initial commit of ebook 2656HEADmain

1 files changed, 3592 insertions, 0 deletions

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.