impossibility-- +of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks me why we +cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the +government 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 government had adopted in +relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world, +the only wise policy, the only policy that we can ever safely +continue upon that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous +element masters us all and becomes a national institution,--I turn +upon him and ask him why he could not leave it 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 so 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. +I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and +slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude +by those who made the Constitution, did they make any war? If we had +no war 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 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 democratic 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 productions 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 +barrel 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 house,"--figuratively expressing the Union,--they tend to +sustain it; they are the props 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 amongst ourselves about the +cranberry laws of Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the +pine-lumber laws of Maine, or 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 amongst 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 spring 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 annexation of Texas. Go back to the troubles that led to +the Compromise 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 disturbance 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 +Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What disturbed the +Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has jarred +and shaken the great American Tract Society recently, 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 literature, in morals, in all the manifold +relations of life? Is this the work of politicians? Is that +irresistible power, which for fifty years has shaken the government +and agitated the people, to be stifled and subdued by pretending that +it is an exceedingly 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 disturbed 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 undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of +caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most +about--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 controversy 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 Government, to disturb +slavery in the States where it exists. We profess constantly that we +have no more inclination than belief in the power of the government +to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from +the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the Sates. +What 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 right +all his way, and you have no part of it your way. If he goes in and +makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence a slave State, is it +not time that those who desire to have it a free State were on equal +ground? Let me suggest it in a different way. How many Democrats +are there about here ["A thousand"] 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 Territory to go to? And when +hereafter, for any cause, the people in this place shall desire to +find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will +they find the place to go to? + +Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether +there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor +of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may +find a home,--may find some spot where they can better their +condition; where they can settle upon new soil and better their +condition in life. I am in favor of this, not merely (I must say it +here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, +but as an outlet for free white people everywhere the world over--in +which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the +world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life. + +I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, +what I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between +Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war +between the free and the slave States, there has been no issue +between us. So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of producing +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 institution of +slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it +as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution of +slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican +party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their +arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They +look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while +they contemplate it a, such, they nevertheless have due regard for +its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of +it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations +thrown about it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a +policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more +danger. They insist that it should, as far as may be, be treated as +a wrong; and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make +provision that it shall grow no larger. They also desire a policy +that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some time. These are the +views they entertain in regard to it as I understand them; and all +their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are brought +within this range. I have said, and I repeat it here, that if there +be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of +slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he +is misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man +amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its +actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it +suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional +obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our +platform. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He is +not placed properly with us. + +On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, +let me say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of +this Union save and except this very institution of slavery? What is +it that we hold most dear amongst us? Our own liberty and +prosperity. What has ever 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. That is the +peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers +themselves set us the example. + +On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it +as not being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I +do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range +positively asserts that it is right. That class will include all who +positively assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, +treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either 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 supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself "as much +opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with him. You +never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you consider as a +wrong do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you say it is +wrong--but your leader never does, and you quarrel with 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 the security +of "my place." There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, +although you say yourself it is a wrong. But, finally, you will +screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the slave +States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the slavery +question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor of it. +You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad +to see it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself. You all know +that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook +to introduce that system in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as +they could for the system of 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 exclude 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 pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering +a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. +The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate +the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong +about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he +"don't care whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories. +I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is +intended to be expressive of his individual 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 indifferent thing is voted +up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing +and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves +has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But +if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He +says that upon the score of equality slaves should be allowed to go +in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if +there is no difference between it and other property. If it and +other property are equal, this argument is entirely logical. But if +you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to +institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn over +everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in +the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the +Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the +shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,--it everywhere +carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. + +That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this +country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be +silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles-- +right and wrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles +that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will +ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, +and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in +whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, +"You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in +what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to +bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their +labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another +race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I was glad to express my +gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, to Judge Douglas,-- +that he looks to no end of the institution of slavery. That will +help the people to see where the struggle really is. It will +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 between the parties, this controversy will soon +be settled, and it will be done peaceably too. There will be no war, +no violence. It will be placed again where the wisest and best men +of the world placed it. Brooks of South Carolina once declared that +when this Constitution was framed its framers did not look to the +institution existing until this day. When he said this, I think he +stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history of the times. +But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men of these +days, yet the men of these days had experience which they had not, +and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this +country that slavery should be perpetual. I now say that, willingly +or unwillingly--purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been +the most prominent 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's cotton-gin +basis; placing it where he openly confesses he has no desire there +shall ever be an end of it. + +I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying +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 constantly said, before the decision, that +whether they could or not, was a question for the Supreme Court. But +after the court had made the decision he virtually says it is not a +question for the Supreme Court, but for the people. And how is it he +tells us they can exclude it? He says it needs "police regulations," +and that admits of "unfriendly legislation." Although it is a right +established by the Constitution of the United States to take a slave +into a Territory of the United States and hold him as property, yet +unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation, +and more especially if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can +practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition as a +matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional +obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face +before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial +Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to swear that he +will support the Constitution of the United States. His neighbor by +his side in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial +legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional right. Can he +withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment +of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Constitution of the +United States which he has sworn to support? Can he withhold it +without violating his oath? And, more especially, can he pass +unfriendly legislation to violate his oath? Why, this is a monstrous +sort of talk about the Constitution of the United States! There has +never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any +respectable man on earth. I do not believe it is a constitutional +right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States. I believe +the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it. Judge +Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision. +But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself +stands. I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine +uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. + +I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of +the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave +law,--that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be +made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the +Judge's language, it is a "barren right," which needs legislation +before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it +is guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional, I agree that the +legislation shall be granted to it, and that not that we like the +institution of slavery. We profess to have no taste for running and +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 legislation to support slavery in a +Territory, who believes it is a constitutional right to have it +there. No man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument +to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a +Fugitive State law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition +argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, +then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a +constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his +runaway returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The +one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to +be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be +correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by +unfriendly legislation, in spite of that constitutional right, +slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing +an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return +fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right +of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such +an arguement may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy +anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to +estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of +difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive and +the constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided +this Dred Scott decision is correct, I defy any man to make an +argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a +slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will +not equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an +argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not +such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all! + + + + +End of this Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Lincoln, v4 + diff --git a/old/4linc11.zip b/old/4linc11.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8b9b976 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/4linc11.zip |