initial commit of ebook 2656HEADmain

6 files changed, 11108 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/old/20060816.2656.txt b/old/20060816.2656.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ada19cb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/20060816.2656.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,3624 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 4
+by Abraham Lincoln
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net
+
+
+Title: The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 4
+       The Lincoln-Douglas Debates II.
+
+Author: Abraham Lincoln
+
+Release Date: August 16, 2006 [EBook #2656]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WRITINGS OF LINCOLN ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by David Widger
+
+
+
+
+
+THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Volume Four
+
+CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION
+
+
+
+THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II
+
+
+
+LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH DEBATE,
+AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858.
+
+
+LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--It will be very difficult for an audience so large
+as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is
+important that as profound silence be preserved as possible.
+
+While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to
+know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality
+between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself
+on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was
+asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying
+something in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have
+been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political
+equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been,
+in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to
+hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in
+addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white
+and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living
+together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as
+they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the
+position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in
+favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say
+upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to
+have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do
+not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I
+must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just
+let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have
+had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite
+possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of
+negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a
+man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality,
+social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but
+one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be
+entirely satisfied of its correctness, and that is the case of Judge
+Douglas's old friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the
+remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this
+subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my
+friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it; but
+as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that
+they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the
+most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this
+State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I will add
+one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is
+any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of
+the negro and the white man can be made, except in the State
+Legislature,--not in the Congress of the United States; and as I do not
+really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge
+Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly
+approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be
+kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. I
+do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject.
+
+When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to Illinois
+in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in which he made
+what may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which I understand
+proved to be very offensive to him. The Judge was at that time out upon
+one of his speaking tours through the country, and when the news of it
+reached him, as I am informed, he denounced Judge Trumbull in rather
+harsh terms for having said what he did in regard to that matter. I was
+traveling at that time, and speaking at the same places with Judge
+Douglas on subsequent days, and when I heard of what Judge Trumbull had
+said of Douglas, and what Douglas had said back again, I felt that I was
+in a position where I could not remain entirely silent in regard to the
+matter. Consequently, upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and
+alluded to it in no other wise than to say that in regard to the charge
+brought by Trumbull against Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and
+sought to say nothing about it; that I did personally know Judge
+Trumbull; that I believed him to be a man of veracity; that I believed
+him to be a man of capacity sufficient to know very well whether an
+assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn from a set of facts, was
+true or false; and as a conclusion of my own from that, I stated it as my
+belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove everything
+he had said. I said this upon two or three occasions. Upon a subsequent
+occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before an audience at Alton, and
+upon that occasion not only repeated his charge against Douglas, but
+arrayed the evidence he relied upon to substantiate it. This speech was
+published at length; and subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas
+alluded to the matter. In the course of his speech, and near the close of
+it, he stated in regard to myself what I will now read:
+
+"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy
+his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, Lincoln
+having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold
+him (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders."
+
+I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitation
+to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally been
+my purpose to discuss that matter at all But in-as-much as it seems to be
+the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once in
+my life I will play General Jackson, and to the just extent I take the
+responsibility.
+
+I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that
+portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this
+matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at
+Jacksonville in answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of this
+debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I
+cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take half of my first
+hour to do so. I can only make some comments upon them. Trumbull's charge
+is in the following words:
+
+"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a
+constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the
+people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the
+plot."
+
+I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity
+of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he
+regards as sufficient evidence to substantiate this charge.
+
+It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon the
+floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference among the
+senators, in which conference it was determined to have an enabling act
+passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution under, and in this
+conference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a
+provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people after
+it should be formed. He then brings forward to show, and showing, as he
+deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with that
+clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause inserted
+into the bill, which would in its nature prevent a reference of the
+constitution back for a vote of the people,--if, indeed, upon a mere
+silence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to vote
+upon it. These are the general statements that he has made.
+
+I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he
+attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to
+examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he
+makes is:
+
+"Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and that
+I struck it out,--is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution upon
+them against their will?"
+
+His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill,
+he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the
+purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would say, in the first
+place, that that would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, as
+Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial bills have passed without
+having such a provision in them. I believe it is true, though I am not
+certain, that in some instances constitutions framed under such bills
+have been submitted to a vote of the people with the law silent upon the
+subject; but it does not appear that they once had their enabling acts
+framed with an express provision for submitting the constitution to be
+framed to a vote of the people, then that they were stricken out when
+Congress did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have
+been bills which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when
+was that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does
+the evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, when
+we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almost
+simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a conference
+among certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be
+passed leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to
+attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which it
+was agreed they should so frame the bill that there should be no
+submission of the constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge does
+not notice this part of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence,
+and then ascertain that simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a
+provision that did require it to be submitted, and put the two together,
+I think it will make a pretty fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did,
+as Trumbull says, enter into a plot to put in force a constitution for
+Kansas, without giving the people any opportunity of voting upon it.
+
+But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is
+this:
+
+"But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain
+a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted."
+
+This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I
+only want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that these
+words were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill from which
+it is alleged the provision was stricken out,--a bill which goes by the
+name of Toomb's, because he originally brought it forward? I ask why, if
+the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take
+the exact proposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not
+stricken out? Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the
+Toomb's bill, and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were
+stricken out. Judge Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull
+says were stricken out were not so stricken out, but he says there was no
+provision in the Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the
+people. We see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning
+of the words. He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie
+about these words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to
+it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if
+there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the
+question of fact as to whether these words were stricken out, I have
+before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the Toomb's bill, in
+which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says were in it were, in
+fact, originally there. If there be any dispute upon the fact, I have got
+the documents here to show they were there. If there be any controversy
+upon the sense of the words,--whether these words which were stricken out
+really constituted a provision for submitting the matter to a vote of the
+people,--as that is a matter of argument, I think I may as well use
+Trumbull's own argument. He says that the proposition is in these words:
+
+"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to
+the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their free
+acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and
+ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the
+constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said
+State of Kansas."
+
+Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill
+when it came back, and he says this was a provision for submitting the
+constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument is this:
+
+"Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the
+election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an election
+was to be held?"
+
+This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge
+at all, but he stands up and says there was no such proposition in that
+bill for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the
+people. Trumbull admits that the language is not a direct provision for
+submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another
+provision. He asks you how it is possible to ratify the land proposition
+at the election for the adoption of the constitution, if there was no
+election to be held for the adoption of the constitution. And he goes on
+to show that it is not any less a law because the provision is put in
+that indirect shape than it would be if it were put directly. But I
+presume I have said enough to draw attention to this point, and I pass it
+by also.
+
+Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and at
+very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in
+a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to be made would
+have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thought so then,
+what ground is there for anybody thinking otherwise now? Fellow-citizens,
+this much may be said in reply: That bill had been in the hands of a
+party to which Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of the
+committee at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had
+a printed copy of the original Toomb's bill. I have not the evidence on
+that point except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of
+business there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of
+altering, were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing,
+until the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterwards, when it was
+reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull in
+reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the bearings
+of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not
+follow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive,
+that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that what
+Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did? Suppose Trumbull
+had been in the plot with these other men, would that let Douglas out of
+it?  Would it exonerate Douglas that Trumbull did n't then perceive he
+was in the plot? He also asks the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose
+to amend the bill, if he thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe
+that everything Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection
+with this question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor
+of the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his
+friends. He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to anything
+on this subject would receive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull
+did bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the fact that there
+was no provision for submitting the constitution about to be made for the
+people of Kansas to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture to say
+that Judge Douglas made some reply to this speech of Judge Trumbull's,
+but he never noticed that part of it at all. And so the thing passed by.
+I think, then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not
+throw much blame upon him; and if it did, it does not reach the question
+of fact as to what Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull
+had himself been in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who
+were in it from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the
+trial it should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder,
+but that the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at all
+touch the question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck that
+they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to be guilty
+too.
+
+Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is,
+that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the fact
+that the bill had the provision in it for submitting the constitution to
+a vote of the people when it went into his Judge Douglas's hands, that it
+was missing when he reported it to the Senate, and that in a public
+speech he had subsequently said the alterations in the bill were made
+while it was in committee, and that they were made in consultation
+between him (Judge Douglas) and Toomb's. And Judge Douglas goes on to
+comment upon the fact of Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the
+proposition that the bill not only came back with that proposition
+stricken out, but with another clause and another provision in it, saying
+that "until the complete execution of this Act there shall be no election
+in said Territory,"--which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the
+provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but was
+adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from
+exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the question.
+Now, in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the issue, that he
+shifts his ground,--and I believe he uses the term that, "it being proven
+false, he has changed ground," I call upon all of you, when you come to
+examine that portion of Trumbull's speech (for it will make a part of
+mine), to examine whether Trumbull has shifted his ground or not. I say
+he did not shift his ground, but that he brought forward his original
+charge and the evidence to sustain it yet more fully, but precisely as he
+originally made it. Then, in addition thereto, he brought in a new piece
+of evidence. He shifted no ground. He brought no new piece of evidence
+inconsistent with his former testimony; but he brought a new piece,
+tending, as he thought, and as I think, to prove his proposition. To
+illustrate: A man brings an accusation against another, and on trial the
+man making the charge introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a
+second trial he introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as
+before, and a third witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition
+gives further testimony corroborative of the charge. So with Trumbull.
+There was no shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony between
+the new piece of evidence and what he originally introduced.
+
+But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last
+provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and a
+substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is true
+that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. Trumbull
+has not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it was so
+stricken out. He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as Judge Douglas
+reported it back. It was amended somewhat in the Senate before it passed,
+but I am speaking of it as he brought it back." Now, when Judge Douglas
+parades the fact that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it
+came back, he asserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull
+has only said that he originally put it in, not that he did not strike it
+out. Trumbull says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee.
+When it came back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were
+made by him in consultation with Toomb's. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as
+his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants to
+contradict Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not put it
+in, and not that he did n't take it out again. It is said that a bear is
+sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I presume it was in
+this case. I presume the truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward
+took it out. That, I take it, is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says
+one thing, Douglas says another thing, and the two don't contradict one
+another at all. The question is, what did he put it in for? In the first
+place, what did he take the other provision out of the bill for,--the
+provision which Trumbull argued was necessary for submitting the
+constitution to a vote of the people? What did he take that out for; and,
+having taken it out, what did he put this in for? I say that in the run
+of things it is not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly
+expedient for Judge Douglas to take that latter clause out again. The
+question that Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in; and he
+don't meet Trumbull at all unless he denies that.
+
+In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses this
+language toward Judge Trumbull. He says:
+
+"He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the
+record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge."
+
+Well, that is a pretty serious statement--Trumbull forges his evidence
+from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say that it is not
+true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has brought
+forward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to,
+examine whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had
+the bill or document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says
+that is a copy of the Toomb's bill,--the amendment offered by Toomb's. He
+says that is a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went into Judge
+Douglas's hands. Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? That is
+one thing Trumbull brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from
+beginning to end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does Douglas say
+that is a forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent
+examination upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another document
+like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came back in
+the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas say
+that is a forgery? Does he say it in his general sweeping charge? Does he
+say so now? If he does not, then take this Toomb's bill and the bill in
+the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see that the
+provision is in the one and not in the other; it leaves the inference
+inevitable that it was taken out.
+
+But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull's
+other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull says
+there are in this original Toomb's bill these words:
+
+"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to
+the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free
+acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and
+ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the
+constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said
+State of Kansas."
+
+Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper here
+and see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along,
+that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate,
+December 9, 1857:
+
+"I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the
+bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, whether
+the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the
+people. It was held by those most intelligent on the subject that, in
+view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of
+any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better there
+should be no such provision in the Toomb's bill; and it was my
+understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the Convention would
+make a constitution, and send it here, without submitting it to the
+popular vote."
+
+Then Trumbull follows on:
+
+"In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857
+[Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said:
+
+"'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or
+confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it
+was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollection
+was clear that I left the conference under the impression that it had
+been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the
+agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this
+Convention. This impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of
+the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had
+great aversion; but with the hope of accomplishing a great good, and as
+no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived
+this objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items
+of testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their
+submission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the
+senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the
+admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as
+follows:
+
+"That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to
+the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free
+acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and
+ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the
+constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said
+State of Kansas."
+
+The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of
+June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same
+section word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the
+conference referred to; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reported
+the Toombs bill to the Senate with amendments, the next morning, it did
+not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the
+Convention that the constitution should be approved by the people. The
+words "and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the
+constitution" had been stricken out.
+
+Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor of
+the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the
+Congressional Globe on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is a
+forgery? Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional Globe?
+What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his evidence from
+beginning to end? So again he says in another place that Judge Douglas,
+in his speech, December 9, 1857 (Congressional Globe, part I., page 15),
+stated:
+
+"That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a
+bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas
+to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently the
+senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for my
+bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in
+consultation, was passed by the Senate."
+
+Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and is
+recorded in the Congressional Globe. Is it a forgery? Is it there or not?
+It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take these pieces of
+evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he dare do it.
+
+[A voice: "He will."]
+
+Well, sir, you had better not commit him. He gives other
+quotations,--another from Judge Douglas. He says:
+
+"I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member of
+the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union,
+from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the
+people. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so
+understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it
+was not, they would have made the point on it; and if they had made it,
+we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a
+discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take
+it for granted that that would be done, which ought in fairness to have
+been done."
+
+Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. Does
+Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true? Trumbull says
+somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any one who
+will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the notice of
+those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that provision; and
+then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge Douglas, where Judge
+Trumbull uses this language:
+
+"Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probably
+recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had objected to the
+Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for a submission of the
+constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found
+in the same volume of the Globe, page 22, in which he says: 'That the
+bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention was called to
+that about the time it was passed; and I took the fair construction to
+be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the
+constitution would be submitted to the people.'
+
+"Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before
+made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that
+it was a new discovery, you will determine."
+
+So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and yet
+maintain his position that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from beginning
+to end." I will remark that I have not got these Congressional Globes
+with me. They are large books, and difficult to carry about, and if Judge
+Douglas shall say that on these points where Trumbull has quoted from
+them there are no such passages there, I shall not be able to prove they
+are there upon this occasion, but I will have another chance. Whenever he
+points out the forgery and says, "I declare that this particular thing
+which Trumbull has uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then
+my attention will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the
+contest, stating now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I
+will find every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the
+question is, How can Douglas call that a forgery? How can he make out
+that it is a forgery? What is a forgery? It is the bringing forward
+something in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect when
+it is altogether untrue. If you come forward with my note for one hundred
+dollars when I have never given such a note, there is a forgery. If you
+come forward with a letter purporting to be written by me which I never
+wrote, there is another forgery. If you produce anything in writing or in
+print saying it is so and so, the document not being genuine, a forgery
+has been committed. How do you make this forgery when every piece of the
+evidence is genuine?  If Judge Douglas does say these documents and
+quotations are false and forged, he has a full right to do so; but until
+he does it specifically, we don't know how to get at him. If he does say
+they are false and forged, I will then look further into it, and presume
+I can procure the certificates of the proper officers that they are
+genuine copies. I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found
+exactly where Trumbull says it is. Then I leave it to you if Judge
+Douglas, in making his sweeping charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is
+forged from beginning to end, at all meets the case,--if that is the way
+to get at the facts. I repeat again, if he will point out which one is a
+forgery, I will carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one of
+them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it any
+longer. I have always wanted to deal with everyone I meet candidly and
+honestly. If I have made any assertion not warranted by facts, and it is
+pointed out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully. But I do not choose to
+see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and the evidence he has brought forward
+branded in general terms "a forgery from beginning to end." This is not
+the legal way of meeting a charge, and I submit it to all intelligent
+persons, both friends of Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is.
+
+The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill that went into his hands
+had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to the
+people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision for a
+submission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was known that
+the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge Douglas, it was
+not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the declaration, when you
+got it, for a submission of the constitution to the people. And now, my
+direct question to Judge Douglas is, to answer why, if he deemed the bill
+silent on this point, he found it necessary to strike out those
+particular harmless words. If he had found the bill silent and without
+this provision, he might say what he does now. If he supposes it was
+implied that the constitution would be submitted to a vote of the people,
+how could these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary
+to strike them out? How could he infer that a submission was still
+implied, after its express provision had been stricken from the bill? I
+find the bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it
+out, and although he took out the other provision preventing a submission
+to a vote of the people, I ask, Why did you first put it in? I ask him
+whether he took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges was in
+the bill. If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he did it for.
+It looks to us as if he had altered the bill. If it looks differently to
+him,--if he has a different reason for his action from the one we assign
+him--he can tell it. I insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent
+upon that point when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it.
+
+I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three
+minutes of being out. I presume it is expired now; I therefore close.
+
+
+
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER.
+
+FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour answer
+to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried one. I shall
+only be able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by Judge
+Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I shall have to totally
+omit others for the want of time.
+
+Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an
+answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far
+as I know the Judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no
+occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not
+in favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying a
+few words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine,
+which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro
+could not possibly be made a citizen; and without saying what was my
+ground of complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of
+complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly
+everything that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality
+between the negroes and the white people. If any one will read my speech,
+he will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course
+of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had
+to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I
+did not tell them myself. Now, my opinion is that the different States
+have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the
+United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they
+have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power, I should be
+opposed to the exercise of it. That is all I have to say about it.
+
+Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speeches
+south; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north and
+recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very different cast
+of sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. I will not
+charge upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but I call
+upon every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and I
+dare him to point out any difference between my speeches north and south.
+While I am here perhaps I ought to say a word, if I have the time, in
+regard to the latter portion of the Judge's speech, which was a sort of
+declamation in reference to my having said I entertained the belief that
+this government would not endure half slave and half free. I have said
+so, and I did not say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It
+perhaps would require more time than I have now to set forth these
+reasons in detail; but let me ask you a few questions. Have we ever had
+any peace on this slavery question? When are we to have peace upon it, if
+it is kept in the position it now occupies? How are we ever to have peace
+upon it? That is an important question. To be sure, if we will all stop,
+and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march on in their present
+career until they plant the institution all over the nation, here and
+wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be
+peace. But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is going to get the people to
+do that? They have been wrangling over this question for at least forty
+years. This was the cause of the agitation resulting in the Missouri
+Compromise; this produced the troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the
+acquisition of the territory acquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was
+the trouble which was quieted by the Compromise of 1850, when it was
+settled "forever" as both the great political parties declared in their
+National Conventions. That "forever" turned out to be just four years,
+when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. When is it likely to come to an
+end? He introduced the Nebraska Bill in 1854 to put another end to the
+slavery agitation. He promised that it would finish it all up
+immediately, and he has never made a speech since, until he got into a
+quarrel with the President about the Lecompton Constitution, in which he
+has not declared that we are just at the end of the slavery agitation.
+But in one speech, I think last winter, he did say that he did n't quite
+see when the end of the slavery agitation would come. Now he tells us
+again that it is all over and the people of Kansas have voted down the
+Lecompton Constitution. How is it over? That was only one of the attempts
+at putting an end to the slavery agitation--one of these "final
+settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formed a constitution that
+she is likely to come in under? Is not the slavery agitation still an
+open question in that Territory? Has the voting down of that constitution
+put an end to all the trouble? Is that more likely to settle it than
+every one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery agitation?
+Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more foretell
+where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can see the end
+of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas Bill was introduced four years
+and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end we may say
+we are four years and a half nearer the end. So, too, we can say we are
+four years and a half nearer the end of the world, and we can just as
+clearly see the end of the world as we can see the end of this agitation.
+The Kansas settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should sink to-day,
+and leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed
+question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of putting
+an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon the
+basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out of our new
+Territories,--to restrict it forever to the old States where it now
+exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the
+course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to the
+slavery agitation.
+
+The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his
+friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease
+speaking of it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the common
+matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and
+cattle. But while it drives on in its state of progress as it is now
+driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured
+the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery
+agitation until it takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when
+it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in a
+year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way
+ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years at least;
+but that it will occur in the best way for both races, in God's own good
+time, I have no doubt. But, my friends, I have used up more of my time
+than I intended on this point.
+
+Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a
+bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854: Judge
+Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, except the
+speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he told a
+cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral principles that
+Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the simple truth. I do not
+care greatly for the story, but this is the truth of it: and I have twice
+told Judge Douglas to his face that from beginning to end there is not
+one word of truth in it. I have called upon him for the proof, and he
+does not at all meet me as Trumbull met him upon that of which we were
+just talking, by producing the record. He did n't bring the record
+because there was no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready
+to indorse Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I
+reply that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would not be likely
+to indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity because
+neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years that I have
+known Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his word or tell a
+falsehood large or small. It is for that reason that I indorse Lyman
+Trumbull.
+
+[Mr. JAMES BROWN (Douglas postmaster): "What does Ford's History say
+about him?"]
+
+Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My own
+recollection is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful terms
+in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal worse of
+Judge Douglas. I refer you, sir, to the History for examination.
+
+Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on the
+part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to attend to
+that suggestion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly accused of dealing
+illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either in court or in a
+political canvass or anywhere else. I would despise myself if I supposed
+myself ready to deal less liberally with an adversary than I was willing
+to be treated myself. Judge Douglas in a general way, without putting it
+in a direct shape, revives the old charge against me in reference to the
+Mexican War. He does not take the responsibility of putting it in a very
+definite form, but makes a general reference to it. That charge is more
+than ten years old. He complains of Trumbull and myself because he says
+we bring charges against him one or two years old. He knows, too, that in
+regard to the Mexican War story the more respectable papers of his own
+party throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and
+acknowledge that it was a lie.
+
+[Here Mr. LINCOLN turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting
+HON. ORLANDO B. FICKLIN, led him forward and said:]
+
+I do not mean to do anything with Mr. FICKLIN except to present his face
+and tell you that he personally knows it to be a lie! He was a member of
+Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [FICKLIN] knows that
+whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine which would
+indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such
+indorsement and voted against it; but I never voted against the supplies
+for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a
+dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise for the benefit of
+the soldiers I gave all the votes that FICKLIN or Douglas did, and
+perhaps more.
+
+[Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter:
+Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas
+and myself. In reference to this Mexican War, my recollection is that
+when Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun of
+Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican War was unnecessary
+and unconstitutionally commenced by the President-my recollection is that
+Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.]
+
+That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution censuring
+the President for the manner in which the war was begun. You know they
+have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the
+soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their country. I say that
+FICKLIN knows it is false. When that charge was brought forward by the
+Chicago Times, the Springfield Register [Douglas's organ] reminded the
+Times that the charge really applied to John Henry; and I do know that
+John Henry is now making speeches and fiercely battling for Judge
+Douglas. If the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of setoff to
+what I said to-day in reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him
+that he made this charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He
+brought this forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and
+in the opening speech that Judge Douglas made he attacked me in regard to
+a matter ten years old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about people
+making charges against him only two years old!
+
+The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon
+this charge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in my
+opening speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said that when
+Judge Douglas was speaking at place--where I spoke on the succeeding day
+he used very harsh language about this charge. Two or three times
+afterward I said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's veracity and
+intelligence; and my own opinion was, from what I knew of the character
+of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his position and prove
+whatever he had stated to be true. This I repeated two or three times;
+and then I dropped it, without saying anything more on the subject for
+weeks--perhaps a month. I passed it by without noticing it at all till I
+found, at Jacksonville, Judge Douglas in the plenitude of his power is
+not willing to answer Trumbull and let me alone, but he comes out there
+and uses this language: "He should not hereafter occupy his time in
+refuting such charges made by Trumbull but that, Lincoln having indorsed
+the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln]
+responsible for the slanders." What was Lincoln to do? Did he not do
+right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas here, to
+tell him he was ready for the responsibility? I ask a candid audience
+whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the assailant rather than I?
+Here I meet him face to face, and say I am ready to take the
+responsibility, so far as it rests on me.
+
+Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the question
+whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge
+Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it? You all heard me call upon
+him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery. Does he say
+that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a
+forgery? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported
+by himself is a forgery, or what is presented as a transcript from the
+Globe of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a forgery? Does he say
+the quotations from his own speech are forgeries? Does he say this
+transcript from Trumbull's speech is a forgery?
+
+["He didn't deny one of them."]
+
+I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of a
+story is true the whole story turns out false. I take it these people
+have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is playing
+cuttle-fish, a small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself
+when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid, which makes the water
+so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Ain't the Judge
+playing the cuttle-fish?
+
+Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge
+Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech of
+to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces of
+testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown to be
+such. Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery. Then I ask the
+original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is it
+possible that the whole is a falsehood?
+
+In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision
+into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the people,
+what was his answer? He comes here and reads from the Congressional Globe
+to show that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill.
+Why, Trumbull has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull says he
+[Douglas] put it in; and it is no answer to the charge to say he
+afterwards took it out. Both are perhaps true. It was in regard to that
+thing precisely that I told him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows
+you that by his introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to
+that assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not
+specially say that Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case,
+does it answer Trumbull? I assert that you [pointing to an individual]
+are here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you
+were in Mattoon yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your head,
+and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole
+force of Douglas's argument.
+
+Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that
+Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a
+constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge
+Douglas deny that fact? Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull
+reads was put in that bill? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he
+dare to deny that? He does not, and I have the right to repeat the
+question,--Why Judge Douglas took it out? Bigler has said there was a
+combination of certain senators, among whom he did not include Judge
+Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas Bill should have a clause
+in it not to have the constitution formed under it submitted to a vote of
+the people. He did not say that Douglas was among them, but we prove by
+another source that about the same time Douglas comes into the Senate
+with that provision stricken out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot say
+they were all working in concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing
+was agreed upon and done with a mutual understanding after the
+conference; and while we do not know that it was absolutely so, yet it
+looks so probable that we have a right to call upon the man who knows the
+true reason why it was done to tell what the true reason was. When he
+will not tell what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude of an
+accused thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to
+account refuses to tell where he got them. Not only is this the evidence,
+but when he comes in with the bill having the provision stricken out, he
+tells us in a speech, not then but since, that these alterations and
+modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, in consultation with
+Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells us the same to-day. He says
+there were certain modifications made in the bill in committee that he
+did not vote for. I ask you to remember, while certain amendments were
+made which he disapproved of, but which a majority of the committee voted
+in, he has himself told us that in this particular the alterations and
+modifications were made by him, upon consultation with Toombs. We have
+his own word that these alterations were made by him, and not by the
+committee. Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about
+coming to the exact question? What is the reason he will not tell you
+anything about How it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that he remembers
+it being made at all? Why does he stand playing upon the meaning of words
+and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? If he can explain all
+this, but leaves it unexplained, I have the right to infer that Judge
+Douglas understood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering that
+bill through, to make a constitution, and have Kansas come into the Union
+with that constitution, without its being submitted to a vote of the
+people. If he will explain his action on this question, by giving a
+better reason for the facts that happened than he has done, it will be
+satisfactory. But until he does that--until he gives a better or more
+plausible reason than he has offered against the evidence in the case--I
+suggest to him it will not avail him at all that he swells himself up,
+takes on dignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word
+in Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has
+only arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of
+reasoning. There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends on
+Trumbull's word. If you have ever studied geometry, you remember that by
+a course of reasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a triangle are
+equal to two right angles. Euclid has shown you how to work it out. Now,
+if you undertake to disprove that proposition, and to show that it is
+erroneous, would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar? They
+tell me that my time is out, and therefore I close.
+
+
+
+
+FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH,
+
+OCTOBER 7, 1858
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY.
+
+MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge
+Douglas has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in
+print. I do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all.---If I had not
+been interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I was able to
+make to a very large portion of it had already been more than once made
+and published. There has been an opportunity afforded to the public to
+see our respective views upon the topics discussed in a large portion of
+the speech which he has just delivered. I make these remarks for the
+purpose of excusing myself for not passing over the entire ground that
+the Judge has traversed. I however desire to take up some of the points
+that he has attended to, and ask your attention to them, and I shall
+follow him backwards upon some notes which I have taken, reversing the
+order, by beginning where he concluded.
+
+The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and insisted
+that negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that it is a
+slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that negroes were
+meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possible to believe that Mr.
+Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have supposed himself
+applying the language of that instrument to the negro race, and yet held
+a portion of that race in slavery? Would he not at once have freed them?
+I only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech (and that,
+too, very briefly, for I shall not detain myself, or you, upon that point
+for any great length of time), that I believe the entire records of the
+world, from the date of the Declaration of Independence up to within
+three years ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from
+one single man, that the negro was not included in the Declaration of
+Independence; I think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said
+so, that Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that
+any member of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the
+whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present policy of
+the Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that
+affirmation. And I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience that while
+Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking
+upon this very subject he used the strong language that "he trembled for
+his country when he remembered that God was just"; and I will offer the
+highest premium in my power to Judge Douglas if he will show that he, in
+all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson.
+
+The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's comments
+upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call our public
+meetings as Republican meetings; and he instances Tazewell County as one
+of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called a public meeting
+and have not dared to name it a Republican meeting. He instances Monroe
+County as another, where Judge Trumbull and Jehu Baker addressed the
+persons whom the Judge assumes to be the friends of Lincoln calling them
+the "Free Democracy." I have the honor to inform Judge Douglas that he
+spoke in that very county of Tazewell last Saturday, and I was there on
+Tuesday last; and when he spoke there, he spoke under a call not
+venturing to use the word "Democrat." [Turning to Judge Douglas.] what
+think you of this?
+
+So, again, there is another thing to which I would ask the Judge's
+attention upon this subject. In the contest of 1856 his party delighted
+to call themselves together as the "National Democracy"; but now, if
+there should be a notice put up anywhere for a meeting of the "National
+Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not come. They would not
+suppose themselves invited. They would understand that it was a call for
+those hateful postmasters whom he talks about.
+
+Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine which
+Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in very great
+contrast to each other. Those speeches have been before the public for a
+considerable time, and if they have any inconsistency in them, if there
+is any conflict in them, the public have been able to detect it. When the
+Judge says, in speaking on this subject, that I make speeches of one sort
+for the people of the northern end of the State, and of a different sort
+for the southern people, he assumes that I do not understand that my
+speeches will be put in print and read north and south. I knew all the
+while that the speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at
+Jonesboro and the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all
+the reading and intelligent men in the community would see them and know
+all about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose,
+that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will have
+it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality between
+the white and black races which justifies us in making them slaves, we
+must then insist that there is a degree of equality that requires us to
+make them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken a broad distinction
+in regard to that matter; and that is all there is in these different
+speeches which he arrays here; and the entire reading of either of the
+speeches will show that that distinction was made. Perhaps by taking two
+parts of the same speech he could have got up as much of a conflict as
+the one he has found. I have all the while maintained that in so far as
+it should be insisted that there was an equality between the white and
+black races that should produce a perfect social and political equality,
+it was an impossibility. This you have seen in my printed speeches, and
+with it I have said that in their right to "life, liberty, and the
+pursuit of happiness," as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the
+inferior races are our equals. And these declarations I have constantly
+made in reference to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and
+consider when we are legislating about any new country which is not
+already cursed with the actual presence of the evil,--slavery. I have
+never manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the
+actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence of
+slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have insisted that,
+in legislating for new countries where it does not exist there is no just
+rule other than that of moral and abstract right! With reference to those
+new countries, those maxims as to the right of a people to "life,
+liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were the just rules to be
+constantly referred to. There is no misunderstanding this, except by men
+interested to misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an
+intelligent and reading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it,
+and then judge whether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I
+advanced hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different
+portions of the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing
+as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free
+from all error in the opinions I advance.
+
+The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction
+between his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national party,
+ours a sectional one. He does this in asking the question whether this
+country has any interest in the maintenance of the Republican party. He
+assumes that our party is altogether sectional, that the party to which
+he adheres is national; and the argument is, that no party can be a
+rightful party--and be based upon rightful principles--unless it can
+announce its principles everywhere. I presume that Judge Douglas could
+not go into Russia and announce the doctrine of our national Democracy;
+he could not denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies
+in Russia; and it may be true of this country that in some places we may
+not be able to proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of
+democracy, because there is a section so directly opposed to it that they
+will not tolerate us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of
+a doctrine that in some places people won't let you proclaim it? Is that
+the way to test the truth of any doctrine? Why, I understood that at one
+time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a certain
+favorite doctrine of his. I commend to his consideration the question
+whether he takes that as a test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to
+preach.
+
+There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little
+while on this occasion. What has always been the evidence brought forward
+to prove that the Republican party is a sectional party? The main one was
+that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did not let the
+Republicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That has been the main
+evidence brought forward,--that they had no supporters, or substantially
+none, in the Slave States. The South have not taken hold of our
+principles as we announce them; nor does Judge Douglas now grapple with
+those principles. We have a Republican State Platform, laid down in
+Springfield in June last stating our position all the way through the
+questions before the country. We are now far advanced in this canvass.
+Judge Douglas and I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have
+now for the fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I
+have not found either Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of
+the Republican platform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is
+wrong. I ask you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away from the
+platform of principles to the fact that he can find people somewhere who
+will not allow us to announce those principles. If he had great
+confidence that our principles were wrong, he would take hold of them and
+demonstrate them to be wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he
+has of their being wrong is in the fact that there are people who won't
+allow us to preach them. I ask again, is that the way to test the
+soundness of a doctrine?
+
+I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality he
+is himself fast becoming sectional. I ask his attention to the fact that
+his speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio River as they
+have formerly gone there I ask his attention to the fact that he
+felicitates himself to-day that all the Democrats of the free States are
+agreeing with him, while he omits to tell us that the Democrats of any
+slave State agree with him. If he has not thought of this, I commend to
+his consideration the evidence in his own declaration, on this day, of
+his becoming sectional too. I see it rapidly approaching. Whatever may be
+the result of this ephemeral contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I
+see the day rapidly approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he
+has been thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will
+be crowded down his own throat.
+
+Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his
+speech) about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principles of the
+Nebraska Bill, although I have often presented my views upon that
+subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you
+please, detain you a little with them. I have always maintained, so far
+as I was able, that there was nothing of the principle of the Nebraska
+Bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all,--nothing whatever. Where can you
+find the principle of the Nebraska Bill in that Compromise? If anywhere,
+in the two pieces of the Compromise organizing the Territories of New
+Mexico and Utah. It was expressly provided in these two acts that when
+they came to be admitted into the Union they should be admitted with or
+without slavery, as they should choose, by their own constitutions.
+Nothing was said in either of those acts as to what was to be done in
+relation to slavery during the Territorial existence of those
+Territories, while Henry Clay constantly made the declaration (Judge
+Douglas recognizing him as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old
+Mexican laws would control that question during the Territorial
+existence, and that these old Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can that
+be used as a principle for declaring that during the Territorial
+existence as well as at the time of framing the constitution the people,
+if you please, might have slaves if they wanted them? I am not discussing
+the question whether it is right or wrong; but how are the New Mexican
+and Utah laws patterns for the Nebraska Bill? I maintain that the
+organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general principle
+at all. It had no feature of establishing a general principle. The acts
+to which I have referred were a part of a general system of Compromises.
+They did not lay down what was proposed as a regular policy for the
+Territories, only an agreement in this particular case to do in that way,
+because other things were done that were to be a compensation for it.
+They were allowed to come in in that shape, because in another way it was
+paid for, considering that as a part of that system of measures called
+the Compromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen acts. It
+included the admission of California as a free State, which was kept out
+of the Union for half a year because it had formed a free constitution.
+It included the settlement of the boundary of Texas, which had been
+undefined before, which was in itself a slavery question; for if you
+pushed the line farther west, you made Texas larger, and made more slave
+territory; while, if you drew the line toward the east, you narrowed the
+boundary and diminished the domain of slavery, and by so much increased
+free territory. It included the abolition of the slave trade in the
+District of Columbia. It included the passage of a new Fugitive Slave
+law. All these things were put together, and, though passed in separate
+acts, were nevertheless, in legislation (as the speeches at the time will
+show), made to depend upon each other. Each got votes with the
+understanding that the other measures were to pass, and by this system of
+compromise, in that series of measures, those two bills--the New Mexico
+and Utah bills--were passed: and I say for that reason they could not be
+taken as models, framed upon their own intrinsic principle, for all
+future Territories. And I have the evidence of this in the fact that
+Judge Douglas, a year afterward, or more than a year afterward, perhaps,
+when he first introduced bills for the purpose of framing new
+Territories, did not attempt to follow these bills of New Mexico and
+Utah; and even when he introduced this Nebraska Bill, I think you will
+discover that he did not exactly follow them. But I do not wish to dwell
+at great length upon this branch of the discussion. My own opinion is,
+that a thorough investigation will show most plainly that the New Mexico
+and Utah bills were part of a system of compromise, and not designed as
+patterns for future Territorial legislation; and that this Nebraska Bill
+did not follow them as a pattern at all.
+
+The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any odious
+distinctions between free and slave States. I am altogether unaware that
+the Republicans are in favor of making any odious distinctions between
+the free and slave States. But there is still a difference, I think,
+between Judge Douglas and the Republicans in this. I suppose that the
+real difference between Judge Douglas and his friends, and the
+Republicans on the contrary, is, that the Judge is not in favor of making
+any difference between slavery and liberty; that he is in favor of
+eradicating, of pressing out of view, the questions of preference in this
+country for free or slave institutions; and consequently every sentiment
+he utters discards the idea that there is any wrong in slavery.
+Everything that emanates from him or his coadjutors in their course of
+policy carefully excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in
+slavery. All their arguments, if you will consider them, will be seen to
+exclude the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in slavery. If
+you will take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed
+sentences expressed by him,--as his declaration that he "don't care
+whether slavery is voted up or down,"--you will see at once that this is
+perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong. If you do
+admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he don't care
+whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas declares that if
+any community wants slavery they have a right to have it. He can say that
+logically, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery; but if you admit
+that there is a wrong in it, he cannot logically say that anybody has a
+right to do wrong. He insists that upon the score of equality the owners
+of slaves and owners of property--of horses and every other sort of
+property--should be alike, and hold them alike in a new Territory. That
+is perfectly logical if the two species of property are alike and are
+equally founded in right. But if you admit that one of them is wrong, you
+cannot institute any equality between right and wrong. And from this
+difference of sentiment,--the belief on the part of one that the
+institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that belief which looks
+to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong, and this other sentiment,
+that it is no wrong, and a policy sprung from that sentiment, which will
+tolerate no idea of preventing the wrong from growing larger, and looks
+to there never being an end to it through all the existence of
+things,--arises the real difference between Judge Douglas and his friends
+on the one hand and the Republicans on the other. Now, I confess myself
+as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a
+moral, social, and political evil, having due regard for its actual
+existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any
+satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have
+been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to
+the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as
+a wrong it may come to an end.
+
+Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, if not the
+seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or
+combination between the National Democrats and Republicans. What evidence
+Judge Douglas has upon this subject I know not, inasmuch as he never
+favors us with any. I have said upon a former occasion, and I do not
+choose to suppress it now, that I have no objection to the division in
+the Judge's party. He got it up himself. It was all his and their work.
+He had, I think, a great deal more to do with the steps that led to the
+Lecompton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had; though at last, when they
+reached it, they quarreled over it, and their friends divided upon it. I
+am very free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have no objection to the
+division; but I defy the Judge to show any evidence that I have in any
+way promoted that division, unless he insists on being a witness himself
+in merely saying so. I can give all fair friends of Judge Douglas here to
+understand exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to that
+division. Don't you remember how two years ago the opponents of the
+Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess you
+do. Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also that he
+was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to see all
+there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans. What we now
+think of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fremont
+and Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it.
+
+But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there is
+an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the National
+Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving him as an
+entirely competent witness upon that subject. I want to call to the
+Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first one of these
+debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order to fix extreme
+Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which he
+declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in October,
+1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken part in that
+Convention. It turned out that although a few men calling themselves an
+anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at Springfield about that time,
+yet neither did I take any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or
+any such resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So apparent had it become
+that the resolutions which he read had not been passed at Springfield at
+all, nor by a State Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days
+afterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by
+Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L. Harris,
+member of Congress in that district, and he promised in that speech that
+when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter. Since then
+Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made the
+investigation; but a month has passed since he has been there, and, so
+far as I know, he has made no report of the result of his investigation.
+I have waited as I think sufficient time for the report of that
+investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A fraud, an
+absolute forgery was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced to
+the three,--Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed in
+any way so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's
+report would probably show.
+
+It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were
+published in the Illinois State Register on the 16th of October, 1854, as
+being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention which had sat in
+that same month of October, at Springfield. But it is also true that the
+publication in the Register was a forgery then, and the question is still
+behind, which of the three, if not all of them, committed that forgery.
+The idea that it was done by mistake is absurd. The article in the
+Illinois State Register contains part of the real proceedings of that
+Springfield Convention, showing that the writer of the article had the
+real proceedings before him, and purposely threw out the genuine
+resolutions passed by the Convention and fraudulently substituted the
+others. Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of the Register, so that
+there seems to be but little room for his escape. But then it is to be
+borne in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of that
+forgery than either of the other two. The main object of that forgery at
+that time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to Congress, and that object
+was known to be exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris
+and Douglas were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session,
+and although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register,
+subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon that
+Convention.
+
+The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both
+Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put
+it to new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband was
+brought home with his body full of eels, said when she was asked what was
+to be done with him, "Take the eels out and set him again," so Harris and
+Douglas have shown a disposition to take the eels out of that stale fraud
+by which they gained Harris's election, and set the fraud again more than
+once. On the 9th of July, 1856, Douglas attempted a repetition of it upon
+Trumbull on the floor of the Senate of the United States, as will appear
+from the appendix of the Congressional Globe of that date.
+
+On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton in the House
+of Representatives, as will appear by the same documents,--the appendix
+to the Congressional Globe of that date. On the 21st of August last, all
+three--Lanphier, Douglas, and Harris--reattempted it upon me at Ottawa.
+It has been clung to and played out again and again as an exceedingly
+high trump by this blessed trio. And now that it has been discovered
+publicly to be a fraud we find that Judge Douglas manifests no surprise
+at it at all. He makes no complaint of Lanphier, who must have known it
+to be a fraud from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as
+cozy now and just as active in the concoction of new schemes as they were
+before the general discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is very natural
+if they are all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if
+any one of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of
+honor among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself,
+and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a
+satisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the three are
+agreed that each is "a most honorable man."
+
+Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a
+re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports against
+me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which we know to be
+utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to think that this one
+unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate, will be the least
+drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He asks a re-election to
+the lower House of Congress without seeming to remember at all that he is
+involved in this dishonorable fraud! The Illinois State Register, edited
+by Lanphier, then, as now, the central organ of both Harris and Douglas,
+continues to din the public ear with this assertion, without seeming to
+suspect that these assertions are at all lacking in title to belief.
+
+After all, the question still recurs upon us, How did that fraud
+originally get into the State Register? Lanphier then, as now, was the
+editor of that paper. Lanphier knows. Lanphier cannot be ignorant of how
+and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he be induced to tell, or,
+if he has told, can Judge Douglas be induced to tell how it originally
+was concocted? It may be true that Lanphier insists that the two men for
+whose benefit it was originally devised shall at least bear their share
+of it! How that is, I do not know, and while it remains unexplained I
+hope to be pardoned if I insist that the mere fact of Judge Douglas
+making charges against Trumbull and myself is not quite sufficient
+evidence to establish them!
+
+While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I
+answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded
+to me, and then in turn propounded some to him, which he in a sort of
+way answered. The third one of these interrogatories I have with me,
+and wish now to make some comments upon it. It was in these words:
+ "If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that the
+States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of
+acquiescing in, adhering to, and following such decision as a rule of
+political action?"
+
+To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense of
+the word. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that it was
+possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. He sneered
+at me for propounding the interrogatory. I had not propounded it without
+some reflection, and I wish now to address to this audience some remarks
+upon it.
+
+In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe it is, of the
+Constitution of the United States, we find the following language:
+
+"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made
+in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made,
+under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the
+land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
+the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
+
+The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence which
+I will now read:
+
+"Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a
+different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and
+expressly affirmed in the Constitution."
+
+I repeat it, "The right of property in a slave is distinctly and
+expressly affirmed in the Constitution"! What is it to be "affirmed" in
+the Constitution? Made firm in the Constitution, so made that it cannot
+be separated from the Constitution without breaking the Constitution;
+durable as the Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now,
+remembering the provision of the Constitution which I have
+read--affirming that that instrument is the supreme law of the land; that
+the judges of every State shall be bound by it, any law or constitution
+of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; that the right of property
+in a slave is affirmed in that Constitution, is made, formed into, and
+cannot be separated from it without breaking it; durable as the
+instrument; part of the instrument;--what follows as a short and even
+syllogistic argument from it? I think it follows, and I submit to the
+consideration of men capable of arguing whether, as I state it, in
+syllogistic form, the argument has any fault in it:
+
+Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right
+distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United
+States.
+
+The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in
+the Constitution of the United States.
+
+Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy
+the right of property in a slave.
+
+I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming the
+truth of the premises, the conclusion, so far as I have capacity at all
+to understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault in it as I think,
+but the fault is not in the reasoning; but the falsehood in fact is a
+fault of the premises. I believe that the right of property in a slave is
+not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge
+Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates
+of that decision may search in vain for the place in the Constitution
+where the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly
+affirmed I say, therefore, that I think one of the premises is not true
+in fact. But it is true with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme
+Court who pronounced it. They are estopped from denying it, and being
+estopped from denying it, the conclusion follows that, the Constitution
+of the United States being the supreme law, no constitution or law can
+interfere with it. It being affirmed in the decision that the right of
+property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
+Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or
+constitution can destroy that right. I then say to Judge Douglas and to
+all others that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer to show
+that those who have said that the right of property in a slave is
+distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, are not prepared
+to show that no constitution or law can destroy that right. I say I
+believe it will take a far better argument than a mere sneer to show to
+the minds of intelligent men that whoever has so said is not prepared,
+whenever public sentiment is so far advanced as to justify it, to say the
+other. This is but an opinion, and the opinion of one very humble man;
+but it is my opinion that the Dred Scott decision, as it is, never would
+have been made in its present form if the party that made it had not been
+sustained previously by the elections. My own opinion is, that the new
+Dred Scott decision, deciding against the right of the people of the
+States to exclude slavery, will never be made if that party is not
+sustained by the elections. I believe, further, that it is just as sure
+to be made as to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained. I
+have said, upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course
+of arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge
+not his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new Dred
+Scott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the reasons for
+his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. I have turned
+his attention to the fact that General Jackson differed with him in
+regard to the political obligation of a Supreme Court decision. I have
+asked his attention to the fact that Jefferson differed with him in
+regard to the political obligation of a Supreme Court decision. Jefferson
+said that "Judges are as honest as other men, and not more so." And he
+said, substantially, that whenever a free people should give up in
+absolute submission to any department of government, retaining for
+themselves no appeal from it, their liberties were gone. I have asked his
+attention to the fact that the Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he
+stands, disregards a time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in
+denying the power of Congress to establish a National Bank. I have asked
+his attention to the fact that he himself was one of the most active
+instruments at one time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the State
+of Illinois because it had made a decision distasteful to him,--a
+struggle ending in the remarkable circumstance of his sitting down as one
+of the new Judges who were to overslaugh that decision; getting his title
+of Judge in that very way.
+
+So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from Judge Douglas
+upon these subjects. Not one can I get from him, except that he swells
+himself up and says, "All of us who stand by the decision of the Supreme
+Court are the friends of the Constitution; all you fellows that dare
+question it in any way are the enemies of the Constitution." Now, in this
+very devoted adherence to this decision, in opposition to all the great
+political leaders whom he has recognized as leaders, in opposition to his
+former self and history, there is something very marked. And the manner
+in which he adheres to it,--not as being right upon the merits, as he
+conceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being
+absolutely obligatory upon every one simply because of the source from
+whence it comes, as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may
+be,--this is another marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It
+marks it in this respect, that it commits him to the next decision,
+whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not
+investigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong.
+So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is right or wrong.
+He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing prepares the public mind to
+take the next decision when it comes, without any inquiry. In this I
+think I argue fairly (without questioning motives at all) that Judge
+Douglas is most ingeniously and powerfully preparing the public mind to
+take that decision when it comes; and not only so, but he is doing it in
+various other ways. In these general maxims about liberty, in his
+assertions that he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted
+down,"; that "whoever wants slavery has a right to have it"; that "upon
+principles of equality it should be allowed to go everywhere"; that
+"there is no inconsistency between free and slave institutions"--in this
+he is also preparing (whether purposely or not) the way for making the
+institution of slavery national! I repeat again, for I wish no
+misunderstanding, that I do not charge that he means it so; but I call
+upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best instrument
+you could, and then set it to work in the most ingenious way, to prepare
+the public mind for this movement, operating in the free States, where
+there is now an abhorrence of the institution of slavery, could you find
+an instrument so capable of doing it as Judge Douglas, or one employed in
+so apt a way to do it?
+
+I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, when he
+was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, that it had
+a tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, said that:
+
+"Those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate
+emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the
+Colonization Society: they must go back to the era of our liberty and
+independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous
+return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must
+penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love
+of liberty!"
+
+And I do think--I repeat, though I said it on a former occasion--that
+Judge Douglas and whoever, like him, teaches that the negro has no share,
+humble though it may be, in the Declaration of Independence, is going
+back to the era of our liberty and independence, and, so far as in him
+lies, muzzling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return; that he
+is blowing out the moral lights around us, when he contends that whoever
+wants slaves has a right to hold them; that he is penetrating, so far as
+lies in his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of reason
+and the love of liberty, when he is in every possible way preparing the
+public mind, by his vast influence, for making the institution of slavery
+perpetual and national.
+
+There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your
+attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I shall
+not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may not take me
+clear through it.
+
+Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at
+Freeport, there was one in about this language:
+
+"Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the
+United States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?"
+
+I answered, as I thought, in this way: that I am not generally opposed to
+the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would support a
+proposition for the acquisition of additional territory according as my
+supporting it was or was not calculated to aggravate this slavery
+question amongst us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another
+interrogatory, which was correlative to that: "Are you in favor of
+acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how it may affect us upon
+the slavery question?" Judge Douglas answered,--that is, in his own way
+he answered it. I believe that, although he took a good many words to
+answer it, it was a little more fully answered than any other. The
+substance of his answer was that this country would continue to expand;
+that it would need additional territory; that it was as absurd to suppose
+that we could continue upon our present territory, enlarging in
+population as we are, as it would be to hoop a boy twelve years of age,
+and expect him to grow to man's size without bursting the hoops. I
+believe it was something like that. Consequently, he was in favor of the
+acquisition of further territory as fast as we might need it, in
+disregard of how it might affect the slavery question. I do not say this
+as giving his exact language, but he said so substantially; and he would
+leave the question of slavery, where the territory was acquired, to be
+settled by the people of the acquired territory. ["That's the doctrine."]
+May be it is; let us consider that for a while. This will probably, in
+the run of things, become one of the concrete manifestations of this
+slavery question. If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question succeeds,
+and gets fairly settled down, until all opposition is crushed out, the
+next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, an invasion
+of the rich lands of South America, then the adjoining islands will
+follow, each one of which promises additional slave-fields. And this
+question is to be left to the people of those countries for settlement.
+When we get Mexico, I don't know whether the Judge will be in favor of
+the Mexican people that we get with it settling that question for
+themselves and all others; because we know the Judge has a great horror
+for mongrels, and I understand that the people of Mexico are most
+decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than
+one person there out of eight who is pure white, and I suppose from the
+Judge's previous declaration that when we get Mexico, or any considerable
+portion of it, that he will be in favor of these mongrels settling the
+question, which would bring him somewhat into collision with his horror
+of an inferior race.
+
+It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring additional
+territory is a power confided to the President and the Senate of the
+United States. It is a power not under the control of the representatives
+of the people any further than they, the President and the Senate, can be
+considered the representatives of the people. Let me illustrate that by a
+case we have in our history. When we acquired the territory from Mexico
+in the Mexican War, the House of Representatives, composed of the
+immediate representatives of the people, all the time insisted that the
+territory thus to be acquired should be brought in upon condition that
+slavery should be forever prohibited therein, upon the terms and in the
+language that slavery had been prohibited from coming into this country.
+That was insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an
+assurance that any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition
+in it, so far as the House of Representatives was concerned. But at last
+the President and Senate acquired the territory without asking the House
+of Representatives anything about it, and took it without that
+prohibition. They have the power of acquiring territory without the
+immediate representatives of the people being called upon to say anything
+about it, and thus furnishing a very apt and powerful means of bringing
+new territory into the Union, and, when it is once brought into the
+country, involving us anew in this slavery agitation. It is therefore, as
+I think, a very important question for due consideration of the American
+people, whether the policy of bringing in additional territory, without
+considering at all how it will operate upon the safety of the Union in
+reference to this one great disturbing element in our national politics,
+shall be adopted as the policy of the country. You will bear in mind that
+it is to be acquired, according to the Judge's view, as fast as it is
+needed, and the indefinite part of this proposition is that we have only
+Judge Douglas and his class of men to decide how fast it is needed. We
+have no clear and certain way of determining or demonstrating how fast
+territory is needed by the necessities of the country. Whoever wants to
+go out filibustering, then, thinks that more territory is needed. Whoever
+wants wider slave-fields feels sure that some additional territory is
+needed as slave territory. Then it is as easy to show the necessity of
+additional slave-territory as it is to assert anything that is incapable
+of absolute demonstration. Whatever motive a man or a set of men may have
+for making annexation of property or territory, it is very easy to
+assert, but much less easy to disprove, that it is necessary for the
+wants of the country.
+
+And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very grave
+question for the people of this Union to consider, whether, in view of
+the fact that this slavery question has been the only one that has ever
+endangered our Republican institutions, the only one that has ever
+threatened or menaced a dissolution of the Union, that has ever disturbed
+us in such a way as to make us fear for the perpetuity of our
+liberty,--in view of these facts, I think it is an exceedingly
+interesting and important question for this people to consider whether we
+shall engage in the policy of acquiring additional territory, discarding
+altogether from our consideration, while obtaining new territory, the
+question how it may affect us in regard to this, the only endangering
+element to our liberties and national greatness. The Judge's view has
+been expressed. I, in my answer to his question, have expressed mine. I
+think it will become an important and practical question. Our views are
+before the public. I am willing and anxious that they should consider
+them fully; that they should turn it about and consider the importance of
+the question, and arrive at a just conclusion as to whether it is or is
+not wise in the people of this Union, in the acquisition of new
+territory, to consider whether it will add to the disturbance that is
+existing amongst us--whether it will add to the one only danger that has
+ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union or our own liberties. I think
+it is extremely important that they shall decide, and rightly decide,
+that question before entering upon that policy.
+
+And now, my friends, having said the little I wish to say upon this head,
+whether I have occupied the whole of the remnant of my time or not, I
+believe I could not enter upon any new topic so as to treat it fully,
+without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment think of
+doing. I give way to Judge Douglas.
+
+
+
+
+SIXTH JOINT DEBATE,
+
+AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, 1858.
+
+LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have had no immediate conference with Judge
+Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree
+that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will be
+most agreeable to us.
+
+In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois which
+have since been consolidated into the Republican party assembled together
+in a State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted at that time what, in
+political language, is called a platform. In June of the same year the
+elements of the Republican party in the nation assembled together in a
+National Convention at Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the
+National Platform. In June, 1858,--the present year,--the Republicans of
+Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted
+again their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essential
+particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding something
+in relation to the new developments of political progress in the country.
+
+The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be
+one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the
+United States Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this
+canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms. We are now met together
+on the 13th of October of the same year, only four months from the
+adoption of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this canvass,
+from the beginning until to-day, any one of our adversaries has taken
+hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon anything that he calls
+wrong in them.
+
+In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator Douglas
+and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these platforms,
+or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to hold me
+responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the meeting of
+either one of these conventions of which I have spoken. And as a ground
+for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he assumed that they
+had been passed at a State Convention of the Republican party, and that I
+took part in that Convention. It was discovered afterward that this was
+erroneous, that the resolutions which he endeavored to hold me
+responsible for had not been passed by any State Convention anywhere, had
+not been passed at Springfield, where he supposed they had, or assumed
+that they had, and that they had been passed in no convention in which I
+had taken part. The Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the
+point that he was endeavoring to make upon me, and he therefore thought
+to still hold me to the point that he was endeavoring to make, by showing
+that the resolutions that he read had been passed at a local convention
+in the northern part of the State, although it was not a local convention
+that embraced my residence at all, nor one that reached, as I suppose,
+nearer than one hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of where I was
+when it met, nor one in which I took any part at all. He also introduced
+other resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by combining the whole,
+although they were all antecedent to the two State Conventions and the
+one National Convention I have mentioned, still he insisted, and now
+insists, as I understand, that I am in some way responsible for them.
+
+At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I was in
+no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this local
+meeting or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in which I was
+in no way embraced; but I insisted to him that if he thought I was
+responsible for every man or every set of men everywhere, who happen to
+be my friends, the rule ought to work both ways, and he ought to be
+responsible for the acts and resolutions of all men or sets of men who
+were or are now his supporters and friends, and gave him a pretty long
+string of resolutions, passed by men who are now his friends, and
+announcing doctrines for which he does not desire to be held responsible.
+
+This still does not satisfy Judge Douglas. He still adheres to his
+proposition, that I am responsible for what some of my friends in
+different parts of the State have done, but that he is not responsible
+for what his have done. At least, so I understand him. But in addition to
+that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, last week, undertakes to
+establish that I am guilty of a species of double dealing with the
+public; that I make speeches of a certain sort in the north, among the
+Abolitionists, which I would not make in the south, and that I make
+speeches of a certain sort in the south which I would not make in the
+north. I apprehend, in the course I have marked out for myself, that I
+shall not have to dwell at very great length upon this subject.
+
+As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had an
+opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something in
+answer to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech of mine
+delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he brought forward
+an extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted that
+I was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that his conclusion followed,
+that I was playing a double part, and speaking in one region one way, and
+in another region another way. I have not time now to dwell on this as
+long as I would like, and wish only now to requote that portion of my
+speech at Charleston which the Judge quoted, and then make some comments
+upon it. This he quotes from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I
+believe correctly:
+
+"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of
+bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white
+and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making
+voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor
+to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this,
+that there is a physical difference between the white and black races
+which will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of
+social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while
+they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and
+inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior
+position assigned to the white race."
+
+This, I believe, is the entire quotation from Charleston speech, as Judge
+Douglas made it his comments are as follows:
+
+"Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right when
+he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that he
+discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and
+inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for
+Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in
+the Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared
+equal, and endowed by divine law with equality. And down South, with the
+old-line Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians and the
+Tennesseeans, he tells you that there is a physical difference between
+the races, making the one superior, the other inferior, and he is in
+favor of maintaining the superiority of the white race over the negro."
+
+Those are the Judges comments. Now, I wish to show you that a month, or
+only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech at
+Charleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say
+substantially the same thing It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa--and
+I will say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was in, after
+a while--but at our first meeting, at Ottawa, I read an extract from an
+old speech of mine, made nearly four years ago, not merely to show my
+sentiments, but to show that my sentiments were long entertained and
+openly expressed; in which extract I expressly declared that my own
+feelings would not admit a social and political equality between the
+white and black races, and that even if my own feelings would admit of
+it, I still knew that the public sentiment of the country would not, and
+that such a thing was an utter impossibility, or substantially that. That
+extract from my old speech the reporters by some sort of accident passed
+over, and it was not reported. I lay no blame upon anybody. I suppose
+they thought that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting
+while I was giving it, but afterward went away without getting it from
+me. At the end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at
+Ottawa, I made the comments which were reported at that time, and which I
+will now read, and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the same as
+Judge Douglas says were delivered by me down in Egypt. After reading, I
+added these words:
+
+"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length; but this is
+the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution
+of slavery or the black race, and this is the whole of it: anything that
+argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the
+negro, is but a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which a
+man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here,
+while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly,
+to interfere with the institution in the States where it exists. I
+believe I have no right to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have
+no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white
+and black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in
+my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the
+footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that
+there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of
+the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never
+said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this,
+there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the
+rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,--the right of life,
+liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled
+to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my
+equal in many respects, certainly not in color, perhaps not in
+intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread,
+without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my
+equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."
+
+I have chiefly introduced this for the purpose of meeting the Judge's
+charge that the quotation he took from my Charleston speech was what I
+would say down South among the Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc., but
+would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of the
+Abolition element. I now make this comment: That speech from which I have
+now read the quotation, and which is there given correctly--perhaps too
+much so for good taste--was made away up North in the Abolition District
+of this State par excellence, in the Lovejoy District, in the personal
+presence of Lovejoy, for he was on the stand with us when I made it. It
+had been made and put in print in that region only three days less than a
+month before the speech made at Charleston, the like of which Judge
+Douglas thinks I would not make where there was any Abolition element. I
+only refer to this matter to say that I am altogether unconscious of
+having attempted any double-dealing anywhere; that upon one occasion I
+may say one thing, and leave other things unsaid, and vice versa, but
+that I have said anything on one occasion that is inconsistent with what
+I have said elsewhere, I deny, at least I deny it so far as the intention
+is concerned. I find that I have devoted to this topic a larger portion
+of my time than I had intended. I wished to show, but I will pass it upon
+this occasion, that in the sentiment I have occasionally advanced upon
+the Declaration of Independence I am entirely borne out by the sentiments
+advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I have the book here to
+show it from but because I have already occupied more time than I
+intended to do on that topic, I pass over it.
+
+At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, pushed to
+its legitimate consequences, slavery would be established in all the
+States as well as in the Territories. I did this because, upon a former
+occasion, I had asked Judge Douglas whether, if the Supreme Court should
+make a decision declaring that the States had not the power to exclude
+slavery from their limits, he would adopt and follow that decision as a
+rule of political action; and because he had not directly answered that
+question, but had merely contented himself with sneering at it, I again
+introduced it, and tried to show that the conclusion that I stated
+followed inevitably and logically from the proposition already decided by
+the court. Judge Douglas had the privilege of replying to me at
+Galesburgh, and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether he would
+or would not sustain such a decision if made. I give him his third chance
+to say yes or no. He is not obliged to do either, probably he will not do
+either; but I give him the third chance. I tried to show then that this
+result, this conclusion, inevitably followed from the point already
+decided by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the
+thought of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his
+remarks upon this subject uses the language which I will now read.
+Speaking of me, the Judge says:
+
+"He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry slavery
+into the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself says the
+contrary." And he adds:
+
+"Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that
+holds that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their opinions
+held the reverse."
+
+I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying that
+I have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge Douglas to
+lay his finger upon the place in the entire opinions of the court where
+any one of them "says the contrary." It is very hard to affirm a negative
+with entire confidence. I say, however, that I have examined that
+decision with a good deal of care, as a lawyer examines a decision and,
+so far as I have been able to do so, the court has nowhere in its
+opinions said that the States have the power to exclude slavery, nor have
+they used other language substantially that, I also say, so far as I can
+find, not one of the concurring judges has said that the States can
+exclude slavery, nor said anything that was substantially that. The
+nearest approach that any one of them has made to it, so far as I can
+find, was by Judge Nelson, and the approach he made to it was exactly, in
+substance, the Nebraska Bill,--that the States had the exclusive power
+over the question of slavery, so far as they are not limited by the
+Constitution of the United States. I asked the question, therefore, if
+the non-concurring judges, McLean or Curtis, had asked to get an express
+declaration that the States could absolutely exclude slavery from their
+limits, what reason have we to believe that it would not have been voted
+down by the majority of the judges, just as Chase's amendment was voted
+down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it was offered to the
+Nebraska Bill.
+
+Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield
+resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at Ottawa,
+and commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as presented,
+not genuine. Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to be somewhat
+exasperated. He said he would never have believed that Abraham Lincoln,
+as he kindly called me, would have attempted such a thing as I had
+attempted upon that occasion; and among other expressions which he used
+toward me, was that I dared to say forgery, that I had dared to say
+forgery [turning to Judge Douglas]. Yes, Judge, I did dare to say
+forgery. But in this political canvass the Judge ought to remember that I
+was not the first who dared to say forgery. At Jacksonville, Judge
+Douglas made a speech in answer to something said by Judge Trumbull, and
+at the close of what he said upon that subject, he dared to say that
+Trumbull had forged his evidence. He said, too, that he should not
+concern himself with Trumbull any more, but thereafter he should hold
+Lincoln responsible for the slanders upon him. When I met him at
+Charleston after that, although I think that I should not have noticed
+the subject if he had not said he would hold me responsible for it, I
+spread out before him the statements of the evidence that Judge Trumbull
+had used, and I asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger
+upon one piece of all that evidence that he would say was a forgery! When
+I went through with each and every piece, Judge Douglas did not dare then
+to say that any piece of it was a forgery. So it seems that there are
+some things that Judge Douglas dares to do, and some that he dares not to
+do.
+
+[A voice: It is the same thing with you.]
+
+Yes, sir, it is the same thing with me. I do dare to say forgery when it
+is true, and don't dare to say forgery when it is false. Now I will say
+here to this audience and to Judge Douglas I have not dared to say he
+committed a forgery, and I never shall until I know it; but I did dare to
+say--just to suggest to the Judge--that a forgery had been committed,
+which by his own showing had been traced to him and two of his friends. I
+dared to suggest to him that he had expressly promised in one of his
+public speeches to investigate that matter, and I dared to suggest to him
+that there was an implied promise that when he investigated it he would
+make known the result. I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could not
+expect to be quite clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the time
+that promise was made he had been with those friends, and had not kept
+his promise in regard to the investigation and the report upon it. I am
+not a very daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much
+scared about it yet. When the Judge says he would n't have believed of
+Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that he
+reminds me of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the purpose
+to treat me courteously; that touched me somewhat. It sets me to
+thinking. I was aware, when it was first agreed that Judge Douglas and I
+were to have these seven joint discussions, that they were the successive
+acts of a drama, perhaps I should say, to be enacted, not merely in the
+face of audiences like this, but in the face of the nation, and to some
+extent, by my relation to him, and not from anything in myself, in the
+face of the world; and I am anxious that they should be conducted with
+dignity and in the good temper which would be befitting the vast
+audiences before which it was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home
+from Washington and made his first speech in Chicago, the evening
+afterward I made some sort of a reply to it. His second speech was made
+at Bloomington, in which he commented upon my speech at Chicago and said
+that I had used language ingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions,
+or words to that effect. Now, I understand that this is an imputation
+upon my veracity and my candor. I do not know what the Judge understood
+by it, but in our first discussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a
+bargain, somewhat corrupt in its character, upon Trumbull and
+myself,--that we had entered into a bargain, one of the terms of which
+was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize the old Democratic party, and I
+(Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig party; I pretending to be as
+good an old-line Whig as ever. Judge Douglas may not understand that he
+implicated my truthfulness and my honor when he said I was doing one
+thing and pretending another; and I misunderstood him if he thought he
+was treating me in a dignified way, as a man of honor and truth, as he
+now claims he was disposed to treat me. Even after that time, at
+Galesburgh, when he brings forward an extract from a speech made at
+Chicago and an extract from a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I
+was trying to play a double part, that I was trying to cheat the public,
+and get votes upon one set of principles at one place, and upon another
+set of principles at another place,--I do not understand but what he
+impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does this,
+I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground for it,
+to keep my hands off of him. As soon as I learned that Judge Douglas was
+disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of my speeches that
+I should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble resources I might
+have,--to adopt a new course with him. I was not entirely sure that I
+should be able to hold my own with him, but I at least had the purpose
+made to do as well as I could upon him; and now I say that I will not be
+the first to cry "Hold." I think it originated with the Judge, and when
+he quits, I probably will. But I shall not ask any favors at all. He asks
+me, or he asks the audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point
+of personal difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make a mistake, in one
+of his early speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though perhaps
+he did when he called me an "intelligent" man. It really hurts me very
+much to suppose that I have wronged anybody on earth. I again tell him,
+no! I very much prefer, when this canvass shall be over, however it may
+result, that we at least part without any bitter recollections of
+personal difficulties.
+
+The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was
+pushing this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the responsibility
+for the enormity of my principles. I say to the Judge and this audience,
+now, that I will again state our principles, as well as I hastily can, in
+all their enormity, and if the Judge hereafter chooses to confine himself
+to a war upon these principles, he will probably not find me departing
+from the same course.
+
+We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery. It is a matter
+of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. It is the opinion
+of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it is a
+dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in regard to it. That
+controversy necessarily springs from difference of opinion; and if we can
+learn exactly--can reduce to the lowest elements--what that difference of
+opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for discussing the
+different systems of policy that we would propose in regard to that
+disturbing element. I suggest that the difference of opinion, reduced to
+its lowest of terms, is no other than the difference between the men who
+think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican
+party think it wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a political
+wrong. We think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons
+or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to
+say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole nation.
+Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal
+with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, in so far as
+we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the
+run of time there may be some promise of an end to it. We have a due
+regard to the actual presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of
+getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional
+obligations thrown about it. I suppose that in reference both to its
+actual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we
+have no right at all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we
+profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the
+right to do it. We go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it
+where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us. We
+think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the District of
+Columbia. Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it should be in
+terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely soon to agree
+to,--the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and compensating the
+unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the constitutional right, we
+restrain ourselves in reference to the actual existence of the
+institution and the difficulties thrown about it. We also oppose it as an
+evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. We insist on the policy that
+shall restrict it to its present limits. We don't suppose that in doing
+this we violate anything due to the actual presence of the institution,
+or anything due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it.
+
+We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I ought
+perhaps to address you a few words. We do not propose that when Dred
+Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will
+decide him to be free. We do not propose that, when any other one, or one
+thousand, shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any
+violent way disturb the rights of property thus settled; but we
+nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule which shall be
+binding on the voter to vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall
+be binding on the members of Congress or the President to favor no
+measure that does not actually concur with the principles of that
+decision. We do not propose to be bound by it as a political rule in that
+way, because we think it lays the foundation, not merely of enlarging and
+spreading out what we consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for
+spreading that evil into the States themselves. We propose so resisting
+it as to have it reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established
+upon this subject.
+
+I will add this: that if there be any man who does not believe that
+slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in any
+one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while on the
+other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is impatient
+over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and is impatient
+of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and would act in
+disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with us. He will find
+his place somewhere else; for we have a due regard, so far as we are
+capable of understanding them, for all these things. This, gentlemen, as
+well as I can give it, is a plain statement of our principles in all
+their enormity. I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country
+contrary to me,--a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and
+therefore it goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as
+a wrong. That policy is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is the
+Democratic sentiment. If there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this
+vast audience that this is really the central idea of the Democratic
+party in relation to this subject, I ask him to bear with me while I
+state a few things tending, as I think, to prove that proposition. In the
+first place, the leading man--I think I may do my friend Judge Douglas
+the honor of calling him such advocating the present Democratic policy
+never himself says it is wrong. He has the high distinction, so far as I
+know, of never having said slavery is either right or wrong. Almost
+everybody else says one or the other, but the Judge never does. If there
+be a man in the Democratic party who thinks it is wrong, and yet clings
+to that party, I suggest to him, in the first place, that his leader
+don't talk as he does, for he never says that it is wrong. In the second
+place, I suggest to him that if he will examine the policy proposed to be
+carried forward, he will find that he carefully excludes the idea that
+there is anything wrong in it. If you will examine the arguments that are
+made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea that
+there is anything wrong in slavery. Perhaps that Democrat who says he is
+as much opposed to slavery as I am will tell me that I am wrong about
+this. I wish him to examine his own course in regard to this matter a
+moment, and then see if his opinion will not be changed a little. You say
+it is wrong; but don't you constantly object to anybody else saying so?
+Do you not constantly argue that this is not the right place to oppose
+it? You say it must not be opposed in the free States, because slavery is
+not here; it must not be opposed in the slave States, because it is
+there; it must not be opposed in politics, because that will make a fuss;
+it must not be opposed in the pulpit, because it is not religion. Then
+where is the place to oppose it? There is no suitable place to oppose it.
+There is no place in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the
+continent, which you say yourself is coming. Frank Blair and Gratz Brown
+tried to get up a system of gradual emancipation in Missouri, had an
+election in August, and got beat, and you, Mr. Democrat, threw up your
+hat, and hallooed "Hurrah for Democracy!" So I say, again, that in regard
+to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas Says he "don't care
+whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he means that as an
+individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his
+views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue
+logically if he don't see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so
+logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would
+as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that
+whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have
+them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the
+institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say
+that anybody has a right to do wrong. When he says that slave property
+and horse and hog property are alike to be allowed to go into the
+Territories, upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if
+there is no difference between them as property; but if the one is
+property held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no
+equality between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in anyway you can,
+in all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that policy
+itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is
+anything wrong in slavery. Let us understand this. I am not, just here,
+trying to prove that we are right, and they are wrong. I have been
+stating where we and they stand, and trying to show what is the real
+difference between us; and I now say that whenever we can get the
+question distinctly stated, can get all these men who believe that
+slavery is in some of these respects wrong to stand and act with us in
+treating it as a wrong,--then, and not till then, I think we will in some
+way come to an end of this slavery agitation.
+
+
+
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER.
+
+MY FRIENDS:--Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion that
+he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said in an
+hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in half an
+hour all that he said in an hour and a half.
+
+I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public
+annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of policy
+in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it shall last
+forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of this
+controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. Judge
+Douglas asks you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why
+cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made
+it, forever? In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make
+this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I
+insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did
+not make it so but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid
+of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a
+matter of choice, the fathers of the government made this nation part
+slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More
+than that: when the fathers of the government cut off the source of
+slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of
+restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I
+maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men
+understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge
+Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him
+why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?
+
+It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of
+slavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers placed
+it upon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly said, that
+when this government was established, no one expected the institution of
+slavery to last until this day, and that the men who formed this
+government were wiser and better than the men of these days; but the men
+of these days had experience which the fathers had not, and that
+experience had taught them the invention of the cotton-gin, and this had
+made the perpetuation of the institution of slavery a necessity in this
+country. Judge Douglas could not let it stand upon the basis which our
+fathers placed it, but removed it, and put it upon the cotton-gin basis.
+It is a question, therefore, for him and his friends to answer, why they
+could not let it remain where the fathers of the government originally
+placed it. I hope nobody has understood me as trying to sustain the
+doctrine that we have a right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or
+any of the slave States, about the institution of slavery,--thus giving
+the Judge an opportunity to be eloquent and valiant against us in
+fighting for their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech that
+I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the
+existence of, the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or
+Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery Or any other existing
+institution. Then what becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the
+rights of States, which are assailed by no living man?
+
+But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge has
+informed me, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is
+laboring for my election to the United States Senate. This is news to
+me,--not very ungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. W. H. Carlin, who
+was on the stand]--I hope that Carlin will be elected to the State
+Senate, and will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] Carlin don't
+fall in, I perceive, and I suppose he will not do much for me; but I am
+glad of all the support I can get, anywhere, if I can get it without
+practicing any deception to obtain it. In respect to this large portion
+of Judge Douglas's speech in which he tries to show that in the
+controversy between himself and the Administration party he is in the
+right, I do not feel myself at all competent or inclined to answer him. I
+say to him, "Give it to them,--give it to them just all you can!" and, on
+the other hand, I say to Carlin, and Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley
+up here in Hancock, "Give it to Douglas, just pour it into him!"
+
+Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to say a
+word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a decision is
+made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude slavery, he
+will support it or not. He obstinately refuses to say what he will do in
+that case. The judges of the Supreme Court as obstinately refused to say
+what they would do on this subject. Before this I reminded him that at
+Galesburgh he said the judges had expressly declared the contrary, and
+you remember that in my Opening speech I told him I had the book
+containing that decision here, and I would thank him to lay his finger on
+the place where any such thing was said. He has occupied his hour and a
+half, and he has not ventured to try to sustain his assertion. He never
+will. But he is desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred
+Scott decision. Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his
+political friends find a way to reverse the decision of that same court
+in favor of the constitutionality of the National Bank? Didn't they find
+a way to do it so effectually that they have reversed it as completely as
+any decision ever was reversed, so far as its practical operation is
+concerned?
+
+And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the
+decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father--old
+Governor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a Secretary of
+State? Did he not appeal to the "MOBS," as he calls them? Did he not make
+speeches in the lobby to show how villainous that decision was, and how
+it ought to be overthrown? Did he not succeed, too, in getting an act
+passed by the Legislature to have it overthrown? And did n't he himself
+sit down on that bench as one of the five added judges, who were to
+overslaugh the four old ones, getting his name of "judge" in that way,
+and no other? If there is a villainy in using disrespect or making
+opposition to Supreme Court decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's
+earnest consideration. I know of no man in the State of Illinois who
+ought to know so well about how much villainy it takes to oppose a
+decision of the Supreme Court as our honorable friend Stephen A. Douglas.
+
+Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are
+bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not. In the
+sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you what I
+have said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day. I have said that
+as the Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and that the
+extension of slavery is affirmed in the National Constitution, they are
+bound to support it as such; and I will tell you here that General
+Jackson once said each man was bound to support the Constitution "as he
+understood it." Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according
+to the Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he
+understands it. I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to
+support it in the way in which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas
+believes that decision to be correct, I will remake that argument if I
+have time to do so. Let me talk to some gentleman down there among you
+who looks me in the face. We will say you are a member of the Territorial
+Legislature, and, like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to take
+and hold slaves there is a constitutional right The first thing you do is
+to swear you will support the Constitution, and all rights guaranteed
+therein; that you will, whenever your neighbor needs your legislation to
+support his constitutional rights, not withhold that legislation. If you
+withhold that necessary legislation for the support of the Constitution
+and constitutional rights, do you not commit perjury? I ask every
+sensible man if that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so, say what you
+please. Now, that is precisely what Judge Douglas says, that this is a
+constitutional right. Does the Judge mean to say that the Territorial
+Legislature in legislating may, by withholding necessary laws, or by
+passing unfriendly laws, nullify that constitutional right? Does he mean
+to say that? Does he mean to ignore the proposition so long and well
+established in law, that what you cannot do directly, you cannot do
+indirectly? Does he mean that? The truth about the matter is this: Judge
+Douglas has sung paeans to his "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his
+Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter
+Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery about
+Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented this sort of do-nothing
+sovereignty,--that the people may exclude slavery by a sort of
+"sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is not that
+running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not got down as thin
+as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon
+that had starved to death? But at last, when it is brought to the test of
+close reasoning, there is not even that thin decoction of it left. It is
+a presumption impossible in the domain of thought. It is precisely no
+other than the putting of that most unphilosophical proposition, that two
+bodies can occupy the same space at the same time. The Dred Scott
+decision covers the whole ground, and while it occupies it, there is no
+room even for the shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground.
+
+Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a previous
+occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an extract from at
+Charleston, says it only shows that I practiced the deception twice. Now,
+my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to swallow that? Judge Douglas
+had said I had made a speech at Charleston that I would not make up
+north, and I turned around and answered him by showing I had made that
+same speech up north,--had made it at Ottawa; made it in his hearing;
+made it in the Abolition District,--in Lovejoy's District,--in the
+personal presence of Lovejoy himself,--in the same atmosphere exactly in
+which I had made my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much.
+
+Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation from
+the Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me to
+handle. Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the Chicago
+speech I delivered two years ago in "Egypt," as he calls it. It was down
+at Springfield. That speech is here in this book, and I could turn to it
+and read it to you but for the lack of time. I have not now the time to
+read it. ["Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I am obliged to use
+discretion in disposing most advantageously of my brief time. The Judge
+has taken great exception to my adopting the heretical statement in the
+Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal," and he has
+a great deal to say about negro equality. I want to say that in sometimes
+alluding to the Declaration of Independence, I have only uttered the
+sentiments that Henry Clay used to hold. Allow me to occupy your time a
+moment with what he said. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in
+Indiana, and in a way that I suppose was very insulting, to liberate his
+slaves; and he made a written reply to that application, and one portion
+of it is in these words:
+
+"What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate the
+slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the act
+announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American
+colonies, that men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle,
+there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it is desirable
+in the original construction of society, and in organized societies, to
+keep it in view as a great fundamental principle."
+
+When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in new
+countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we should
+keep that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I want a
+negro wife. He never can be brought to understand that there is any
+middle ground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth year, and
+have never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, and I think I
+can live fifty centuries, for that matter, without having had one for
+either. I maintain that you may take Judge Douglas's quotations from my
+Chicago speech, and from my Charleston speech, and the Galesburgh
+speech,--in his speech of to-day,--and compare them over, and I am
+willing to trust them with you upon his proposition that they show
+rascality or double-dealing. I deny that they do.
+
+The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he is
+disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath would
+not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L.
+Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It is certainly not
+for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these gentlemen, but I will tell
+Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I "dared" to say they proved a
+forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh that the publication of these
+resolutions in the Illinois State Register could not have been the result
+of accident, as the proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable
+evidence of being done by a man who knew it was a forgery; that it was a
+publication partly taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and
+partly from the proceedings of a convention at another place, which
+showed that he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part
+of the resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and
+fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also that
+his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time and now
+is, must have known how it was done. Now, whether he did it, or got some
+friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he certainly knew all
+about it. I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in his Freeport speech he
+had promised to investigate that matter. Does he now say that he did not
+make that promise?  I have a right to ask why he did not keep it. I call
+upon him to tell here to-day why he did not keep that promise? That fraud
+has been traced up so that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier.
+There is little room for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge
+good service, and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. He
+desires Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his
+newspaper. He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility;
+and when this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where
+the guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate
+it, and implied that he would tell us the result of his investigation, I
+demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, if he did not; and
+if he did, why he won't tell the result. I call upon him for that.
+
+This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned
+about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against Norton
+on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public records of the
+country show that he himself attempted it upon Trumbull a month before
+Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had the opportunity of learning
+it from him, rather than he from Harris. I now ask his attention to that
+part of the record on the case. My friends, I am not disposed to detain
+you longer in regard to that matter.
+
+I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another matter I
+wish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered there was a
+mistake in that case, he came forward magnanimously, without my calling
+his attention to it, and explained it. I will tell you how he became so
+magnanimous. When the newspapers of our side had discovered and published
+it, and put it beyond his power to deny it, then he came forward and made
+a virtue of necessity by acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the
+point there was in those resolutions, although never passed at
+Springfield, is retained by their being passed at other localities. Is
+that true? He said I had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech,
+that I was in the convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutions
+touch me at all? It strikes me there is some difference between holding a
+man responsible for an act which he has not done and holding him
+responsible for an act that he has done. You will judge whether there is
+any difference in the "spots." And he has taken credit for great
+magnanimity in coming forward and acknowledging what is proved on him
+beyond even the capacity of Judge Douglas to deny; and he has more
+capacity in that way than any other living man.
+
+Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a
+conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he made.
+May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is proven false on
+me as that was proven false on him. I will add a little more than that, I
+will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man shall be brought to believe
+that the charge is not true. I have asked Judge Douglas's attention to
+certain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy to
+nationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue
+because Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the
+Dred Scott case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that
+I say the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did
+say that I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never
+uttered it. [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated affirmatively at
+Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say I did, I tell you
+myself that I never said the "Democratic" owners of Dred Scott got up the
+case. I have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were
+Democrats, or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers or Border Ruffians. I have
+said that there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a
+made-up case, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that
+that evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was
+declared to be a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he
+had had the case tried and the question settled for such use as could be
+made of that decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared
+to be his by that decision. But my time is out, and I can say no more.
+
+
+
+LAST DEBATE,
+
+AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY
+
+LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have been somewhat, in my own mind, complimented
+by a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech,--I mean that portion which
+he devotes to the controversy between himself and the present
+Administration. This is the seventh time Judge Douglas and myself have
+met in these joint discussions, and he has been gradually improving in
+regard to his war with the Administration. At Quincy, day before
+yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the Administration than I had
+heard him upon any occasion, and I took pains to compliment him for it. I
+then told him to give it to them with all the power he had; and as some
+of them were present, I told them I would be very much obliged if they
+would give it to him in about the same way. I take it he has now vastly
+improved upon the attack he made then upon the Administration. I flatter
+myself he has really taken my advice on this subject. All I can say now
+is to re-commend to him and to them what I then commended,--to prosecute
+the war against one another in the most vigorous manner. I say to them
+again: "Go it, husband!--Go it, bear!"
+
+There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this branch of the
+discussion,--although I do not consider it much of my business, anyway. I
+refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where he undertakes to involve
+Mr. Buchanan in an inconsistency. He reads something from Mr. Buchanan,
+from which he undertakes to involve him in an inconsistency; and he gets
+something of a cheer for having done so. I would only remind the Judge
+that while he is very valiantly fighting for the Nebraska Bill and the
+repeal of the Missouri Compromise, it has been but a little while since
+he was the valiant advocate of the Missouri Compromise. I want to know if
+Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? Has
+Douglas the exclusive right, in this country, of being on all sides of
+all questions? Is nobody allowed that high privilege but himself? Is he
+to have an entire monopoly on that subject?
+
+So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it was
+about me, it is my business to pay some attention to it. I have heard the
+Judge state two or three times what he has stated to-day, that in a
+speech which I made at Springfield, Illinois, I had in a very especial
+manner complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had
+decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the United States. I
+have omitted by some accident heretofore to analyze this statement, and
+it is required of me to notice it now. In point of fact it is untrue. I
+never have complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it
+held that a negro could not be a citizen, and the Judge is always wrong
+when he says I ever did so complain of it. I have the speech here, and I
+will thank him or any of his friends to show where I said that a negro
+should be a citizen, and complained especially of the Dred Scott decision
+because it declared he could not be one. I have done no such thing; and
+Judge Douglas, so persistently insisting that I have done so, has
+strongly impressed me with the belief of a predetermination on his part
+to misrepresent me. He could not get his foundation for insisting that I
+was in favor of this negro equality anywhere else as well as he could by
+assuming that untrue proposition. Let me tell this audience what is true
+in regard to that matter; and the means by which they may correct me if I
+do not tell them truly is by a recurrence to the speech itself. I spoke
+of the Dred Scott decision in my Springfield speech, and I was then
+endeavoring to prove that the Dred Scott decision was a portion of a
+system or scheme to make slavery national in this country. I pointed out
+what things had been decided by the court. I mentioned as a fact that
+they had decided that a negro could not be a citizen; that they had done
+so, as I supposed, to deprive the negro, under all circumstances, of the
+remotest possibility of ever becoming a citizen and claiming the rights
+of a citizen of the United States under a certain clause of the
+Constitution. I stated that, without making any complaint of it at all. I
+then went on and stated the other points decided in the case; namely,
+that the bringing of a negro into the State of Illinois and holding him
+in slavery for two years here was a matter in regard to which they would
+not decide whether it would make him free or not; that they decided the
+further point that taking him into a United States Territory where
+slavery was prohibited by Act of Congress did not make him free, because
+that Act of Congress, as they held, was unconstitutional. I mentioned
+these three things as making up the points decided in that case. I
+mentioned them in a lump, taken in connection with the introduction of
+the Nebraska Bill, and the amendment of Chase, offered at the time,
+declaratory of the right of the people of the Territories to exclude
+slavery, which was voted down by the friends of the bill. I mentioned all
+these things together, as evidence tending to prove a combination and
+conspiracy to make the institution of slavery national. In that
+connection and in that way I mentioned the decision on the point that a
+negro could not be a citizen, and in no other connection.
+
+Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of my
+purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between the
+white and black races. His assertion that I made an "especial objection"
+(that is his exact language) to the decision on this account is untrue in
+point of fact.
+
+Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry Clay has been alluded to,
+I desire to place myself, in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly right
+before this people as may be. I am quite aware what the Judge's object is
+here by all these allusions. He knows that we are before an audience
+having strong sympathies southward, by relationship, place of birth, and
+so on. He desires to place me in an extremely Abolition attitude. He read
+upon a former occasion, and alludes, without reading, to-day to a portion
+of a speech which I delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that
+speech, as he has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were
+taken in such a way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of
+what is called garbling,--taking portions of a speech which, when taken
+by themselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as
+expressed at the time. I propose, therefore, out of that same speech, to
+show how one portion of it which he skipped over (taking an extract
+before and an extract after) will give a different idea, and the true
+idea I intended to convey. It will take me some little time to read it,
+but I believe I will occupy the time that way.
+
+You have heard him frequently allude to my controversy with him in regard
+to the Declaration of Independence. I confess that I have had a struggle
+with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try briefly to place myself
+right in regard to it on this occasion. I said--and it is between the
+extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put in his
+published speeches:
+
+"It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities
+and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposed
+upon a man he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which
+we found ourselves when we established this government. We had slaves
+among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them to
+remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we
+grasped for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does
+not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let the
+charter remain as our standard."
+
+Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas
+against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of
+slavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from which he takes
+garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a disposition to
+interfere with the institution of slavery, and establish a perfect social
+and political equality between negroes and white people.
+
+Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other extract
+from a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at Springfield, in
+discussing this very same question, soon after Judge Douglas took his
+ground that negroes were, not included in the Declaration of
+Independence:
+
+"I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all
+men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They
+did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral
+development, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness
+in what they did consider all men created equal,--equal in certain
+inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
+happiness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to
+assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that
+equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them.
+In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to
+declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as
+circumstances should permit.
+
+"They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be
+familiar to all,--constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even,
+though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby
+constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the
+happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere."
+
+There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard to the
+Declaration of Independence upon a former occasion,--sentiments which
+have been put in print and read wherever anybody cared to know what so
+humble an individual as myself chose to say in regard to it.
+
+At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, that
+three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or believed,
+in the whole world, who had said that the Declaration of Independence did
+not include negroes in the term "all men." I reassert it to-day. I assert
+that Judge Douglas and all his friends may search the whole records of
+the country, and it will be a matter of great astonishment to me if they
+shall be able to find that one human being three years ago had ever
+uttered the astounding sentiment that the term "all men" in the
+Declaration did not include the negro. Do not let me be misunderstood. I
+know that more than three years ago there were men who, finding this
+assertion constantly in the way of their schemes to bring about the
+ascendency and perpetuation of slavery, denied the truth of it. I know
+that Mr. Calhoun and all the politicians of his school denied the truth
+of the Declaration. I know that it ran along in the mouth of some
+Southern men for a period of years, ending at last in that shameful,
+though rather forcible, declaration of Pettit of Indiana, upon the floor
+of the United States Senate, that the Declaration of Independence was in
+that respect "a self-evident lie," rather than a self-evident truth. But
+I say, with a perfect knowledge of all this hawking at the Declaration
+without directly attacking it, that three years ago there never had lived
+a man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking way of pretending to
+believe it, and then asserting it did not include the negro. I believe
+the first man who ever said it was Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott
+case, and the next to him was our friend Stephen A. Douglas. And now it
+has become the catchword of the entire party. I would like to call upon
+his friends everywhere to consider how they have come in so short a time
+to view this matter in a way so entirely different from their former
+belief; to ask whether they are not being borne along by an irresistible
+current,--whither, they know not.
+
+In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last week, I see that some man
+in Chicago has got up a letter, addressed to the Chicago Times, to show,
+as he professes, that somebody had said so before; and he signs himself
+"An Old-Line Whig," if I remember correctly. In the first place, I would
+say he was not an old-line Whig. I am somewhat acquainted with old-line
+Whigs from the origin to the end of that party; I became pretty well
+acquainted with them, and I know they always had some sense, whatever
+else you could ascribe to them. I know there never was one who had not
+more sense than to try to show by the evidence he produces that some men
+had, prior to the time I named, said that negroes were not included in
+the term "all men" in the Declaration of Independence. What is the
+evidence he produces? I will bring forward his evidence, and let you see
+what he offers by way of showing that somebody more than three years ago
+had said negroes were not included in the Declaration. He brings forward
+part of a speech from Henry Clay,--the part of the speech of Henry Clay
+which I used to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary. I guess we
+are surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of Mr. Clay, and
+they will be glad to hear anything from that authority. While he was in
+Indiana a man presented a petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr.
+Clay) made a speech in answer to it, which I suppose he carefully wrote
+out himself and caused to be published. I have before me an extract from
+that speech which constitutes the evidence this pretended "Old-Line Whig"
+at Chicago brought forward to show that Mr. Clay did n't suppose the
+negro was included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay
+said:
+
+"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate
+the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the
+act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American
+colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle,
+there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration; and it is desirable,
+in the original construction of society and in organized societies, to
+keep it in view as a great fundamental principle. But, then, I apprehend
+that in no society that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, was or
+can the equality asserted among the members of the human race be
+practically enforced and carried out. There are portions, large portions,
+women, minors, insane, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always
+probably remain subject to the government of another portion of the
+community.
+
+"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made by
+the delegations of the thirteen States. In most of them slavery existed,
+and had long existed, and was established by law. It was introduced and
+forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of England. Do you believe
+that in making that declaration the States that concurred in it intended
+that it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the slaves
+within their respective limits? Would Virginia and other Southern States
+have ever united in a declaration which was to be interpreted into an
+abolition of slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen colonies
+entertain such a design or expectation? To impute such a secret and
+unavowed purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest
+band of patriots that ever assembled in council,--a fraud upon the
+Confederacy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of those States
+whose Constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but
+permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808."
+
+This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that somebody
+previous to three years ago had said the negro was not included in the
+term "all men" in the Declaration. How does it do so? In what way has it
+a tendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an abstract
+principle that all men are created equal, but that we cannot practically
+apply it in all eases. He illustrates this by bringing forward the cases
+of females, minors, and insane persons, with whom it cannot be enforced;
+but he says it is true as an abstract principle in the organization of
+society as well as in organized society and it should be kept in view as
+a fundamental principle. Let me read a few words more before I add some
+comments of my own. Mr. Clay says, a little further on:
+
+"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of
+slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have
+derived it from the parental government and from our ancestors. I wish
+every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. But
+here they are, and the question is, How can they be best dealt with? If a
+state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of
+society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be to
+incorporate the institution of slavery amongst its elements."
+
+Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, in this same extract,
+brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held that the negro was not
+included in the Declaration of Independence, is no such statement on his
+part, but the declaration that it is a great fundamental truth which
+should be constantly kept in view in the organization of society and in
+societies already organized. But if I say a word about it; if I attempt,
+as Mr. Clay said all good men ought to do, to keep it in view; if, in
+this "organized society," I ask to have the public eye turned upon it; if
+I ask, in relation to the organization of new Territories, that the
+public eye should be turned upon it, forthwith I am vilified as you hear
+me to-day. What have I done that I have not the license of Henry Clay's
+illustrious example here in doing? Have I done aught that I have not his
+authority for, while maintaining that in organizing new Territories and
+societies this fundamental principle should be regarded, and in organized
+society holding it up to the public view and recognizing what he
+recognized as the great principle of free government?
+
+And when this new principle--this new proposition that no human being
+ever thought of three years ago--is brought forward, I combat it as
+having an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as having a
+tendency to dehumanize the negro, to take away from him the right of ever
+striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things
+constantly done in these days to prepare the public mind to make
+property, and nothing but property, of the negro in all the States of
+this Union.
+
+But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of the
+discussion, to ask attention to. I have read and I repeat the words of
+Henry Clay:
+
+"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of
+slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have
+derived it from the parental government and from our ancestors. I wish
+every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. But
+here they are, and the question is, How can they be best dealt with? If a
+state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of
+society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be to
+incorporate the institution of slavery amongst its elements."
+
+The principle upon which I have insisted in this canvass is in relation
+to laying the foundations of new societies. I have never sought to apply
+these principles to the old States for the purpose of abolishing slavery
+in those States. It is nothing but a miserable perversion of what I have
+said, to assume that I have declared Missouri, or any other slave State,
+shall emancipate her slaves; I have proposed no such thing. But when Mr.
+Clay says that in laying the foundations of society in our Territories
+where it does not exist, he would be opposed to the introduction of
+slavery as an element, I insist that we have his warrant--his
+license--for insisting upon the exclusion of that element which he
+declared in such strong and emphatic language was most hurtful to him.
+
+Judge Douglas has again referred to a Springfield speech in which I said
+"a house divided against itself cannot stand." The Judge has so often
+made the entire quotation from that speech that I can make it from
+memory. I used this language:
+
+"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the
+avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the slavery
+agitation. Under the operation of this policy, that agitation has not
+only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not
+cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house divided
+against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure
+permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall,
+but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one
+thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the
+further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in
+the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its
+advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all
+the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."
+
+That extract and the sentiments expressed in it have been extremely
+offensive to Judge Douglas. He has warred upon them as Satan wars upon
+the Bible. His perversions upon it are endless. Here now are my views
+upon it in brief:
+
+I said we were now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated
+with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the
+slavery agitation. Is it not so? When that Nebraska Bill was brought
+forward four years ago last January, was it not for the "avowed object"
+of putting an end to the slavery agitation? We were to have no more
+agitation in Congress; it was all to be banished to the Territories. By
+the way, I will remark here that, as Judge Douglas is very fond of
+complimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days, Mr. Crittenden has said there
+was a falsehood in that whole business, for there was no slavery
+agitation at that time to allay. We were for a little while quiet on the
+troublesome thing, and that very allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's
+stirred it up again. But was it not understood or intimated with the
+"confident promise" of putting an end to the slavery agitation? Surely it
+was. In every speech you heard Judge Douglas make, until he got into this
+"imbroglio," as they call it, with the Administration about the Lecompton
+Constitution, every speech on that Nebraska Bill was full of his
+felicitations that we were just at the end of the slavery agitation. The
+last tip of the last joint of the old serpent's tail was just drawing out
+of view. But has it proved so? I have asserted that under that policy
+that agitation "has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented."
+When was there ever a greater agitation in Congress than last winter?
+When was it as great in the country as to-day?
+
+There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska
+policy, which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a superior
+degree of self-government, beyond what they had ever had before. The
+first object and the main one of conferring upon the people a higher
+degree of "self-government" is a question of fact to be determined by you
+in answer to a single question. Have you ever heard or known of a people
+anywhere on earth who had as little to do as, in the first instance of
+its use, the people of Kansas had with this same right of
+"self-government "? In its main policy and in its collateral object, it
+has been nothing but a living, creeping lie from the time of its
+introduction till to-day.
+
+I have intimated that I thought the agitation would not cease until a
+crisis should have been reached and passed. I have stated in what way I
+thought it would be reached and passed. I have said that it might go one
+way or the other. We might, by arresting the further spread of it, and
+placing it where the fathers originally placed it, put it where the
+public mind should rest in the belief that it was in the course of
+ultimate extinction. Thus the agitation may cease. It may be pushed
+forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well
+as new, North as well as South. I have said, and I repeat, my wish is
+that the further spread of it may be arrested, and that it may be where
+the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of
+ultimate extinction--I have expressed that as my wish I entertain the
+opinion, upon evidence sufficient to my mind, that the fathers of this
+government placed that institution where the public mind did rest in the
+belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Let me ask why
+they made provision that the source of slavery--the African
+slave-trade--should be cut off at the end of twenty years? Why did they
+make provision that in all the new territory we owned at that time
+slavery should be forever inhibited? Why stop its spread in one
+direction, and cut off its source in another, if they did not look to its
+being placed in the course of its ultimate extinction?
+
+Again: the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the Constitution
+of the United States two or three times, and in neither of these cases
+does the word "slavery" or "negro race" occur; but covert language is
+used each time, and for a purpose full of significance. What is the
+language in regard to the prohibition of the African slave-trade? It runs
+in about this way:
+
+"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now
+existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
+Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight."
+
+The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of slavery and the
+black race is on the subject of the basis of representation, and there
+the language used is:
+
+"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several
+States which may be included within this Union, according to their
+respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
+number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of
+years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other
+persons."
+
+It says "persons," not slaves, not negroes; but this "three-fifths" can
+be applied to no other class among us than the negroes.
+
+Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it is
+said:
+
+"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
+escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation
+therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered
+up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
+
+There again there is no mention of the word "negro" or of slavery. In all
+three of these places, being the only allusions to slavery in the
+instrument, covert language is used. Language is used not suggesting that
+slavery existed or that the black race were among us. And I understand
+the contemporaneous history of those times to be that covert language was
+used with a purpose, and that purpose was that in our Constitution, which
+it was hoped and is still hoped will endure forever,--when it should be
+read by intelligent and patriotic men, after the institution of slavery
+had passed from among us,--there should be nothing on the face of the
+great charter of liberty suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery
+had ever existed among us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers
+of the government expected and intended the institution of slavery to
+come to an end. They expected and intended that it should be in the
+course of ultimate extinction. And when I say that I desire to see the
+further spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which
+the fathers have first done. When I say I desire to see it placed where
+the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of
+ultimate extinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they
+placed it. It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes,
+made this government part slave and part free. Understand the sense in
+which he puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within
+itself,--was introduced by the framers of the Constitution. The exact
+truth is, that they found the institution existing among us, and they
+left it as they found it. But in making the government they left this
+institution with many clear marks of disapprobation upon it. They found
+slavery among them, and they left it among them because of the
+difficulty--the absolute impossibility--of its immediate removal. And
+when Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it remain part slave and
+part free, as the fathers of the government made it, he asks a question
+based upon an assumption which is itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him
+and ask him the question, when the policy that the fathers of the
+government had adopted in relation to this element among us was the best
+policy in the world, the only wise policy, the only policy that we can
+ever safely continue upon that will ever give us peace, unless this
+dangerous element masters us all and becomes a national institution,--I
+turn upon him and ask him why he could not leave it alone. I turn and ask
+him why he was driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy in
+regard to it. He has himself said he introduced a new policy. He said so
+in his speech on the 22d of March of the present year, 1858. I ask him
+why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it. I ask, too,
+of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall not again place this
+institution upon the basis on which the fathers left it. I ask you, when
+he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and slave States at war,
+when the institution was placed in that attitude by those who made the
+Constitution, did they make any war? If we had no war out of it when thus
+placed, wherein is the ground of belief that we shall have war out of it
+if we return to that policy? Have we had any peace upon this matter
+springing from any other basis? I maintain that we have not. I have
+proposed nothing more than a return to the policy of the fathers.
+
+I confess, when I propose a certain measure of policy, it is not enough
+for me that I do not intend anything evil in the result, but it is
+incumbent on me to show that it has not a tendency to that result. I have
+met Judge Douglas in that point of view. I have not only made the
+declaration that I do not mean to produce a conflict between the States,
+but I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I think I have shown to
+the minds of fair men, that I propose nothing but what has a most
+peaceful tendency. The quotation that I happened to make in that
+Springfield Speech, that "a house divided against itself cannot stand,"
+and which has proved so offensive to the judge, was part and parcel of
+the same thing. He tries to show that variety in the democratic
+institutions of the different States is necessary and indispensable. I do
+not dispute it. I have no controversy with Judge Douglas about that. I
+shall very readily agree with him that it would be foolish for us to
+insist upon having a cranberry law here in Illinois, where we have no
+cranberries, because they have a cranberry law in Indiana, where they
+have cranberries. I should insist that it would be exceedingly wrong in
+us to deny to Virginia the right to enact oyster laws, where they have
+oysters, because we want no such laws here. I understand, I hope, quite
+as well as Judge Douglas or anybody else, that the variety in the soil
+and climate and face of the country, and consequent variety in the
+industrial pursuits and productions of a country, require systems of law
+conforming to this variety in the natural features of the country. I
+understand quite as well as Judge Douglas that if we here raise a barrel
+of flour more than we want, and the Louisianians raise a barrel of sugar
+more than they want, it is of mutual advantage to exchange. That produces
+commerce, brings us together, and makes us better friends. We like one
+another the more for it. And I understand as well as Judge Douglas, or
+anybody else, that these mutual accommodations are the cements which bind
+together the different parts of this Union; that instead of being a thing
+to "divide the house,"--figuratively expressing the Union,--they tend to
+sustain it; they are the props of the house, tending always to hold it
+up.
+
+But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is any parallel between
+these things and this institution of slavery? I do not see that there is
+any parallel at all between them. Consider it. When have we had any
+difficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the cranberry laws of
+Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine-lumber laws of
+Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar, and Illinois flour?
+When have we had any quarrels over these things? When have we had perfect
+peace in regard to this thing which I say is an element of discord in
+this Union? We have sometimes had peace, but when was it? It was when the
+institution of slavery remained quiet where it was. We have had
+difficulty and turmoil whenever it has made a struggle to spread itself
+where it was not. I ask, then, if experience does not speak in
+thunder-tones telling us that the policy which has given peace to the
+country heretofore, being returned to, gives the greatest promise of
+peace again. You may say, and Judge Douglas has intimated the same thing,
+that all this difficulty in regard to the institution of slavery is the
+mere agitation of office-seekers and ambitious Northern politicians. He
+thinks we want to get "his place," I suppose. I agree that there are
+office-seekers amongst us. The Bible says somewhere that we are
+desperately selfish. I think we would have discovered that fact without
+the Bible. I do not claim that I am any less so than the average of men,
+but I do claim that I am not more selfish than Judge Douglas.
+
+But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in regard to
+this institution of slavery spring from office-seeking, from the mere
+ambition of politicians? Is that the truth? How many times have we had
+danger from this question? Go back to the day of the Missouri Compromise.
+Go back to the nullification question, at the bottom of which lay this
+same slavery question. Go back to the time of the annexation of Texas. Go
+back to the troubles that led to the Compromise of 1850. You will find
+that every time, with the single exception of the Nullification question,
+they sprung from an endeavor to spread this institution. There never was
+a party in the history of this country, and there probably never will be,
+of sufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country.
+Parties themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet it
+extends not beyond the parties themselves. But does not this question
+make a disturbance outside of political circles? Does it not enter into
+the churches and rend them asunder? What divided the great Methodist
+Church into two parts, North and South? What has raised this constant
+disturbance in every Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What
+disturbed the Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has
+jarred and shaken the great American Tract Society recently, not yet
+splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end? Is it not this same
+mighty, deep-seated power that somehow operates on the minds of men,
+exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society,--in politics,
+in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of
+life? Is this the work of politicians? Is that irresistible power, which
+for fifty years has shaken the government and agitated the people, to be
+stifled and subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly simple thing,
+and we ought not to talk about it? If you will get everybody else to stop
+talking about it, I assure you I will quit before they have half done so.
+But where is the philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can
+quiet that disturbing element in our society which has disturbed us for
+more than half a century, which has been the only serious danger that has
+threatened our institutions,--I say, where is the philosophy or the
+statesmanship based on the assumption that we are to quit talking about
+it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being agitated by
+it? Yet this is the policy here in the North that Douglas is advocating,
+that we are to care nothing about it! I ask you if it is not a false
+philosophy. Is it not a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a
+system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing
+that everybody does care the most about--a thing which all experience has
+shown we care a very great deal about?
+
+The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the
+exclusive right which the States have to decide the whole thing for
+themselves. I agree with him very readily that the different States have
+that right. He is but fighting a man of straw when he assumes that I am
+contending against the right of the States to do as they please about it.
+Our controversy with him is in regard to the new Territories. We agree
+that when the States come in as States they have the right and the power
+to do as they please. We have no power as citizens of the free-States, or
+in our Federal capacity as members of the Federal Union through the
+General Government, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We
+profess constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the
+power of the government to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to
+defend ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights
+of the Sates. What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be
+kept free from it while in the Territorial condition. Judge Douglas
+assumes that we have no interest in them,--that we have no right whatever
+to interfere. I think we have some interest. I think that as white men we
+have. Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may
+so express myself? Do we not feel an interest in getting to that outlet
+with such institutions as we would like to have prevail there? If you go
+to the Territory opposed to slavery, and another man comes upon the same
+ground with his slave, upon the assumption that the things are equal, it
+turns out that he has the equal right all his way, and you have no part
+of it your way. If he goes in and makes it a slave Territory, and by
+consequence a slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have
+it a free State were on equal ground? Let me suggest it in a different
+way. How many Democrats are there about here ["A thousand"] who have left
+slave States and come into the free State of Illinois to get rid of the
+institution of slavery? [Another voice: "A thousand and one."] I reckon
+there are a thousand and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are now
+advocating had prevailed when this country was in a Territorial
+condition, where would you have gone to get rid of it? Where would you
+have found your free State or Territory to go to? And when hereafter, for
+any cause, the people in this place shall desire to find new homes, if
+they wish to be rid of the institution, where will they find the place to
+go to?
+
+Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether
+there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of
+our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a
+home,--may find some spot where they can better their condition; where
+they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in
+favor of this, not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for
+our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white
+people everywhere the world over--in which Hans, and Baptiste, and
+Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and
+better their conditions in life.
+
+I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what
+I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge
+Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the
+free and the slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too,
+when he assumes that I am in favor of producing a perfect social and
+political equality between the white and black races. These are false
+issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy.
+There is no foundation in truth for the charge that I maintain either of
+these propositions. The real issue in this controversy--the one pressing
+upon every mind--is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks
+upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that
+does not look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the
+institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the
+Republican party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all
+their arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They
+look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while
+they contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its
+actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in
+any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations thrown
+about it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in
+regard to it that looks to its not creating any more danger. They insist
+that it should, as far as may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the
+methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow
+no larger. They also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of
+slavery at some time. These are the views they entertain in regard to it
+as I understand them; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and
+propositions, are brought within this range. I have said, and I repeat it
+here, that if there be a man amongst us who does not think that the
+institution of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have
+spoken, he is misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a
+man amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its
+actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly
+in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations
+thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We
+disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly
+with us.
+
+On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let
+me say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union
+save and except this very institution of slavery? What is it that we hold
+most dear amongst us? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever
+threatened our liberty and prosperity, save and except this institution
+of slavery? If this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition
+of things by enlarging slavery, by spreading it out and making it bigger?
+You may have a wen or cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it
+out, lest you bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to
+engraft it and spread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of
+treating what you regard a wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing
+with it as a wrong, restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to
+go into new countries where it has not already existed. That is the
+peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers
+themselves set us the example.
+
+On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it as
+not being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not
+mean to say that every man who stands within that range positively
+asserts that it is right. That class will include all who positively
+assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as
+indifferent and do not say it is either right or wrong. These two classes
+of men fall within the general class of those who do not look upon it as
+a wrong. And if there be among you anybody who supposes that he, as a
+Democrat, can consider himself "as much opposed to slavery as anybody," I
+would like to reason with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other
+thing that you consider as a wrong do you deal with as you deal with
+that? Perhaps you say it is wrong--but your leader never does, and you
+quarrel with anybody who says it is wrong. Although you pretend to say so
+yourself, you can find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You must
+not say anything about it in the free States, because it is not here. You
+must not say anything about it in the slave States, because it is there.
+You must not say anything about it in the pulpit, because that is
+religion, and has nothing to do with it. You must not say anything about
+it in politics, because that will disturb the security of "my place."
+There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say
+yourself it is a wrong. But, finally, you will screw yourself up to the
+belief that if the people of the slave States should adopt a system of
+gradual emancipation on the slavery question, you would be in favor of
+it. You would be in favor of it. You say that is getting it in the right
+place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. But you are deceiving
+yourself. You all know that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in
+St. Louis, undertook to introduce that system in Missouri. They fought as
+valiantly as they could for the system of gradual emancipation which you
+pretend you would be glad to see succeed. Now, I will bring you to the
+test. After a hard fight they were beaten, and when the news came over
+here, you threw up your hats and hurrahed for Democracy. More than that,
+take all the argument made in favor of the system you have proposed, and
+it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in the
+institution of slavery. The arguments to sustain that policy carefully
+exclude it. Even here to-day you heard Judge Douglas quarrel with me
+because I uttered a wish that it might sometime come to an end. Although
+Henry Clay could say he wished every slave in the United States was in
+the country of his ancestors, I am denounced by those pretending to
+respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish that it might sometime, in some
+peaceful way, come to an end. The Democratic policy in regard to that
+institution will not tolerate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of
+the least degree of wrong about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas's
+arguments. He says he "don't care whether it is voted up or voted down"
+in the Territories. I do not care myself, in dealing with that
+expression, whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual
+sentiments on the subject, or only of the national policy he desires to
+have established. It is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say
+that who does not see anything wrong in slavery; but no man can logically
+say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can logically say he
+don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He may say he don't
+care whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must
+logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing. He
+contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them.
+So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say
+people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality
+slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property.
+This is strictly logical if there is no difference between it and other
+property. If it and other property are equal, this argument is entirely
+logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there
+is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn
+over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether
+in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the
+Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape
+it takes in short maxim-like arguments,--it everywhere carefully excludes
+the idea that there is anything wrong in it.
+
+That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this
+country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be
+silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles--right
+and wrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles that have
+stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to
+struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the
+divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it
+develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and
+earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether
+from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own
+nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as
+an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical
+principle. I was glad to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express
+it here, to Judge Douglas,--that he looks to no end of the institution of
+slavery. That will help the people to see where the struggle really is.
+It will hereafter place with us all men who really do wish the wrong may
+have an end. And whenever we can get rid of the fog which obscures the
+real question, when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to avow a
+policy looking to its perpetuation,--we can get out from among that class
+of men and bring them to the side of those who treat it as a wrong. Then
+there will soon be an end of it, and that end will be its "ultimate
+extinction." Whenever the issue can be distinctly made, and all
+extraneous matter thrown out so that men can fairly see the real
+difference between the parties, this controversy will soon be settled,
+and it will be done peaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. It
+will be placed again where the wisest and best men of the world placed
+it. Brooks of South Carolina once declared that when this Constitution
+was framed its framers did not look to the institution existing until
+this day. When he said this, I think he stated a fact that is fully borne
+out by the history of the times. But he also said they were better and
+wiser men than the men of these days, yet the men of these days had
+experience which they had not, and by the invention of the cotton-gin it
+became a necessity in this country that slavery should be perpetual. I
+now say that, willingly or unwillingly--purposely or without purpose,
+Judge Douglas has been the most prominent instrument in changing the
+position of the institution of slavery,--which the fathers of the
+government expected to come to an end ere this, and putting it upon
+Brooks's cotton-gin basis; placing it where he openly confesses he has no
+desire there shall ever be an end of it.
+
+I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying something
+about this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains the Dred Scott
+decision, that the people of the Territories can still somehow exclude
+slavery. The first thing I ask attention to is the fact that Judge
+Douglas constantly said, before the decision, that whether they could or
+not, was a question for the Supreme Court. But after the court had made
+the decision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme
+Court, but for the people. And how is it he tells us they can exclude it?
+He says it needs "police regulations," and that admits of "unfriendly
+legislation." Although it is a right established by the Constitution of
+the United States to take a slave into a Territory of the United States
+and hold him as property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will
+give friendly legislation, and more especially if they adopt unfriendly
+legislation, they can practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this
+proposition as a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real
+constitutional obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the
+face before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial
+Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to swear that he will
+support the Constitution of the United States. His neighbor by his side
+in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial legislation to enable
+him to enjoy that constitutional right. Can he withhold the legislation
+which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in
+his favor in the Constitution of the United States which he has sworn to
+support? Can he withhold it without violating his oath? And, more
+especially, can he pass unfriendly legislation to violate his oath? Why,
+this is a monstrous sort of talk about the Constitution of the United
+States! There has never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the
+mouth of any respectable man on earth. I do not believe it is a
+constitutional right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States.
+I believe the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it.
+Judge Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision.
+But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself
+stands. I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine
+uttered from the mouth of a respectable man.
+
+I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of the
+Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law,--that
+is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to
+them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a
+"barren right," which needs legislation before it can become efficient
+and valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is
+constitutional, I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it, and
+that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no
+taste for running and catching niggers, at least, I profess no taste for
+that job at all. Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law?
+Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that
+right, can be supported without it. And if I believed that the right to
+hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution with
+the right to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to give it the
+legislation necessary to support it. I say that no man can deny his
+obligation to give the necessary legislation to support slavery in a
+Territory, who believes it is a constitutional right to have it there. No
+man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the
+obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a Fugitive State law.
+Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say if
+that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a
+Territory is equally a constitutional right with the right of a
+slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one can show the distinction
+between them. The one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is
+construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision
+to be correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by
+unfriendly legislation, in spite of that constitutional right, slavery
+may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument
+by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and
+claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder
+to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such an arguement may strike a
+popular assembly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body of men
+whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show
+that there is an iota of difference between the constitutional right to
+reclaim a fugitive and the constitutional right to hold a slave, in a
+Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct, I defy any man
+to make an argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a
+slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will not
+equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument
+for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not such an
+Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all! such an Abolitionist in
+the nation as Douglas, after all!
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln,
+Volume 4, by Abraham Lincoln
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WRITINGS OF LINCOLN ***
+
+***** This file should be named 2656.txt or 2656.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.net/2/6/5/2656/
+
+Produced by David Widger
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.net/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.net
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/20060816.2656.zip b/old/20060816.2656.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..457e4b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/20060816.2656.zip
diff --git a/old/4linc10.txt b/old/4linc10.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..aa176c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/4linc10.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,3707 @@
+Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 4
+
+Volume 4 of 7
+
+Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check
+the copyright laws for your country before posting these files!!
+
+Please take a look at the important information in this header.
+We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an
+electronic path open for the next readers.  Do not remove this.
+
+*It must legally be the first thing seen when opening the book.*
+In fact, our legal advisors said we can't even change margins.
+
+**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
+
+**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
+
+*These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Donations*
+
+Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and
+further information is included below.  We need your donations.
+
+
+Title:  The Writings of Abraham Lincoln
+
+Author:  Abraham Lincoln
+
+June, 2001  [Etext #2656]
+
+
+Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 4
+*******This file should be named 4linc10.txt or 4linc10.zip******
+
+Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, 4linc11.txt
+VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, 4linc10a.txt
+
+
+Etext prepared for Gutenberg by David Widger,  widger@cecomet.net
+
+Project Gutenberg Etexts are usually created from multiple editions,
+all of which are in the Public Domain in the United States, unless a
+copyright notice is included.  Therefore, we usually do NOT keep any
+of these books in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+We are now trying to release all our books one month in advance
+of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
+
+Please note:  neither this list nor its contents are final till
+midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
+The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at
+Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
+preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
+and editing by those who wish to do so.  To be sure you have an
+up to date first edition [xxxxx10x.xxx] please check file sizes
+in the first week of the next month.  Since our ftp program has
+a bug in it that scrambles the date [tried to fix and failed] a
+look at the file size will have to do, but we will try to see a
+new copy has at least one byte more or less.
+
+
+Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)
+
+We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
+time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
+to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
+searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.  This
+projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If our value
+per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
+million dollars per hour this year as we release thirty-six text
+files per month, or 432 more Etexts in 1999 for a total of 2000+
+If these reach just 10% of the computerized population, then the
+total should reach over 200 billion Etexts given away this year.
+
+The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext
+Files by December 31, 2001.  [10,000 x 100,000,000 = 1 Trillion]
+This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
+which is only ~5% of the present number of computer users.
+
+At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third
+of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 3,333 Etexts unless we
+manage to get some real funding; currently our funding is mostly
+from Michael Hart's salary at Carnegie-Mellon University, and an
+assortment of sporadic gifts; this salary is only good for a few
+more years, so we are looking for something to replace it, as we
+don't want Project Gutenberg to be so dependent on one person.
+
+We need your donations more than ever!
+
+
+All donations should be made to "Project Gutenberg/CMU": and are
+tax deductible to the extent allowable by law.  (CMU = Carnegie-
+Mellon University).
+
+For these and other matters, please mail to:
+
+Project Gutenberg
+P. O. Box  2782
+Champaign, IL 61825
+
+When all other email fails. . .try our Executive Director:
+Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>
+hart@pobox.com forwards to hart@prairienet.org and archive.org
+if your mail bounces from archive.org, I will still see it, if
+it bounces from prairienet.org, better resend later on. . . .
+
+We would prefer to send you this information by email.
+
+******
+
+To access Project Gutenberg etexts, use any Web browser
+to view http://promo.net/pg.  This site lists Etexts by
+author and by title, and includes information about how
+to get involved with Project Gutenberg.  You could also
+download our past Newsletters, or subscribe here.  This
+is one of our major sites, please email hart@pobox.com,
+for a more complete list of our various sites.
+
+To go directly to the etext collections, use FTP or any
+Web browser to visit a Project Gutenberg mirror (mirror
+sites are available on 7 continents; mirrors are listed
+at http://promo.net/pg).
+
+Mac users, do NOT point and click, typing works better.
+
+Example FTP session:
+
+ftp metalab.unc.edu
+login: anonymous
+password: your@login
+cd pub/docs/books/gutenberg
+cd etext90 through etext99 or etext00 through etext01, etc.
+dir [to see files]
+get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files]
+GET GUTINDEX.??  [to get a year's listing of books, e.g., GUTINDEX.99]
+GET GUTINDEX.ALL [to get a listing of ALL books]
+
+***
+
+**Information prepared by the Project Gutenberg legal advisor**
+
+(Three Pages)
+
+
+***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START***
+Why is this "Small Print!" statement here?  You know: lawyers.
+They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
+your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from
+someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
+fault.  So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
+disclaims most of our liability to you.  It also tells you how
+you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to.
+
+*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT
+By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
+etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
+this "Small Print!" statement.  If you do not, you can receive
+a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by
+sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
+you got it from.  If you received this etext on a physical
+medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
+
+ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS
+This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-
+tm etexts, is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor
+Michael S. Hart through the Project Gutenberg Association at
+Carnegie-Mellon University (the "Project").  Among other
+things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
+on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
+distribute it in the United States without permission and
+without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules, set forth
+below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext
+under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
+
+To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable
+efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
+works.  Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any
+medium they may be on may contain "Defects".  Among other
+things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
+intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
+disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer
+codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
+
+LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
+But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
+[1] the Project (and any other party you may receive this
+etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
+legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
+UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
+INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
+OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+
+If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of
+receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
+you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
+time to the person you received it from.  If you received it
+on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
+such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
+copy.  If you received it electronically, such person may
+choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
+receive it electronically.
+
+THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS".  NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
+TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
+LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
+PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
+the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
+above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
+may have other legal rights.
+
+INDEMNITY
+You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors,
+officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost
+and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or
+indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause:
+[1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification,
+or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect.
+
+DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
+You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by
+disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
+"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
+or:
+
+[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
+     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
+     etext or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
+     if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable
+     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
+     including any form resulting from conversion by word pro-
+     cessing or hypertext software, but only so long as
+     *EITHER*:
+
+     [*]  The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
+          does *not* contain characters other than those
+          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
+          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
+          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
+          author, and additional characters may be used to
+          indicate hypertext links; OR
+
+     [*]  The etext may be readily converted by the reader at
+          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
+          form by the program that displays the etext (as is
+          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
+          OR
+
+     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
+          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
+          etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
+          or other equivalent proprietary form).
+
+[2]  Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this
+     "Small Print!" statement.
+
+[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the
+     net profits you derive calculated using the method you
+     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
+     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
+     payable to "Project Gutenberg Association/Carnegie-Mellon
+     University" within the 60 days following each
+     date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare)
+     your annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return.
+
+WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
+The Project gratefully accepts contributions in money, time,
+scanning machines, OCR software, public domain etexts, royalty
+free copyright licenses, and every other sort of contribution
+you can think of.  Money should be paid to "Project Gutenberg
+Association / Carnegie-Mellon University".
+
+We are planning on making some changes in our donation structure
+in 2000, so you might want to email me, hart@pobox.com beforehand.
+
+
+
+
+*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.04.29.93*END*
+
+
+
+
+
+Etext prepared for Gutenberg by David Widger,  widger@cecomet.net
+
+
+
+
+
+VOLUME IV
+
+THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II
+
+
+
+
+LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH JOINT DEBATE,
+
+AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858.
+
+LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--It will be very difficult for an audience so
+large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and
+consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as
+possible.
+
+While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me
+to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality
+between the negroes and white people.  While I had not proposed to
+myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
+question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes
+in saying something in regard to it.  I will say, then, that I am
+not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
+social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am
+not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of
+negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry
+with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is
+a physical difference between the white and black races which I
+believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of
+social and political equality.  And in as much as they cannot so
+live, while they do remain together there must be the position of
+superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of
+having the superior position assigned to the white race.  I say upon
+this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have
+the superior position the negro should be denied everything.  I do
+not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I
+must necessarily want her for a wife.  My understanding is that I can
+just let her alone.  I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly
+never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife.  So it
+seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either
+slaves or wives of negroes.  I will add to this that I have never
+seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of
+producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes
+and white men.  I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I
+ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its
+correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend
+Colonel Richard M. Johnson.  I will also add to the remarks I have
+made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I
+have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would
+marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it; but as Judge
+Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they
+might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most
+solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this
+State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.  I
+will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand
+that there is any place where an alteration of the social and
+political relations of the negro and the white man can be made,
+except in the State Legislature,--not in the Congress of the United
+States; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such
+thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror
+that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best
+means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the
+State Legislature to fight the measure.  I do not propose dwelling
+longer at this time on this subject.
+
+When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to
+Illinois in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in
+which he made what may be called a charge against Judge Douglas,
+which I understand proved to be very offensive to him.  The Judge was
+at that time out upon one of his speaking tours through the country,
+and when the news of it reached him, as I am informed, he denounced
+Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for having said what he did in
+regard to that matter.  I was traveling at that time, and speaking at
+the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent days, and when I
+heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and what Douglas
+had said back again, I felt that I was in a position where I could
+not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter.  Consequently,
+upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no
+other wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by
+Trumbull against Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to
+say nothing about it; that I did personally know Judge Trumbull; that
+I believed him to be a man of veracity; that I believed him to be a
+man of capacity sufficient to know very well whether an assertion he
+was making, as a conclusion drawn from a set of facts, was true or
+false; and as a conclusion of my own from that, I stated it as my
+belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove
+everything he had said.  I said this upon two or three occasions.
+Upon a subsequent occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before an
+audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his
+charge against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to
+substantiate it.  This speech was published at length; and
+subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas alluded to the matter.  In
+the course of his speech, and near the close of it, he stated in
+regard to myself what I will now read:
+
+"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter
+occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that,
+Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he
+should hold him (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders."
+
+I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this
+invitation to notice the charge.  I now wish to say that it had not
+originally been my purpose to discuss that matter at all  But in-as-
+much as it seems to be the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me
+responsible for it, then for once in my life I will play General
+Jackson, and to the just extent I take the responsibility.
+
+I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that
+portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this
+matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at
+Jacksonville in answer to it.  I shall thereby furnish the readers of
+this debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and
+Douglas.  I cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take
+half of my first hour to do so.  I can only make some comments upon
+them.  Trumbull's charge is in the following words:
+
+"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a
+constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the
+people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in
+the plot."
+
+I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an
+opportunity of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings
+forward what he regards as sufficient evidence to substantiate this
+charge.
+
+It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon
+the floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference
+among the senators, in which conference it was determined to have an
+enabling act passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution
+under, and in this conference it was agreed among them that it was
+best not to have a provision for submitting the constitution to a
+vote of the people after it should be formed.  He then brings forward
+to show, and showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the
+bill back to the Senate with that clause stricken out.  He then shows
+that there was a new clause inserted into the bill, which would in
+its nature prevent a reference of the constitution back for a vote of
+the people,--if, indeed, upon a mere silence in the law, it could be
+assumed that they had the right to vote upon it.  These are the
+general statements that he has made.
+
+I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he
+attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's.  When you come to
+examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he
+makes is:
+
+"Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and
+that I struck it out,--is that a proof of a plot to force a
+constitution upon them against their will?"
+
+His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the
+bill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken
+out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right.  I would
+say, in the first place, that that would be a most manifest reason
+for it.  It is true, as Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial
+bills have passed without having such a provision in them.  I believe
+it is true, though I am not certain, that in some instances
+constitutions framed under such bills have been submitted to a vote
+of the people with the law silent upon the subject; but it does not
+appear that they once had their enabling acts framed with an express
+provision for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of
+the people, then that they were stricken out when Congress did not
+mean to alter the effect of the law.  That there have been bills
+which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when was
+that provision taken out of one that it was in?  More especially does
+the evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced,
+when we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill
+almost simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a
+conference among certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a
+bill should be passed leaving that out.  Judge Douglas, in answering
+Trumbull, omits to attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was
+a meeting in which it was agreed they should so frame the bill that
+there should be no submission of the constitution to a vote of the
+people.  The Judge does not notice this part of it.  If you take this
+as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that simultaneously
+Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to be
+submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty
+fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter
+into a plot to put in force a constitution for Kansas, without giving
+the people any opportunity of voting upon it.
+
+But I must hurry on.  The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is
+this:
+
+"But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did
+contain a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted."
+
+This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence.
+I only want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that
+these words were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill
+from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out,--a bill
+which goes by the name of Toomb's, because he originally brought it
+forward?  I ask why, if the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with
+Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition Trumbull made in his
+speech, and say it was not stricken out?  Trumbull has given the
+exact words that he says were in the Toomb's bill, and he alleges
+that when the bill came back, they were stricken out.  Judge Douglas
+does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken out
+were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision in the
+Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people.  We
+see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the
+words.  He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about
+these words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to
+it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words.  Now, then,
+if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be
+upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken
+out, I have before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the
+Toomb's bill, in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says
+were in it were, in fact, originally there.  If there be any dispute
+upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show they were there.
+If there be any controversy upon the sense of the words,--whether
+these words which were stricken out really constituted a provision
+for submitting the matter to a vote of the people,--as that is a
+matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull's own
+argument.  He says that the proposition is in these words:
+
+"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered
+to the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their
+free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention
+and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the
+constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said
+State of Kansas."
+
+Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the
+bill when it came back, and he says this was a provision for
+submitting the constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument
+is this:
+
+"Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the
+election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an
+election was to be held?"
+
+This is Trumbull's argument.  Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the
+charge at all, but he stands up and says there was no such
+proposition in that bill for submitting the constitution to be framed
+to a vote of the people.  Trumbull admits that the language is not a
+direct provision for submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily
+implied from another provision.  He asks you how it is possible to
+ratify the land proposition at the election for the adoption of the
+constitution, if there was no election to be held for the adoption of
+the constitution.  And he goes on to show that it is not any less a
+law because the provision is put in that indirect shape than it would
+be if it were put directly.  But I presume I have said enough to draw
+attention to this point, and I pass it by also.
+
+Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and
+at very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending,
+said in a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to
+be made would have to be submitted to the people.  He asks, if
+Trumbull thought so then, what ground is there for anybody thinking
+otherwise now?  Fellow-citizens, this much may be said in reply: That
+bill had been in the hands of a party to which Trumbull did not
+belong.  It had been in the hands of the committee at the head of
+which Judge Douglas stood.  Trumbull perhaps had a printed copy of
+the original Toomb's bill.  I have not the evidence on that point
+except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of business
+there.  What alterations, or what provisions in the way of altering,
+were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, until
+the altered bill was reported back.  Soon afterwards, when it was
+reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull
+in reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the
+bearings of the alterations.  He was hastily borne into the debate,
+and it does not follow that because there was something in it
+Trumbull did not perceive, that something did not exist.  More than
+this, is it true that what Trumbull did can have any effect on what
+Douglas did?  Suppose Trumbull had been in the plot with these other
+men, would that let Douglas out of it?   Would it exonerate Douglas
+that Trumbull did n't then perceive he was in the plot?  He also asks
+the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose to amend the bill, if he
+thought it needed any amendment?  Why, I believe that everything
+Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection with this
+question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of
+the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his
+friends.  He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to
+anything on this subject would receive the slightest consideration.
+Judge Trumbull did bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the
+fact that there was no provision for submitting the constitution
+about to be made for the people of Kansas to a vote of the people.  I
+believe I may venture to say that Judge Douglas made some reply to
+this speech of Judge Trumbull's, but he never noticed that part of it
+at all.  And so the thing passed by.  I think, then, the fact that
+Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not throw much blame upon
+him; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact as to what
+Judge Douglas was doing.  I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself been
+in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it
+from blame.  If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial
+it should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder,
+but that the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at
+all touch the question of my crime.  It would be no relief to my neck
+that they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to
+be guilty too.
+
+Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is,
+that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the
+fact that the bill had the provision in it for submitting the
+constitution to a vote of the people when it went into his Judge
+Douglas's) hands, that it was missing when he reported it to the
+Senate, and that in a public speech he had subsequently said the
+alterations in the bill were made while it was in committee, and that
+they were made in consultation between him (Judge Douglas) and
+Toomb's.  And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of
+Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill
+not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with
+another clause and another provision in it, saying that "until the
+complete execution of this Act there shall be no election in said
+Territory,"--which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the
+provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but
+was adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from
+exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the
+question.  Now, in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the
+issue, that he shifts his ground,--and I believe he uses the term
+that, "it being proven false, he has changed ground," I call upon all
+of you, when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's speech
+(for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trumbull has
+shifted his ground or not.  I say he did not shift his ground, but
+that he brought forward his original charge and the evidence to
+sustain it yet more fully,
+but precisely as he originally made it.  Then, in addition thereto,
+he brought in a new piece of evidence.  He shifted no ground.  He
+brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with his former
+testimony; but he brought a new piece, tending, as he thought, and as
+I think, to prove his proposition.  To illustrate: A man brings an
+accusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge
+introduces A and B to prove the accusation.  At a second trial he
+introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and
+a third witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives
+further testimony corroborative of the charge.  So with Trumbull.
+There was no shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony
+between the new piece of evidence and what he originally introduced.
+
+But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last
+provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and
+a substitute inserted.  That I presume is the truth.  I presume it is
+true that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas.
+Trumbull has not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it
+was so stricken out.  He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as
+Judge Douglas reported it back.  It was amended somewhat in the
+Senate before it passed, but I am speaking of it as he brought it
+back."  Now, when Judge Douglas parades the fact that the provision
+was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he asserts nothing
+contrary to what Trumbull alleges.  Trumbull has only said that he
+originally put it in, not that he did not strike it out.  Trumbull
+says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee.  When it
+came back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made
+by him in consultation with Toomb's.  Trumbull alleges, therefore, as
+his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in.  Then, if Douglas wants
+to contradict Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not
+put it in, and not that he did n't take it out again.  It is said
+that a bear is sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I
+presume it was in this case.  I presume the truth is that Douglas put
+it in, and afterward took it out.  That, I take it, is the truth
+about it.  Judge Trumbull says one thing, Douglas says another thing,
+and the two don't contradict one another at all.  The question is,
+what did he put it in for?  In the first place, what did he take the
+other provision out of the bill for,--the provision which Trumbull
+argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of the
+people?  What did he take that out for; and, having taken it out,
+what did he put this in for?  I say that in the run of things it is
+not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge
+Douglas to take that latter clause out again.  The question that
+Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in; and he don't meet
+Trumbull at all unless he denies that.
+
+In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses
+this language toward Judge Trumbull.  He says:
+
+"He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the
+record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge."
+
+Well, that is a pretty serious statement--Trumbull forges his
+evidence from beginning to end.  Now, upon my own authority I say
+that it is not true.  What is a forgery?  Consider the evidence that
+Trumbull has brought forward.  When you come to read the speech, as
+you will be able to, examine whether the evidence is a forgery from
+beginning to end.  He had the bill or document in his hand like that
+[holding up a paper].  He says that is a copy of the Toomb's bill,--
+the amendment offered by Toomb's.  He says that is a copy of the bill
+as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas's hands.  Now, does
+Judge Douglas say that is a forgery?  That is one thing Trumbull
+brought forward.  Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning to
+end!  That is the "beginning," we will say.  Does Douglas say that is
+a forgery?  Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent
+examination upon this subject.  Trumbull then holds up another
+document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it
+came back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands.  Does
+Judge Douglas say that is a forgery?  Does he say it in his general
+sweeping charge?  Does he say so now?  If he does not, then take this
+Toomb's bill and the bill in the amended form, and it only needs to
+compare them to see that the provision is in the one and not in the
+other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken out.
+
+But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what
+Trumbull's other evidence is.  One other piece of evidence I will
+read.  Trumbull says there are in this original Toomb's bill these
+words:
+
+"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered
+to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for
+their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the
+Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the
+adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United
+States and the said State of Kansas."
+
+Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper
+here and see whether it is or not.  Again, Trumbull says, as he goes
+along, that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in
+the Senate, December 9, 1857:
+
+"I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the
+bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed,
+whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote
+of the people.  It was held by those most intelligent on the subject
+that, in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the
+danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be
+better there should be no such provision in the Toomb's bill; and it
+was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the
+Convention would make a constitution, and send it here, without
+submitting it to the popular vote."
+
+Then Trumbull follows on:
+
+"In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857
+[Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said:
+
+"'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or
+confidential interview.  The meeting was not of that character.
+Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good.
+My recollection was clear that I left the conference under the
+impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit
+Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and
+that for delegates to this Convention.  This impression was stronger
+because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine
+of non-intervention, to which I had great aversion; but with the hope
+of accomplishing a great good, and as no movement had been made in
+that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and
+concluded to support the measure.  I have a few items of testimony as
+to the correctness of these impressions, and with their submission I
+shall be content.  I have before me the bill reported by the senator
+from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission
+of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows:
+
+"That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered
+to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for
+their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the
+Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the
+adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United
+States and the said State of Kansas."
+
+The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of
+June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the
+same section word for word.  Both these bills were under
+consideration at the conference referred to; but, sir, when the
+senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate with
+amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the
+third section which indicated to the Convention that the constitution
+should be approved by the people.  The words "and ratified by the
+people at the election for the adoption of the constitution" had been
+stricken out.'"
+
+Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor
+of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the
+Congressional Globe on certain pages.  Does Judge Douglas say this is
+a forgery?  Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional
+Globe?  What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his
+evidence from beginning to end?  So again he says in another place
+that Judge Douglas, in his speech, December 9, 1857 (Congressional
+Globe, part I., page 15), stated:
+
+"That during the last session of Congress, I (Mr. Douglas] reported a
+bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of
+Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves.
+Subsequently the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a
+substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and
+myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate."
+
+Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and
+is recorded in the Congressional Globe.  Is it a forgery?  Is it
+there or not?  It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take
+these pieces of evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he
+dare do it.
+
+[A voice:"He will."]
+
+Well, sir, you had better not commit him.  He gives other
+quotations,--another from Judge Douglas.  He says:
+
+"I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member
+of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the
+Union, from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be
+submitted to the people.  I will venture to say that on all sides of
+the chamber it was so understood at the time.  If the opponents of
+the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on
+it; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it,
+and put in the clause.  That is a discovery made since the President
+found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would
+be done, which ought in fairness to have been done."
+
+Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded.
+Does Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true?  Trumbull
+says somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any
+one who will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the
+notice of those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that
+provision; and then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge
+Douglas, where Judge Trumbull uses this language:
+
+"Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate,
+probably recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had
+objected to the Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for
+a submission of the constitution to the people, made another
+statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the Globe, page
+22, in which he says:
+'That the bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention
+was called to that about the time it was passed; and I took the fair
+construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that
+of course the constitution would be submitted to the people.'
+
+"Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before
+made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or
+that it was a new discovery, you will determine."
+
+So I say.  I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and
+yet maintain his position that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from
+beginning to end."  I will remark that I have not got these
+Congressional Globes with me.  They are large books, and difficult to
+carry about, and if Judge Douglas shall say that on these points
+where Trumbull has quoted from them there are no such passages there,
+I shall not be able to prove they are there upon this occasion, but I
+will have another chance.  Whenever he points out the forgery and
+says, "I declare that this particular thing which Trumbull has
+uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then my attention
+will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest, stating
+now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find
+every quotation just where Trumbull says it is.  Then the question
+is, How can Douglas call that a forgery?  How can he make out that it
+is a forgery?  What is a forgery?  It is the bringing forward
+something in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect
+when it is altogether untrue.  If you come forward with my note for
+one hundred dollars when I have never given such a note, there is a
+forgery.  If you come forward with a letter purporting to be written
+by me which I never wrote, there is another forgery.  If you produce
+anything in writing or in print saying it is so and so, the document
+not being genuine, a forgery has been committed.  How do you make
+this forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine?   If Judge
+Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false and forged,
+he has a full right to do so; but until he does it specifically, we
+don't know how to get at him.  If he does say they are false and
+forged, I will then look further into it, and presume I can procure
+the certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies.
+I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where
+Trumbull says it is.  Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in
+making his sweeping charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged
+from beginning to end, at all meets the case,--if that is the way to
+get at the facts.  I repeat again, if he will point out which one is
+a forgery, I will carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one
+of them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it
+any longer.  I have always wanted to deal with everyone I meet
+candidly and honestly.  If I have made any assertion not warranted by
+facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully.
+But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and the
+evidence he has brought forward branded in general terms "a forgery
+from beginning to end."  This is not the legal way of meeting a
+charge, and I submit it to all intelligent persons, both friends of
+Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is.
+
+The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill that went into his
+hands had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to
+the people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision
+for a submission, and that he took the provision out.  He says it was
+known that the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge
+Douglas, it was not silent when you got it.  It was vocal with the
+declaration, when you got it, for a submission of the constitution to
+the people.  And now, my direct question to Judge Douglas is, to
+answer why, if he deemed the bill silent on this point, he found it
+necessary to strike out those particular harmless words.  If he had
+found the bill silent and without this provision, he might say what
+he does now.  If he supposes it was implied that the constitution
+would be submitted to a vote of the people, how could these two lines
+so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to strike them out?
+How could he infer that a submission was still implied, after its
+express provision had been stricken from the bill?  I find the bill
+vocal with the provision, while he silenced it.  He took it out, and
+although he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a
+vote of the people, I ask, Why did you first put it in?  I ask him
+whether he took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges
+was in the bill.  If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he
+did it for.  It looks to us as if he had altered the bill.  If it
+looks differently to him,--if he has a different reason for his
+action from the one we assign him--he can tell it.  I insist upon
+knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point when it was vocal
+before he put his hands upon it.
+
+I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three
+minutes of being out.  I presume it is expired now; I therefore
+close.
+
+
+
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER.
+
+FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour
+answer to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried
+one.  I shall only be able to touch upon a few of the points
+suggested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I
+shall have to totally omit others for the want of time.
+
+Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from
+me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro
+citizenship.  So far as I know the Judge never asked me the question
+before.  He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell
+him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship.  This
+furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject.  I
+mentioned in a certain speech of mine, which has been printed, that
+the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made
+a citizen; and without saying what was my ground of complaint in
+regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge
+Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he
+ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the
+negroes and the white people.  If any one will read my speech, he
+will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course
+of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I
+had to it.  But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was
+when I did not tell them myself.  Now, my opinion is that the
+different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the
+Constitution of the United States if they choose.  The Dred Scott
+decision decides that they have not that power.  If the State of
+Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it.
+That is all I have to say about it.
+
+Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my
+speeches south; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the
+north and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very
+different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different
+points.  I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully
+misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take these
+speeches and read them, and I dare him to point out any difference
+between my speeches north and south.  While I am here perhaps I ought
+to say a word, if I have the time, in regard to the latter portion of
+the Judge's speech, which was a sort of declamation in reference to
+my having said I entertained the belief that this government would
+not endure half slave and half free.  I have said so, and I did not
+say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons.  It perhaps
+would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in
+detail; but let me ask you a few questions.  Have we ever had any
+peace on this slavery question?  When are we to have peace upon it,
+if it is kept in the position it now occupies?  How are we ever to
+have peace upon it?  That is an important question.  To be sure, if
+we will all stop, and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march on
+in their present career until they plant the institution all over the
+nation, here and wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in
+it, there will be peace.  But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is
+going to get the people to do that?  They have been wrangling over
+this question for at least forty years.  This was the cause of the
+agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise; this produced the
+troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the
+territory acquired in the Mexican War.  Again, this was the trouble
+which was quieted by the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled
+"forever " as both the great political parties declared in their
+National Conventions.  That "forever" turned out to be just four
+years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it.  When is it likely to
+come to an end?  He introduced the Nebraska Bill in 1854 to put
+another end to the slavery agitation.  He promised that it would
+finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since,
+until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton
+Constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the
+end of the slavery agitation.  But in one speech, I think last
+winter, he did say that he did n't quite see when the end of the
+slavery agitation would come.  Now he tells us again that it is all
+over and the people of Kansas have voted down the Lecompton
+Constitution.  How is it over?  That was only one of the attempts at
+putting an end to the slavery agitation--one of these "final
+settlements."  Is Kansas in the Union?  Has she formed a constitution
+that she is likely to come in under?  Is not the slavery agitation
+still an open question in that Territory?  Has the voting down of
+that constitution put an end to all the trouble?  Is that more likely
+to settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the
+slavery agitation?  Now, at this day in the history of the world we
+can no more foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be
+than we can see the end of the world itself.  The Nebraska-Kansas
+Bill was introduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation
+is ever to come to an end we may say we are four years and a half
+nearer the end.  So, too, we can say we are four years and a half
+nearer the end of the world, and we can just as clearly see the end
+of the world as we can see the end of this agitation.  The Kansas
+settlement did not conclude it.  If Kansas should sink to-day, and
+leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed
+question would still be among us.  I say, then, there is no way of
+putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back
+upon the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out
+of our new Territories,--to restrict it forever to the old States
+where it now exists.  Then the public mind will rest in the belief
+that it is in the course of ultimate extinction.  That is one way of
+putting an end to the slavery agitation.
+
+The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his
+friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease
+speaking of it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the
+common matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our
+horses and cattle.  But while it drives on in its state of progress
+as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I
+have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end
+to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other.  I do
+not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will
+be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years.  I do not suppose that
+in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than
+a hundred years at least; but that it will occur in the best way for
+both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt.  But, my
+friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this
+point.
+
+Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a
+bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854:
+Judge Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge,
+except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he
+told a cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral
+principles that Judge Douglas tells it here to-day.  This is the
+simple truth.  I do not care greatly for the story, but this is the
+truth of it: and I have twice told Judge Douglas to his face that
+from beginning to end there is not one word of truth in it.  I have
+called upon him for the proof, and he does not at all meet me as
+Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just talking, by
+producing the record.  He did n't bring the record because there was
+no record for him to bring.  When he asks if I am ready to indorse
+Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply
+that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would not be likely
+to indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity
+because neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years
+that I have known Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his
+word or tell a falsehood large or small.  It is for that reason that
+I indorse Lyman Trumbull.
+
+[Mr. JAMES BROWN (Douglas postmaster): "What does Ford's History say
+about him?"]
+
+Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him.  My own
+recollection is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful
+terms in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal
+worse of Judge Douglas.  I refer you, sir, to the History for
+examination.
+
+Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on
+the part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally.  I want to
+attend to that suggestion a moment.  I don't want to be unjustly
+accused of dealing illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either
+in court or in a political canvass or anywhere else.  I would despise
+myself if I supposed myself ready to deal less liberally with an
+adversary than I was willing to be treated myself.  Judge Douglas in
+a general way, without putting it in a direct shape, revives the old
+charge against me in reference to the Mexican War.  He does not take
+the responsibility of putting it in a very definite form, but makes a
+general reference to it.  That charge is more than ten years old.  He
+complains of Trumbull and myself because he says we bring charges
+against him one or two years old.  He knows, too, that in regard to
+the Mexican War story the more respectable papers of his own party
+throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and
+acknowledge that it was a lie.
+
+[Here Mr. LINCOLN turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting
+HON. ORLANDO B. FICKLIN, led him forward and said:]
+
+I do not mean to do anything with Mr. FICKLIN except to present his
+face and tell you that he personal1y knows it to be a lie!  He was a
+member of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [FICKLIN]
+knows that whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine
+which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to
+give such indorsement and voted against it; but I never voted against
+the supplies for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas,
+that whenever a dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise
+for the benefit of the soldiers I gave all the votes that FICKLIN or
+Douglas did, and perhaps more.
+
+[Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the
+matter: Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as
+Judge Douglas and myself.  In reference to this Mexican War, my
+recollection is that when Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered
+by Mr. Ashmun of Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican
+War was unnecessary and unconstitutionally commenced by the President
+-my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.]
+
+That is the truth.  Now, you all remember that was a resolution
+censuring the President for the manner in which the war was begun.
+You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by
+which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of
+their country.  I say that FICKLIN knows it is false.  When that
+charge was brought forward by the Chicago Times, the Springfield
+Register [Douglas's organ] reminded the Times that the charge really
+applied to John Henry; and I do know that John Henry is now making
+speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas.  If the Judge now
+says that he offers this as a sort of setoff to what I said to-day in
+reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that he made this
+charge before I said a word about Trumbull's.  He brought this
+forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the
+opening speech that Judge Douglas made he attacked me in regard to a
+matter ten years old.  Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about
+people making charges against him only two years old!
+
+The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon
+this charge of Trumbull's at all.  I gave the apology for doing so in
+my opening speech.  Perhaps it did n't fix your attention.  I said
+that when Judge Douglas was speaking at place--where I spoke on the
+succeeding day he used very harsh language about this charge.  Two or
+three times afterward I said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's
+veracity and intelligence; and my own opinion was, from what I knew
+of the character of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his
+position and prove whatever he had stated to be true.  This I
+repeated two or three times; and then I dropped it, without saying
+anything more on the subject for weeks--perhaps a month.  I passed it
+by without noticing it at all till I found, at Jacksonville, Judge
+Douglas in the plenitude of his power is not willing to answer
+Trumbull and let me alone, but he comes out there and uses this
+language: "He should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such
+charges made by Trumbull but that, Lincoln having indorsed the
+character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln]
+responsible for the slanders."  What was Lincoln to do?  Did he not
+do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas
+here, to tell him he was ready for the responsibility?  I ask a
+candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the
+assailant rather than I?  Here I meet him face to face, and say I am
+ready to take the responsibility, so far as it rests on me.
+
+Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the question
+whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge
+Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it?  You all heard me call
+upon him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery.
+Does he say that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs
+bill is a forgery?  Does he say that what I present as a copy of the
+bill reported by himself is a forgery, or what is presented as a
+transcript from the Globe of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a
+forgery?  Does he say the quotations from his own speech are
+forgeries?  Does he say this transcript from Trumbull's speech is a
+forgery?
+
+["He didn't deny one of them."]
+
+I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of
+a story is true the whole story turns out false.  I take it these
+people have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is
+playing cuttle-fish, a small species of fish that has no mode of
+defending itself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid,
+which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it
+escapes.  Ain't the Judge playing the cuttle-fish?
+
+Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge
+Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech
+of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces
+of testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown
+to be such.  Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery.  Then I
+ask the original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is
+true, how is it possible that the whole is a falsehood?
+
+In regard to Trumbull's charge that he Douglas] inserted a provision
+into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the
+people, what was his answer?  He comes here and reads from the
+Congressional Globe to show that on his motion that provision was
+struck out of the bill.  Why, Trumbull has not said it was not
+stricken out, but Trumbull says he [Douglas] put it in; and it is no
+answer to the charge to say he afterwards took it out.  Both are
+perhaps true.  It was in regard to that thing precisely that I told
+him he had dropped the cub.  Trumbull shows you that by his
+introducing the bill it was his cub.  It is no answer to that
+assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially
+say that Douglas struck it out.  Suppose that were the case, does it
+answer Trumbull?  I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are
+here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you
+were in Mattoon yesterday.  I say that you took your hat off your
+head, and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head.  That is
+the whole force of Douglas's argument.
+
+Now, I want to come back to my original question.  Trumbull says that
+Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a
+constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas.  Does
+Judge Douglas deny that fact?  Does be deny that the provision which
+Trumbull reads was put in that bill?  Then Trumbull says he struck it
+out.  Does he dare to deny that?  He does not, and I have the right
+to repeat the question ,--Why Judge Douglas took it out?  Bigler has
+said there was a combination of certain senators, among whom he did
+not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas
+Bill should have a clause in it not to have the constitution formed
+under it submitted to a vote of the people.  He did not say that
+Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the
+same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken
+out of the bill.  Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in
+concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and
+done with a mutual understanding after the conference; and while we
+do not know that it was absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that
+we have a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it
+was done to tell what the true reason was.  When he will not tell
+what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude of an accused
+thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to
+account refuses to tell where he got them.  Not only is this the
+evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision
+stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then but since, that these
+alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, in
+consultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill.  He tells us
+the same to-day.  He says there were certain modifications made in
+the bill in committee that he did not vote for.  I ask you to
+remember, while certain amendments were made which he disapproved of,
+but which a majority of the committee voted in, he has himself told
+us that in this particular the alterations and modifications were
+made by him, upon consultation with Toombs.  We have his own word
+that these alterations were made by him, and not by the committee.
+Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about coming
+to the exact question?  What is the reason he will not tell you
+anything about How it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that he
+remembers it being made at all?  Why does he stand playing upon the
+meaning of words and quibbling around the edges of the evidence?  If
+he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have the right
+to infer that Judge Douglas understood it was the purpose of his
+party, in engineering that bill through, to make a constitution, and
+have Kansas come into the Union with that constitution, without its
+being submitted to a vote of the people.  If he will explain his
+action on this question, by giving a better reason for the facts that
+happened than he has done, it will be satisfactory.  But until he
+does that--until he gives a better or more plausible reason than he
+has offered against the evidence in the case--I suggest to him it
+will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, takes on
+dignity, and calls people liars.  Why, sir, there is not a word in
+Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all.  He has
+only arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of
+reasoning.  There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends
+on Trumbull's word.  If you have ever studied geometry, you remember
+that by a course of reasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a
+triangle are equal to two right angles.  Euclid has shown you how to
+work it out.  Now, if you undertake to disprove that proposition, and
+to show that it is erroneous, would you prove it to be false by
+calling Euclid a liar?  They tell me that my time is out, and
+therefore I close.
+
+
+
+
+FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH,
+
+OCTOBER 7, 1858
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY.
+
+MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge
+Douglas has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in
+print.  I do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all.---  If I
+had not been interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I
+was able to make to a very large portion of it had already been more
+than once made and published.  There has been an opportunity afforded
+to the public to see our respective views upon the topics discussed
+in a large portion of the speech which he has just delivered.  I make
+these remarks for the purpose of excusing myself for not passing over
+the entire ground that the Judge has traversed.  I however desire to
+take up some of the points that he has attended to, and ask your
+attention to them, and I shall follow him backwards upon some notes
+which I have taken, reversing the order, by beginning where he
+concluded.
+
+The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and
+insisted that negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that
+it is a slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that
+negroes were meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possible to
+believe that Mr. Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have
+supposed himself applying the language of that instrument to the
+negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery?  Would he
+not at once have freed them?  I only have to remark upon this part of
+the Judge's speech (and that, too, very briefly, for I shall not
+detain myself, or you, upon that point for any great length of time),
+that I believe the entire records of the world, from the date of the
+Declaration of Independence up to within three years ago, may be
+searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single man,
+that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence; I
+think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that
+Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any
+member of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the
+whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present policy
+of the Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that
+affirmation.  And I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience that
+while Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was,
+in speaking upon this very subject he used the strong language that
+"he trembled for his country when he remembered that God was just";
+and I will offer the highest premium in my power to Judge Douglas if
+he will show that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at
+all akin to that of Jefferson.
+
+The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's
+comments upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call
+our public meetings as Republican meetings; and he instances Tazewell
+County as one of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called
+a public meeting and have not dared to name it a Republican meeting.
+He instances Monroe County as another, where Judge Trumbull and Jehu
+Baker addressed the persons whom the Judge assumes to be the friends
+of Lincoln calling them the "Free Democracy."  I have the honor to
+inform Judge Douglas that he spoke in that very county of Tazewell
+last Saturday, and I was there on Tuesday last; and when he spoke
+there, he spoke under a call not venturing to use the word
+"Democrat."  [Turning to Judge Douglas.] what think you of this?
+
+So, again, there is another thing to which I would ask the Judge's
+attention upon this subject.  In the contest of 1856 his party
+delighted to call themselves together as the "National Democracy";
+but now, if there should be a notice put up anywhere for a meeting of
+the "National Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not
+come.  They would not suppose themselves invited.  They would
+understand that it was a call for those hateful postmasters whom he
+talks about.
+
+Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine
+which Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in
+very great contrast to each other.  Those speeches have been before
+the public for a considerable time, and if they have any
+inconsistency in them, if there is any conflict in them, the public
+have been able to detect it.  When the Judge says, in speaking on
+this subject, that I make speeches of one sort for the people of the
+northern end of the State, and of a different sort for the southern
+people, he assumes that I do not understand that my speeches will be
+put in print and read north and south.  I knew all the while that the
+speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at Jonesboro and
+the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all the reading
+and intelligent men in the community would see them and know all
+about my opinions.  And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose,
+that there is any conflict whatever between them.  But the Judge will
+have it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality
+between the white and black races which justifies us in making them
+slaves, we must then insist that there is a degree of equality that
+requires us to make them our wives.  Now, I have all the while taken
+a broad distinction in regard to that matter; and that is all there
+is in these different speeches which he arrays here; and the entire
+reading of either of the speeches will show that that distinction was
+made.  Perhaps by taking two parts of the same speech he could have
+got up as much of a conflict as the one he has found.  I have all the
+while maintained that in so far as it should be insisted that there
+was an equality between the white and black races that should produce
+a perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility.
+This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have said
+that in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"
+as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our
+equals.  And these declarations I have constantly made in reference
+to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we
+are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed
+with the actual presence of the evil,--slavery.  I have never
+manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the
+actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence
+of slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have
+insisted that, in legislating for new countries where it does not
+exist there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract
+right!  With reference to those new countries, those maxims as to the
+right of a people to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
+were the just rules to be constantly referred to.  There is no
+misunderstanding this, except by men interested to misunderstand it.
+I take it that I have to address an intelligent and reading
+community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge
+whether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I advanced
+hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions
+of the country.  I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as
+the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free
+from all error in the opinions I advance.
+
+The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction
+between his party and our party.  His he assumes to be a national
+party, ours a sectional one.  He does this in asking the question
+whether this country has any interest in the maintenance of the
+Republican party.  He assumes that our party is altogether sectional,
+that the party to which he adheres is national; and the argument is,
+that no party can be a rightful party--and be based upon rightful
+principles--unless it can announce its principles everywhere.  I
+presume that Judge Douglas could not go into Russia and announce the
+doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not denounce the
+doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Russia; and it may
+be true of this country that in some places we may not be able to
+proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of democracy,
+because there is a section so directly opposed to it that they will
+not tolerate us in doing so.  Is it the true test of the soundness of
+a doctrine that in some places people won't let you proclaim it?  Is
+that the way to test the truth of any doctrine?  Why, I understood
+that at one time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas
+preach a certain favorite doctrine of his.  I commend to his
+consideration the question whether he takes that as a test of the
+unsoundness of what he wanted to preach.
+
+There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little
+while on this occasion.  What has always been the evidence brought
+forward to prove that the Republican party is a sectional party?  The
+main one was that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did
+not let the Republicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them.  That
+has been the main evidence brought forward,--that they had no
+supporters, or substantially none, in the Slave States.  The South
+have not taken hold of our principles as we announce them; nor does
+Judge Douglas now grapple with those principles.  We have a
+Republican State Platform, laid down in Springfield in June last
+stating our position all the way through the questions before the
+country.  We are now far advanced in this canvass.  Judge Douglas and
+I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have now for the
+fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I have not
+found either Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of the
+Republican platform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is
+wrong.  I ask you all to recollect that.  Judge Douglas turns away
+from the platform of principles to the fact that he can find people
+somewhere who will not allow us to announce those principles.  If he
+had great confidence that our principles were wrong, he would take
+hold of them and demonstrate them to be wrong.  But he does not do
+so.  The only evidence he has of their being wrong is in the fact
+that there are people who won't allow us to preach them.  I ask
+again, is that the way to test the soundness of a doctrine?
+
+I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality
+he is himself fast becoming sectional.  I ask his attention to the
+fact that his speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio
+River as they have formerly gone there  I ask his attention to the
+fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all the Democrats of the
+free States are agreeing with him, while he omits to tell us that the
+Democrats of any slave State agree with him.  If he has not thought
+of this, I commend to his consideration the evidence in his own
+declaration, on this day, of his becoming sectional too.  I see it
+rapidly approaching.  Whatever may be the result of this ephemeral
+contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day rapidly
+approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has been
+thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be
+crowded down his own throat.
+
+Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his
+speech) about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principles of the
+Nebraska Bill, although I have often presented my views upon that
+subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you
+please, detain you a little with them.  I have always maintained, so
+far as I was able, that there was nothing of the principle of the
+Nebraska Bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all,--nothing whatever.
+Where can you find the principle of the Nebraska Bill in that
+Compromise?  If anywhere, in the two pieces of the Compromise
+organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah.  It was expressly
+provided in these two acts that when they came to be admitted into
+the Union they should be admitted with or without slavery, as they
+should choose, by their own constitutions.  Nothing was said in
+either of those acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery
+during the Territorial existence of those Territories, while Henry
+Clay constantly made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him
+as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control
+that question during the Territorial existence, and that these old
+Mexican laws excluded slavery.  How can that be used as a principle
+for declaring that during the Territorial existence as well as at the
+time of framing the constitution the people, if you please, might
+have slaves if they wanted them?  I am not discussing the question
+whether it is right or wrong; but how are the New Mexican and Utah
+laws patterns for the Nebraska Bill?  I maintain that the
+organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general
+principle at all.  It had no feature of establishing a general
+principle.  The acts to which I have referred were a part of a
+general system of Compromises.  They did not lay down what was
+proposed as a regular policy for the Territories, only an agreement
+in this particular case to do in that way, because other things were
+done that were to be a compensation for it.  They were allowed to
+come in in that shape, because in another way it was paid for,
+considering that as a part of that system of measures called the
+Compromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen acts.  It
+included the admission of California as a free State, which was kept
+out of the Union for half a year because it had formed a free
+constitution.  It included the settlement of the boundary of Texas,
+which had been undefined before, which was in itself a slavery
+question; for if you pushed the line farther west, you made Texas
+larger, and made more slave territory; while, if you drew the line
+toward the east, you narrowed the boundary and diminished the domain
+of slavery, and by so much increased free territory.  It included the
+abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia.  It
+included the passage of a new Fugitive Slave law.  All these things
+were put together, and, though passed in separate acts, were
+nevertheless, in legislation (as the speeches at the time will show),
+made to depend upon each other.  Each got votes with the
+understanding that the other measures were to pass, and by this
+system of compromise, in that series of measures, those two bills--
+the New Mexico and Utah bills--were passed: and I say for that reason
+they could not be taken as models, framed upon their own intrinsic
+principle, for all future Territories.  And I have the evidence of
+this in the fact that Judge Douglas, a year afterward, or more than a
+year afterward, perhaps, when he first introduced bills for the
+purpose of framing new Territories, did not attempt to follow these
+bills of New Mexico and Utah; and even when he introduced this
+Nebraska Bill, I think you will discover that he did not exactly
+follow them.  But I do not wish to dwell at great length upon this
+branch of the discussion.  My own opinion is, that a thorough
+investigation will show most plainly that the New Mexico and Utah
+bills were part of a system of compromise, and not designed as
+patterns for future Territorial legislation; and that this Nebraska
+Bill did not follow them as a pattern at all.
+
+The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any
+odious distinctions between free and slave States.  I am altogether
+unaware that the Republicans are in favor of making any odious
+distinctions between the free and slave States.  But there is still a
+difference, I think, between Judge Douglas and the Republicans in
+this.  I suppose that the real difference between Judge Douglas and
+his friends, and the Republicans on the contrary, is, that the Judge
+is not in favor of making any difference between slavery and liberty;
+that he is in favor of eradicating, of pressing out of view, the
+questions of preference in this country for free or slave
+institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the
+idea that there is any wrong in slavery.  Everything that emanates
+from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully
+excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery.  All
+their arguments, if you will consider them, will be seen to exclude
+the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in slavery.  If you
+will take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed
+sentences expressed by him,--as his declaration that he "don't care
+whether slavery is voted up or down,"--you will see at once that this
+is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong.  If
+you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he
+don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down.  Judge Douglas
+declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to
+have it.  He can say that logically, if he says that there is no
+wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he
+cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.  He
+insists that upon the score of equality the owners of slaves and
+owners of property--of horses and every other sort of property--
+should be alike, and hold them alike in a new Territory.  That is
+perfectly logical if the two species of property are alike and are
+equally founded in right.  But if you admit that one of them is
+wrong, you cannot institute any equality between right and wrong.
+And from this difference of sentiment,--the belief on the part of one
+that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that
+belief which looks to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong,
+and this other sentiment, that it is no wrong, and a policy sprung
+from that sentiment, which will tolerate no idea of preventing the
+wrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end to
+it through all the existence of things,--arises the real difference
+between Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand and the
+Republicans on the other.  Now, I confess myself as belonging to that
+class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and
+political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us
+and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way,
+and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown
+about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the
+prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as
+a wrong it may come to an end.
+
+Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, if not the
+seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or
+combination between the National Democrats and Republicans.  What
+evidence Judge Douglas has upon this subject I know not, inasmuch as
+he never favors us with any.  I have said upon a former occasion, and
+I do not choose to suppress it now, that I have no objection to the
+division in the Judge's party.  He got it up himself.  It was all his
+and their work.  He had, I think, a great deal more to do with the
+steps that led to the Lecompton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had;
+though at last, when they reached it, they quarreled over it, and
+their friends divided upon it.  I am very free to confess to Judge
+Douglas that I have no objection to the division; but I defy the
+Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way promoted that
+division, unless he insists on being a witness himself in merely
+saying so.  I can give all fair friends of Judge Douglas here to
+understand exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to that
+division.  Don't you remember how two years ago the opponents of the
+Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore?  I guess
+you do.  Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also
+that he was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to
+see all there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans.
+What we now think of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought
+of the Fremont and Fillmore divisions.  That is all there is of it.
+
+But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there
+is an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the
+National Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving
+him as an entirely competent witness upon that subject.  I want to
+call to the Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first
+one of these
+debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August.  In order to fix extreme
+Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which
+he declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in
+October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken
+part in that Convention.  It turned out that although a few men
+calling themselves an anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at
+Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take any part in it,
+nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as Judge
+Douglas read.  So apparent had it become that the resolutions which
+he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by a State
+Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days afterward, at
+Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by Charles
+H.  Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L.  Harris,
+member of Congress in that district, and he promised in that speech
+that when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter.
+Since then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has
+made the investigation; but a month has passed since he has been
+there, and, so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of
+his investigation.  I have waited as I think sufficient time for the
+report of that investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and
+hear it.  A fraud, an absolute forgery was committed, and the
+perpetration of it was traced to the three,--Lanphier, Harris, and
+Douglas.  Whether it can be narrowed in any way so as to exonerate
+any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's report would probably show.
+
+It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were
+published in the Illinois State Register on the 16th of October,
+1854, as being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention which
+had sat in that same month of October, at Springfield.  But it is
+also true that the publication in the Register was a forgery then,
+and the question is still behind, which of the three, if not all of
+them, committed that forgery.  The idea that it was done by mistake
+is absurd.  The article in the Illinois State Register contains part
+of the real proceedings of that Springfield Convention, showing that
+the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him, and
+purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the Convention
+and fraudulently substituted the others.  Lanphier then, as now, was
+the editor of the Register, so that there seems to be but little room
+for his escape.  But then it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had
+less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the other
+two.  The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat Yates
+and elect Harris to Congress, and that object was known to be
+exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time.  Harris and Douglas
+were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, and
+although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register,
+subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon
+that Convention.
+
+The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both
+Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to
+put it to new uses.  As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband
+was brought home with his body full of eels, said when she was asked
+what was to be done with him, "Take the eels out and set him again,"
+so Harris and Douglas have shown a disposition to take the eels out
+of that stale fraud by which they gained Harris's election, and set
+the fraud again more than once.  On the 9th of July, 1856, Douglas
+attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the Senate
+of the United States, as will appear from the appendix of the
+Congressional Globe of that date.
+
+On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton in the
+House of Representatives, as will appear by the same documents,--the
+appendix to the Congressional Globe of that date.  On the 21st of
+August last, all three--Lanphier, Douglas, and Harris--reattempted it
+upon me at Ottawa.  It has been clung to and played out again and
+again as an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio.  And now
+that it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud we find that Judge
+Douglas manifests no surprise at it at all.  He makes no complaint of
+Lanphier, who must have known it to be a fraud from the beginning.
+He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as cozy now and just as active in
+the concoction of new schemes as they were before the general
+discovery of this fraud.  Now, all this is very natural if they are
+all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any one
+of them is innocent.  Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honor
+among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself,
+and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a
+satisfactory report upon his investigation.  But meanwhile the three
+are agreed that each is "a most honorable man."
+
+Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a
+re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports
+against me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which
+we know to be utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to think
+that this one unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate,
+will be the least drawback to his claim to belief.  Harris ditto.  He
+asks a re-election to the lower House of Congress without seeming to
+remember at all that he is involved in this dishonorable fraud!  The
+Illinois State Register, edited by Lanphier, then, as now, the
+central organ of both Harris and Douglas, continues to din the public
+ear with this assertion, without seeming to suspect that these
+assertions are at all lacking in title to belief.
+
+After all, the question still recurs upon us, How did that fraud
+originally get into the State Register.?  Lanphier then, as now, was
+the editor of that paper.  Lanphier knows.  Lanphier cannot be
+ignorant of how and by whom it was originally concocted.  Can he be
+induced to tell, or, if he has told, can Judge Douglas be induced to
+tell how it originally was concocted?  It may be true that Lanphier
+insists that the two men for whose benefit it was originally devised
+shall at least bear their share of it!  How that is, I do not know,
+and while it remains unexplained I hope to be pardoned if I insist
+that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making charges against Trumbull
+and myself is not quite sufficient evidence to establish them!
+
+While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I
+answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded
+to me, and then in turn propounded some to him, which he in a sort of
+way answered.  The third one of these interrogatories I have with me,
+and wish now to make some comments upon it.  It was in these words:
+ "If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that the
+States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of
+acquiescing in, adhering to, and following such decision as a rule of
+political action?"
+
+To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense
+of the word.  He contented himself with sneering at the thought that
+it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision.
+He sneered at me for propounding the interrogatory.  I had not
+propounded it without some reflection, and I wish now to address to
+this audience some remarks upon it.
+
+In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe it is, of the
+Constitution of the United States, we find the following language:
+
+"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be
+made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be
+made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
+law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound
+thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the
+contrary notwithstanding."
+
+The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence
+which I will now read:
+
+"Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion,
+upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is
+distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."
+
+I repeat it, "The right of property in a slave is distinctly and
+expressly affirmed in the Constitution"!  What is it to be "affirmed"
+in the Constitution?  Made firm in the Constitution, so made that it
+cannot be separated from the Constitution without breaking the
+Constitution; durable as the Constitution, and part of the
+Constitution.  Now, remembering the provision of the Constitution
+which I have read--affirming that that instrument is the supreme law
+of the land; that the judges of every State shall be bound by it, any
+law or constitution of any State to the contrary notwithstanding;
+that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that
+Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be separated from it
+without breaking it; durable as the instrument; part of the
+instrument;--what follows as a short and even syllogistic argument
+from it?  I think it follows, and I submit to the consideration of
+men capable of arguing whether, as I state it, in syllogistic form,
+the argument has any fault in it:
+
+Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right
+distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United
+States.
+
+The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed
+in the Constitution of the United States.
+
+Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can
+destroy the right of property in a slave.
+
+I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming
+the truth of the premises, the conclusion, so far as I have capacity
+at all to understand it, follows inevitably.  There is a fault in it
+as I think, but the fault is not in the reasoning; but the falsehood
+in fact is a fault of the premises.  I believe that the right of
+property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
+Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks it is.  I believe that the
+Supreme Court and the advocates of that decision may search in vain
+for the place in the Constitution where the right of property in a
+slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed I say, therefore, that I
+think one of the premises is not true in fact.  But it is true with
+Judge Douglas.  It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced it.
+They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying
+it, the conclusion follows that, the Constitution of the United
+States being the supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere
+with it.  It being affirmed in the decision that the right of
+property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
+Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or
+constitution can destroy that right.  I then say to Judge Douglas and
+to all others that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer
+to show that those who have said that the right of property in a
+slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, are
+not prepared to show that no constitution or law can destroy that
+right.  I say I believe it will take a far better argument than a
+mere sneer to show to the minds of intelligent men that whoever has
+so said is not prepared, whenever public sentiment is so far advanced
+as to justify it, to say the other.  This is but an opinion, and the
+opinion of one very humble man; but it is my opinion that the Dred
+Scott decision, as it is, never would have been made in its present
+form if the party that made it had not been sustained previously by
+the elections.  My own opinion is, that the new Dred Scott decision,
+deciding against the right of the people of the States to exclude
+slavery, will never be made if that party is not sustained by the
+elections.  I believe, further, that it is just as sure to be made as
+to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained.  I have said,
+upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course of
+arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge
+not his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new
+Dred Scott decision.  I have asked him again to point out to me the
+reasons for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is.
+I have turned his attention to the fact that General Jackson differed
+with him in regard to the political obligation of a Supreme Court
+decision.  I have asked his attention to the fact that Jefferson
+differed with him in regard to the political obligation of a Supreme
+Court decision.  Jefferson said that "Judges are as honest as other
+men, and not more so."  And he said, substantially, that whenever a
+free people should give up in absolute submission to any department
+of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their
+liberties were gone.  I have asked his attention to the fact that the
+Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, disregards a
+time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the power of
+Congress to establish a National Bank.  I have asked his attention to
+the fact that he himself was one of the most active instruments at
+one time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois
+because it had made a decision distasteful to him,--a struggle ending
+in the remarkable circumstance of his sitting down as one of the new
+Judges who were to overslaugh that decision; getting his title of
+Judge in that very way.
+
+So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from Judge
+Douglas upon these subjects.  Not one can I get from him, except that
+he swells himself up and says, "All of us who stand by the decision
+of the Supreme Court are the friends of the Constitution; all you
+fellows that dare question it in any way are the enemies of the
+Constitution."  Now, in this very devoted adherence to this decision,
+in opposition to all the great political leaders whom he has
+recognized as leaders, in opposition to his former self and history,
+there is something very marked.  And the manner in which he adheres
+to it,--not as being right upon the merits, as he conceives (because
+he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory
+upon every one simply because of the source from whence it comes, as
+that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be,--this is another
+marked feature of his adherence to that decision.  It marks it in
+this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it
+comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not
+investigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or
+wrong.  So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is
+right or wrong.  He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing
+prepares the public mind to take the next decision when it comes,
+without any inquiry.  In this I think I argue fairly (without
+questioning motives at all) that Judge Douglas is most ingeniously
+and powerfully preparing the public mind to take that decision when
+it comes; and not only so, but he is doing it in various other ways.
+In these general maxims about liberty, in his assertions that he
+"don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down,"; that
+"whoever wants slavery has a right to have it"; that "upon principles
+of equality it should be allowed to go everywhere"; that "there is no
+inconsistency between free and slave institutions "- in this he is
+also preparing (whether purposely or not) the way for making the
+institution of slavery national!  I repeat again, for I wish no
+misunderstanding, that I do not charge that he means it so; but I
+call upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best
+instrument you could, and then set it to work in the most ingenious
+way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, operating in the
+free States, where there is now an abhorrence of the institution of
+slavery, could you find an instrument so capable of doing it as Judge
+Douglas, or one employed in so apt a way to do it?
+
+I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay,
+when he was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society,
+that it had a tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves,
+said that:
+
+"those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate
+emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the
+Colonization Society: they must go back to the era of our liberty and
+independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous
+return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must
+penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the
+love of liberty!"
+
+And I do think--I repeat, though I said it on a former occasion--that
+Judge Douglas and whoever, like him, teaches that the negro has no
+share, humble though it may be, in the Declaration of Independence,
+is going back to the era of our liberty and independence, and, so far
+as in him lies, muzzling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous
+return; that he is blowing out the moral lights around us, when he
+contends that whoever wants slaves has a right to hold them; that he
+is penetrating, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and
+eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty, when he is
+in every possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast
+influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual and
+national.
+
+There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your
+attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I
+shall not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may
+not take me clear through it.
+
+Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at
+Freeport, there was one in about this language:
+
+"Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the
+United States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?"
+
+I answered, as I thought, in this way: that I am not generally
+opposed to the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would
+support a proposition for the acquisition of additional territory
+according as my supporting it was or was not calculated to aggravate
+this slavery question amongst us.  I then proposed to Judge Douglas
+another interrogatory, which was correlative to that: "Are you in
+favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how it may
+affect us upon the slavery question?" Judge Douglas answered,--that
+is, in his own way he answered it.  I believe that, although he took
+a good many words to answer it, it was a little more fully answered
+than any other.  The substance of his answer was that this country
+would continue to expand; that it would need additional territory;
+that it was as absurd to suppose that we could continue upon our
+present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as it would be
+to hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow to man's
+size without bursting the hoops.  I believe it was something like
+that.  Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of further
+territory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might
+affect the slavery question.  I do not say this as giving his exact
+language, but he said so substantially; and he would leave the
+question of slavery, where the territory was acquired, to be settled
+by the people of the acquired territory.  ["That's the doctrine."]
+May be it is; let us consider that for a while.  This will probably,
+in the run of things, become one of the concrete manifestations of
+this slavery question.  If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question
+succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until all opposition is
+crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor
+Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the
+adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promises additional
+slave-fields.  And this question is to be left to the people of those
+countries for settlement.  When we get Mexico, I don't know whether
+the Judge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it
+settling that question for themselves and all others; because we know
+the Judge has a great horror for mongrels, and I understand that the
+people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels.  I understand
+that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure
+white, and I suppose from the Judge's previous declaration that when
+we get Mexico, or any considerable portion of it, that he will be in
+favor of these mongrels settling the question, which would bring him
+somewhat into collision with his horror of an inferior race.
+
+It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring
+additional territory is a power confided to the President and the
+Senate of the United States.  It is a power not under the control of
+the representatives of the people any further than they, the
+President and the Senate, can be considered the representatives of
+the people.  Let me illustrate that by a case we have in our history.
+When we acquired the territory from Mexico in the Mexican War, the
+House of Representatives, composed of the immediate representatives
+of the people, all the time insisted that the territory thus to be
+acquired should be brought in upon condition that slavery should be
+forever prohibited therein, upon the terms and in the language that
+slavery had been prohibited from coming into this country.  That was
+insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an assurance
+that any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it,
+so far as the House of Representatives was concerned.  But at last
+the President and Senate acquired the territory without asking the
+House of Representatives anything about it, and took it without that
+prohibition.  They have the power of acquiring territory without the
+immediate representatives of the people being called upon to say
+anything about it, and thus furnishing a very apt and powerful means
+of bringing new territory into the Union, and, when it is once
+brought into the country, involving us anew in this slavery
+agitation.  It is therefore, as I think, a very important question
+for due consideration of the American people, whether the policy of
+bringing in additional territory, without considering at all how it
+will operate upon the safety of the Union in reference to this one
+great disturbing element in our national politics, shall be adopted
+as the policy of the country.  You will bear in mind that it is to be
+acquired, according to the Judge's view, as fast as it is needed, and
+the indefinite part of this proposition is that we have only Judge
+Douglas and his class of men to decide how fast it is needed.  We
+have no clear and certain way of determining or demonstrating how
+fast territory is needed by the necessities of the country.  Whoever
+wants to go out filibustering, then, thinks that more territory is
+needed.  Whoever wants wider slave-fields feels sure that some
+additional territory is needed as slave territory.  Then it is as
+easy to show the necessity of additional slave-territory as it is to
+assert anything that is incapable of absolute demonstration.
+Whatever motive a man or a set of men may have for making annexation
+of property or territory, it is very easy to assert, but much less
+easy to disprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country.
+
+And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very grave
+question for the people of this Union to consider, whether, in view
+of the fact that this slavery question has been the only one that has
+ever endangered our Republican institutions, the only one that has
+ever threatened or menaced a dissolution of the Union, that has ever
+disturbed us in such a way as to make us fear for the perpetuity of
+our liberty,--in view of these facts, I think it is an exceedingly
+interesting and important question for this people to consider
+whether we shall engage in the policy of acquiring additional
+territory, discarding altogether from our consideration, while
+obtaining new territory, the question how it may affect us in regard
+to this, the only endangering element to our liberties and national
+greatness.  The Judge's view has been expressed.  I, in my answer to
+his question, have expressed mine.  I think it will become an
+important and practical question.  Our views are before the public.
+I am willing and anxious that they should consider them fully; that
+they should turn it about and consider the importance of the
+question, and arrive at a just conclusion as to whether it is or is
+not wise in the people of this Union, in the acquisition of new
+territory, to consider whether it will add to the disturbance that is
+existing amongst us--whether it will add to the one only danger that
+has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union or our own liberties.
+I think it is extremely important that they shall decide, and rightly
+decide, that question before entering upon that policy.
+
+And now, my friends, having said the little I wish to say upon this
+head, whether I have occupied the whole of the remnant of my time or
+not, I believe I could not enter upon any new topic so as to treat it
+fully, without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment
+think of doing.  I give way to Judge Douglas.
+
+
+
+
+SIXTH JOINT DEBATE,
+
+AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, 1858.
+
+LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have had no immediate conference with Judge
+Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree
+that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will
+be most agreeable to us.
+
+In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois
+which have since been consolidated into the Republican party
+assembled together in a State Convention at Bloomington.  They
+adopted at that time what, in political language, is called a
+platform.  In June of the same year the elements of the Republican
+party in the nation assembled together in a National Convention at
+Philadelphia.  They adopted what is called the National Platform.  In
+June, 1858,--the present year,--the Republicans of Illinois
+reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again
+their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essential
+particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding
+something in relation to the new developments of political progress
+in the country.
+
+The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be
+one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the
+United States Senate.  I have supposed that, in entering upon this
+canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms.  We are now met
+together on the 13th of October of the same year, only four months
+from the adoption of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this
+canvass, from the beginning until to-day, any one of our adversaries
+has taken hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon anything
+that he calls wrong in them.
+
+In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator
+Douglas and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these
+platforms, or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to
+hold me responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the
+meeting of either one of these conventions of which I have spoken.
+And as a ground for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he
+assumed that they had been passed at a State Convention of the
+Republican party, and that I took part in that Convention.  It was
+discovered afterward that this was erroneous, that the resolutions
+which he endeavored to hold me responsible for had not been passed by
+any State Convention anywhere, had not been passed at Springfield,
+where he supposed they had, or assumed that they had, and that they
+had been passed in no convention in which I had taken part.  The
+Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the point that he was
+endeavoring to make upon me, and he therefore thought to still hold
+me to the point that he was endeavoring to make, by showing that the
+resolutions that he read had been passed at a local convention in the
+northern part of the State, although it was not a local convention
+that embraced my residence at all, nor one that reached, as I
+suppose, nearer than one hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of
+where I was when it met, nor one in which I took any part at all.  He
+also introduced other resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by
+combining the whole, although they were all antecedent to the two
+State Conventions and the one National Convention I have mentioned,
+still he insisted, and now insists, as I understand, that I am in
+some way responsible for them.
+
+At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I
+was in no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this
+local meeting or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in
+which I was in no way embraced; but I insisted to him that if he
+thought I was responsible for every man or every set of men
+everywhere, who happen to be my friends, the rule ought to work both
+ways, and he ought to be responsible for the acts and resolutions of
+all men or sets of men who were or are now his supporters and
+friends, and gave him a pretty long string of resolutions, passed by
+men who are now his friends, and announcing doctrines for which he
+does not desire to be held responsible.
+
+This still does not satisfy Judge Douglas.  He still adheres to his
+proposition, that I am responsible for what some of my friends in
+different parts of the State have done, but that he is not
+responsible for what his have done.  At least, so I understand him.
+But in addition to that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh,
+last week, undertakes to establish that I am guilty of a species of
+double dealing with the public; that I make speeches of a certain
+sort in the north, among the Abolitionists, which I would not make in
+the south, and that I make speeches of a certain sort in the south
+which I would not make in the north.  I apprehend, in the course I
+have marked out for myself, that I shall not have to dwell at very
+great length upon this subject.
+
+As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had
+an opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something
+in answer to it.  He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech
+of mine delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he
+brought forward an extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in
+which he insisted that I was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that
+his conclusion followed, that I was playing a double part, and
+speaking in one region one way, and in another region another way.  I
+have not time now to dwell on this as long as I would like, and wish
+only now to requote that portion of my speech at Charleston which the
+Judge quoted, and then make some comments upon it.  This he quotes
+from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I believe correctly:
+
+"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of
+bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the
+white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of
+making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold
+office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in
+addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the
+white and black races which will forever forbid the two races living
+together on terms of social and political equality.  And inasmuch as
+they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the
+position of superior and inferior.  I am as much as any other man in
+favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
+
+This, I believe, is the entire quotation from Charleston speech, as
+Judge Douglas made it his comments are as follows:
+
+"Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right
+when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares
+that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a
+superior and inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and
+expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of
+races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man
+and negro were declared equal, and endowed by divine law with
+equality.  And down South, with the old-line Whigs, with the
+Kentuckians, the Virginians and the Tennesseeans, he tells you that
+there is a physical difference between the races, making the one
+superior, the other inferior, and he is in favor of maintaining the
+superiority of the white race over the negro."
+
+Those are the Judges comments.  Now, I wish to show you that a month,
+or only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech at
+Charleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say
+substantially the same thing  It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa-
+-and I will say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was
+in, after a while--but at our first meeting, at Ottawa, I read an
+extract from an old speech of mine, made nearly four years ago, not
+merely to show my sentiments, but to show that my sentiments were
+long entertained and openly expressed; in which extract I expressly
+declared that my own feelings would not admit a social and political
+equality between the white and black races, and that even if my own
+feelings would admit of it, I still knew that the public sentiment of
+the country would not, and that such a thing was an utter
+impossibility, or substantially that.  That extract from my old
+speech the reporters by some sort of accident passed over, and it was
+not reported.  I lay no blame upon anybody.  I suppose they thought
+that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while I was
+giving it, but afterward went away without getting it from me.  At
+the end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at Ottawa,
+I made the comments which were reported at that time, and which I
+will now read, and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the
+same as Judge Douglas says were delivered by me down in Egypt.  After
+reading, I added these words:
+
+"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length; but this
+is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the
+institution of slavery or the black race, and this is the whole of
+it: anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and
+political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastical
+arrangement of words by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be
+a chestnut horse.  I will say here, while upon this subject, that I
+have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
+institution in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no right
+to do so.  I have no inclination to do so.  I have no purpose to
+introduce political and social equality between the white and black
+races.  There is a physical difference between the two which, in my
+judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the
+footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity
+that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in
+favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.  I
+have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that,
+notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the
+negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration
+of Independence,--the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
+happiness.  I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white
+man.  I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many
+respects, certainly not in color, perhaps not in intellectual and
+moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread, without the
+leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and
+the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."
+
+I have chiefly introduced this for the purpose of meeting the Judge's
+charge that the quotation he took from my Charleston speech was what
+I would say down South among the Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc.,
+but would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of
+the Abolition element.  I now make this comment: That speech from
+which I have now read the quotation, and which is there given
+correctly--perhaps too much so for good taste--was made away up North
+in the Abolition District of this State par excellence, in the
+Lovejoy District, in the personal presence of Lovejoy, for he was on
+the stand with us when I made it.  It had been made and put in print
+in that region only three days less than a month before the speech
+made at Charleston, the like of which Judge Douglas thinks I would
+not make where there was any Abolition element.  I only refer to this
+matter to say that I am altogether unconscious of having attempted
+any double-dealing anywhere; that upon one occasion I may say one
+thing, and leave other things unsaid, and vice versa, but that I have
+said anything on one occasion that is inconsistent with what I have
+said elsewhere, I deny, at least I deny it so far as the intention is
+concerned.  I find that I have devoted to this topic a larger portion
+of my time than I had intended.  I wished to show, but I will pass it
+upon this occasion, that in the sentiment I have occasionally
+advanced upon the Declaration of Independence I am entirely borne out
+by the sentiments advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I
+have the book here to show it from but because I have already
+occupied more time than I intended to do on that topic, I pass over
+it.
+
+At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision,
+pushed to its legitimate consequences, slavery would be established
+in all the States as well as in the Territories.  I did this because,
+upon a former occasion, I had asked Judge Douglas whether, if the
+Supreme Court should make a decision declaring that the States had
+not the power to exclude slavery from their limits, he would adopt
+and follow that decision as a rule of political action; and because
+he had not directly answered that question, but had merely contented
+himself with sneering at it, I again introduced it, and tried to show
+that the conclusion that I stated followed inevitably and logically
+from the proposition already decided by the court.  Judge Douglas had
+the privilege of replying to me at Galesburgh, and again he gave me
+no direct answer as to whether he would or would not sustain such a
+decision if made.  I give him his third chance to say yes or no.  He
+is not obliged to do either, probably he will not do either; but I
+give him the third chance.  I tried to show then that this result,
+this conclusion, inevitably followed from the point already decided
+by the court.  The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thought
+of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his
+remarks upon this subject uses the language which I will now read.
+Speaking of me, the Judge says:
+
+"He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry
+slavery into the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself
+says the contrary."  And he adds:
+
+"Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that
+holds that doctrine.  He knows that every one of them in their
+opinions held the reverse.
+
+I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying
+that I have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge
+Douglas to lay his finger upon the place in the entire opinions of
+the court where any one of them "says the contrary."  It is very hard
+to affirm a negative with entire confidence.  I say, however, that I
+have examined that decision with a good deal of care, as a lawyer
+examines a decision and, so far as I have been able to do so, the
+court has nowhere in its opinions said that the States have the power
+to exclude slavery, nor have they used other language substantially
+that, I also say, so far as I can find, not one of the concurring
+judges has said that the States can exclude slavery, nor said
+anything that was substantially that.  The nearest approach that any
+one of them has made to it, so far as I can find, was by Judge
+Nelson, and the approach he made to it was exactly, in substance, the
+Nebraska Bill,--that the States had the exclusive power over the
+question of slavery, so far as they are not limited by the
+Constitution of the United States.  I asked the question, therefore,
+if the non-concurring judges, McLean or Curtis, had asked to get an
+express declaration that the States could absolutely exclude slavery
+from their limits, what reason have we to believe that it would not
+have been voted down by the majority of the judges, just as Chase's
+amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it
+was offered to the Nebraska Bill.
+
+Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield
+resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at
+Ottawa, and commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as
+presented, not genuine.  Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to
+be somewhat exasperated.  He said he would never have believed that
+Abraham Lincoln, as he kindly called me, would have attempted such a
+thing as I had attempted upon that occasion; and among other
+expressions which he used toward me, was that I dared to say forgery,
+that I had dared to say forgery [turning to Judge Douglas].  Yes,
+Judge, I did dare to say forgery.  But in this political canvass the
+Judge ought to remember that I was not the first who dared to say
+forgery.  At Jacksonville, Judge Douglas made a speech in answer to
+something said by Judge Trumbull, and at the close of what he said
+upon that subject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged his
+evidence.  He said, too, that he should not concern himself with
+Trumbull any more, but thereafter he should hold Lincoln responsible
+for the slanders upon him.  When I met him at Charleston after that,
+although I think that I should not have noticed the subject if he had
+not said he would hold me responsible for it, I spread out before him
+the statements of the evidence that Judge Trumbull had used, and I
+asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger upon one piece
+of all that evidence that he would say was a forgery!  When I went
+through with each and every piece, Judge Douglas did not dare then to
+say that any piece of it was a forgery.  So it seems that there are
+some things that Judge Douglas dares to do, and some that he dares
+not to do.
+
+[A voice: It is the same thing with you.]
+
+Yes, sir, it is the same thing with me.  I do dare to say forgery
+when it is true, and don't dare to say forgery when it is false.  Now
+I will say here to this audience and to Judge Douglas I have not
+dared to say he committed a forgery, and I never shall until I know
+it; but I did dare to say--just to suggest to the Judge--that a
+forgery had been committed, which by his own showing had been traced
+to him and two of his friends.  I dared to suggest to him that he had
+expressly promised in one of his public speeches to investigate that
+matter, and I dared to suggest to him that there was an implied
+promise that when he investigated it he would make known the result.
+I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could not expect to be quite
+clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the time that promise was
+made he had been with those friends, and had not kept his promise in
+regard to the investigation and the report upon it.  I am not a very
+daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much scared
+about it yet.  When the Judge says he would n't have believed of
+Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that he
+reminds me of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the
+purpose to treat me courteously; that touched me somewhat.  It sets
+me to thinking.  I was aware, when it was first agreed that Judge
+Douglas and I were to have these seven joint discussions, that they
+were the successive acts of a drama, perhaps I should say, to be
+enacted, not merely in the face of audiences like this, but in the
+face of the nation, and to some extent, by my relation to him, and
+not from anything in myself, in the face of the world; and I am
+anxious that they should be conducted with dignity and in the good
+temper which would be befitting the vast audiences before which it
+was conducted.  But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and
+made his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some
+sort of a reply to it.  His second speech was made at Bloomington, in
+which he commented upon my speech at Chicago and said that I had used
+language ingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions, or words to
+that effect.  Now, I understand that this is an imputation upon my
+veracity and my candor.  I do not know what the Judge understood by
+it, but in our first discussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a
+bargain, somewhat corrupt in its character, upon Trumbull and
+myself,--that we had entered into a bargain, one of the terms of
+which was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize the old Democratic party,
+and I (Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig party; I pretending
+to be as good an old-line Whig as ever.  Judge Douglas may not
+understand that he implicated my truthfulness and my honor when he
+said I was doing one thing and pretending another; and I
+misunderstood him if he thought he was treating me in a dignified
+way, as a man of honor and truth, as he now claims he was disposed to
+treat me.  Even after that time, at Galesburgh, when he brings
+forward an extract from a speech made at Chicago and an extract from
+a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I was trying to play a
+double part, that I was trying to cheat the public, and get votes
+upon one set of principles at one place, and upon another set of
+principles at another place,--I do not understand but what he
+impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does
+this, I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground
+for it, to keep my hands off of him.  As soon as I learned that Judge
+Douglas was disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of
+my speeches that I should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble
+resources I might have,--to adopt a new course with him.  I was not
+entirely sure that I should be able to hold my own with him, but I at
+least had the purpose made to do as well as I could upon him; and now
+I say that I will not be the first to cry "Hold."  I think it
+originated with the Judge, and when he quits, I probably will.  But I
+shall not ask any favors at all.  He asks me, or he asks the
+audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of personal
+difficulty.  I tell him, no.  He did not make a mistake, in one of
+his early speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though
+perhaps he did when he called me an "intelligent" man.  It really
+hurts me very much to suppose that I have wronged anybody on earth.
+I again tell him, no!  I very much prefer, when this canvass shall be
+over, however it may result, that we at least part without any bitter
+recollections of personal difficulties.
+
+The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was
+pushing this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the
+responsibility for the enormity of my principles.  I say to the Judge
+and this audience, now, that I will again state our principles, as
+well as I hastily can, in all their enormity, and if the Judge
+hereafter chooses to confine himself to a war upon these principles,
+he will probably not find me departing from the same course.
+
+We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery.  It is a
+matter of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element.  It is
+the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon
+it, that it is a dangerous element.  We keep up a controversy in
+regard to it.  That controversy necessarily springs from difference
+of opinion; and if we can learn exactly--can reduce to the lowest
+elements--what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be
+better prepared for discussing the different systems of policy that
+we would propose in regard to that disturbing element.  I suggest
+that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest of terms, is no
+other than the difference between the men who think slavery a wrong
+and those who do not think it wrong.  The Republican party think it
+wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong.  We
+think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the
+States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to
+say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole
+nation.  Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy
+that shall deal with it as a wrong.  We deal with it as with any
+other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and
+so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of
+an end to it.  We have a due regard to the actual presence of it
+amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any
+satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about
+it.  I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the
+nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at
+all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that
+we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to
+do it.  We go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it
+where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us.
+We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the
+District of Columbia.  Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it
+should be in terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely
+soon to agree to,--the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and
+compensating the unwilling owners.  Where we suppose we have the
+constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the
+actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about
+it.  We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread
+itself.  We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its
+present limits.  We don't suppose that in doing this we violate
+anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything
+due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it.
+
+We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I
+ought perhaps to address you a few words.  We do not propose that
+when Dred Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a
+mob, will decide him to be free.  We do not propose that, when any
+other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be
+slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property
+thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a
+political rule which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody
+who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members of
+Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually
+concur with the principles of that decision.  We do not propose to be
+bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays
+the foundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we
+consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil
+into the States themselves.  We propose so resisting it as to have it
+reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established upon this
+subject.
+
+I will add this: that if there be any man who does not believe that
+slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in
+any one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while
+on the other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is
+impatient over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and
+is impatient of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and
+would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with
+us.  He will find his place somewhere else; for we have a due regard,
+so far as we are capable of understanding them, for all these things.
+This, gentlemen, as well as I can give it, is a plain statement of
+our principles in all their enormity.
+I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to
+me,--a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore
+it goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a
+wrong.  That policy is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is
+the Democratic sentiment.  If there be a doubt in the mind of any one
+of this vast audience that this is really the central idea of the
+Democratic party in relation to this subject, I ask him to bear with
+me while I state a few things tending, as I think, to prove that
+proposition.  In the first place, the leading man--I think I may do
+my friend Judge Douglas the honor of calling him such advocating the
+present Democratic policy never himself says it is wrong.  He has the
+high distinction, so far as I know, of never having said slavery is
+either right or wrong.  Almost everybody else says one or the other,
+but the Judge never does.  If there be a man in the Democratic party
+who thinks it is wrong, and yet clings to that party, I suggest to
+him, in the first place, that his leader don't talk as he does, for
+he never says that it is wrong.  In the second place, I suggest to
+him that if he will examine the policy proposed to be carried
+forward, he will find that he carefully excludes the idea that there
+is anything wrong in it.  If you will examine the arguments that are
+made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea
+that there is anything wrong in slavery.  Perhaps that Democrat who
+says he is as much opposed to slavery as I am will tell me that I am
+wrong about this.  I wish him to examine his own course in regard to
+this matter a moment, and then see if his opinion will not be changed
+a little.  You say it is wrong; but don't you constantly object to
+anybody else saying so?  Do you not constantly argue that this is not
+the right place to oppose it?  You say it must not be opposed in the
+free States, because slavery is not here; it must not be opposed in
+the slave States, because it is there; it must not be opposed in
+politics, because that will make a fuss; it must not be opposed in
+the pulpit, because it is not religion.  Then where is the place to
+oppose it?  There is no suitable place to oppose it.  There is no
+place in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent,
+which you say yourself is coming.  Frank Blair and Gratz Brown tried
+to get up a system of gradual emancipation in Missouri, had an
+election in August, and got beat, and you, Mr. Democrat, threw up
+your hat, and hallooed "Hurrah for Democracy!" So I say, again, that
+in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas Says he
+"don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he
+means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a
+sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true
+to say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything
+wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery
+is wrong.  He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up
+as voted down.  When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever
+community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is
+perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but
+if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody
+has a right to do wrong.  When he says that slave property and horse
+and hog property are alike to be allowed to go into the Territories,
+upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if there is
+no difference between them as property; but if the one is property
+held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no equality
+between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in anyway you can, in
+all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that
+policy itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that
+there is anything wrong in slavery.  Let us understand this.  I am
+not, just here, trying to prove that we are right, and they are
+wrong.  I have been stating where we and they stand, and trying to
+show what is the real difference between us; and I now say that
+whenever we can get the question distinctly stated, can get all these
+men who believe that slavery is in some of these respects wrong to
+stand and act with us in treating it as a wrong,--then, and not till
+then, I think we will in some way come to an end of this slavery
+agitation.
+
+
+
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER.
+
+MY FRIENDS:--Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion
+that he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said
+in an hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in
+half an hour all that he said in an hour and a half.
+
+I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public
+annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of
+policy in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it
+shall last forever.  We are getting a little nearer the true issue of
+this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence.
+Judge Douglas asks you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or
+rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as
+our fathers made it, forever?  In the first place, I insist that our
+fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part
+slave and part free.  I insist that they found the institution of
+slavery existing here.  They did not make it so but they left it so
+because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time.  When
+Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the
+fathers of the government made this nation part slave and part free,
+he assumes what is historically a falsehood.  More than that: when
+the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the
+abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it
+from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that
+they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men
+understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when
+Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it,
+I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our
+fathers made it?
+
+It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of
+slavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers
+placed it upon.  Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly
+said, that when this government was established, no one expected the
+institution of slavery to last until this day, and that the men who
+formed this government were wiser and better than the men of these
+days; but the men of these days had experience which the fathers had
+not, and that experience had taught them the invention of the
+cotton-gin, and this had made the perpetuation of the institution of
+slavery a necessity in this country.  Judge Douglas could not let it
+stand upon the basis which our fathers placed it, but removed it, and
+put it upon the cotton-gin basis.  It is a question, therefore, for
+him and his friends to answer, why they could not let it remain where
+the fathers of the government originally placed it.  I hope nobody
+has understood me as trying to sustain the doctrine that we have a
+right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or any of the slave
+States, about the institution of slavery,--thus giving the Judge an
+opportunity to be eloquent and valiant against us in fighting for
+their rights.  I expressly declared in my opening speech that I had
+neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence
+of, the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in
+doing as they pleased with slavery Or any other existing institution.
+Then what becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the rights of
+States, which are assailed by no living man?
+
+But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour.  The Judge has
+informed me, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is
+laboring for my election to the United States Senate.  This is news
+to me,--not very ungrateful news either.  [Turning to Mr. W.  H.
+Carlin, who was on the stand]--I hope that Carlin will be elected to
+the State Senate, and will vote for me.  [Mr. Carlin shook his head.]
+Carlin don't fall in, I perceive, and I suppose he will not do much
+for me; but I am glad of all the support I can get, anywhere, if I
+can get it without practicing any deception to obtain it.  In respect
+to this large portion of Judge Douglas's speech in which he tries to
+show that in the controversy between himself and the Administration
+party he is in the right, I do not feel myself at all competent or
+inclined to answer him.  I say to him, "Give it to them,--give it to
+them just all you can!" and, on the other hand, I say to Carlin, and
+Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in Hancock, "Give it to
+Douglas, just pour it into him!
+
+Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to
+say a word or two.  After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a
+decision is made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude
+slavery, he will support it or not.  He obstinately refuses to say
+what he will do in that case.  The judges of the Supreme Court as
+obstinately refused to say what they would do on this subject.
+Before this I reminded him that at Galesburgh he said the judges had
+expressly declared the contrary, and you remember that in my Opening
+speech I told him I had the book containing that decision here, and I
+would thank him to lay his finger on the place where any such thing
+was said.  He has occupied his hour and a half, and he has not
+ventured to try to sustain his assertion.  He never will.  But he is
+desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred Scott
+decision.  Judge Douglas ought to know how.  Did not he and his
+political friends find a way to reverse the decision of that same
+court in favor of the constitutionality of the National Bank?  Didn't
+they find a way to do it so effectually that they have reversed it as
+completely as any decision ever was reversed, so far as its practical
+operation is concerned?
+
+And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the
+decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father--
+old Governor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a
+Secretary of State?  Did he not appeal to the "MOBS," as he calls
+them?  Did he not make speeches in the lobby to show how villainous
+that decision was, and how it ought to be overthrown?  Did he not
+succeed, too, in getting an act passed by the Legislature to have it
+overthrown?  And did n't he himself sit down on that bench as one of
+the five added judges, who were to overslaugh the four old ones,
+getting his name of "judge" in that way, and no other?  If there is a
+villainy in using disrespect or making opposition to Supreme Court
+decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration.  I
+know of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know so well
+about how much villainy it takes to oppose a decision of the Supreme
+Court as our honorable friend Stephen A.  Douglas.
+
+Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are
+bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not.  In
+the sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you
+what I have said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day.  I have
+said that as the Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and
+that the extension of slavery is affirmed in the National
+Constitution, they are bound to support it as such; and I will tell
+you here that General Jackson once said each man was bound to support
+the Constitution "as he understood it."  Now, Judge Douglas
+understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision,
+and he is bound to support it as he understands it.  I understand it
+another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in
+which I understand it.  And as Judge Douglas believes that decision
+to be correct, I will remake that argument if I have time to do so.
+Let me talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in
+the face.  We will say you are a member of the Territorial
+Legislature, and, like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to
+take and hold slaves there is a constitutional right The first thing
+you do is to swear you will support the Constitution1, and all rights
+guaranteed therein; that you will, whenever your neighbor needs your
+legislation to support his constitutional rights, not withhold that
+legislation.  If you withhold that necessary legislation for the
+support of the Constitution and constitutional rights, do you not
+commit perjury?  I ask every sensible man if that is not so?  That is
+undoubtedly just so, say what you please.  Now, that is precisely
+what Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutional right.  Does
+the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in legislating
+may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly laws,
+nullify that constitutional right?  Does he mean to say that?  Does
+he mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in
+law, that what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly?
+Does he mean that?  The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas
+has sung paeans to his "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his
+Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter
+Sovereignty out.  But he will keep up this species of humbuggery
+about Squatter Sovereignty.  He has at last invented this sort of
+do-nothing sovereignty,--that the people may exclude slavery by a
+sort of "sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all.  Is
+not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully?  Has it not
+got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the
+shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death?  But at last, when it
+is brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even that
+thin decoction of it left.  It is a presumption impossible in the
+domain of thought.  It is precisely no other than the putting of that
+most unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same
+space at the same time.  The Dred Scott decision covers the whole
+ground, and while it occupies it, there is no room even for the
+shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground.
+
+Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a
+previous occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an
+extract from at Charleston, says it only shows that I practiced the
+deception twice.  Now, my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to
+swallow that?  Judge Douglas had said I had made a speech at
+Charleston that I would not make up north, and I turned around and
+answered him by showing I had made that same speech up north,--had
+made it at Ottawa; made it in his hearing; made it in the Abolition
+District,--in Lovejoy's District,--in the personal presence of
+Lovejoy himself,--in the same atmosphere exactly in which I had made
+my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much.
+
+Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation
+from the Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me
+to handle.  Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the
+Chicago speech I delivered two years ago in "Egypt," as he calls it.
+It was down at Springfield.  That speech is here in this book, and I
+could turn to it and read it to you but for the lack of time.  I have
+not now the time to read it.  ["Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I
+am obliged to use discretion in disposing most advantageously of my
+brief time.  The Judge has taken great exception to my adopting the
+heretical statement in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men
+are created equal," and he has a great deal to say about negro
+equality.  I want to say that in sometimes alluding to the
+Declaration of Independence, I have only uttered the sentiments that
+Henry Clay used to hold.  Allow me to occupy your time a moment with
+what he said.  Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indiana, and
+in a way that I suppose was very insulting, to liberate his slaves;
+and he made a written reply to that application, and one portion of
+it is in these words:
+
+"What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate
+the slaves under my care in Kentucky?  It is a general declaration in
+the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen
+American colonies, that men are created equal.  Now, as an abstract
+principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it
+is desirable in the original construction of society, and in
+organized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundamental
+principle."
+
+When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in
+new countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we
+should keep that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I
+want a negro wife.  He never can be brought to understand that there
+is any middle ground on this subject.  I have lived until my fiftieth
+year, and have never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife,
+and I think I can live fifty centuries, for that matter, without
+having had one for either.  I maintain that you may take Judge
+Douglas's quotations from my Chicago speech, and from my Charleston
+speech, and the Galesburgh speech,--in his speech of to-day,--and
+compare them over, and I am willing to trust them with you upon his
+proposition that they show rascality or double-dealing.  I deny that
+they do.
+
+The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he
+is disposed to have a personal warfare with me.  He says that my oath
+would not be taken against the bare word of Charles H.  Lanphier or
+Thomas L.  Harris.  Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion.  It
+is certainly not for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these
+gentlemen, but I will tell Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I
+"dared" to say they proved a forgery.  I pointed out at Galesburgh
+that the publication of these resolutions in the Illinois State
+Register could not have been the result of accident, as the
+proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable evidence of being done
+by a man who knew it was a forgery; that it was a publication partly
+taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and partly from
+the proceedings of a convention at another place, which showed that
+he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part of the
+resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and
+fraudulent ones in their stead.  I pointed that out to him, and also
+that his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time
+and now is, must have known how it was done.  Now, whether he did it,
+or got some friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he
+certainly knew all about it.  I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in
+his Freeport speech he had  promised to investigate that matter.
+Does he now say that he did not make that promise?   I have a right
+to ask why he did not keep it.  I call upon him to tell here to-day
+why he did not keep that promise?  That fraud has been traced up so
+that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier.  There is little room
+for escape for Lanphier.  Lanphier is doing the Judge good service,
+and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth.  He desires
+Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his newspaper.
+He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; and when
+this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where the
+guilt really belongs.  Now, as he has said that he would investigate
+it, and implied that he would tell us the result of his
+investigation, I demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it,
+if he did not; and if he did, why he won't tell the result.  I call
+upon him for that.
+
+This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned
+about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against
+Norton on the floor of Congress.  I tell Judge Douglas the public
+records of the country show that he himself attempted it upon
+Trumbull a month before Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had
+the opportunity of learning it from him, rather than he from Harris.
+I now ask his attention to that part of the record on the case.  My
+friends, I am not disposed to detain you longer in regard to that
+matter.
+
+I am told that I still have five minutes left.  There is another
+matter I wish to call attention to.  He says, when he discovered
+there was a mistake in that case, he came forward magnanimously,
+without my calling his attention to it, and explained it.  I will
+tell you how he became so magnanimous.  When the newspapers of our
+side had discovered and published it, and put it beyond his power to
+deny it, then he came forward and made a virtue of necessity by
+acknowledging it.  Now he argues that all the point there was in
+those resolutions, although never passed at Springfield, is retained
+by their being passed at other localities.  Is that true?  He said I
+had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech, that I was in the
+convention and helped to pass them.  Do the resolutions touch me at
+all?  It strikes me there is some difference between holding a man
+responsible for an act which he has not done and holding him
+responsible for an act that he has
+done.  You will judge whether there is any difference in the "spots."
+And he has taken credit for great magnanimity in coming forward and
+acknowledging what is proved on him beyond even the capacity of Judge
+Douglas to deny; and he has more capacity in that way than any other
+living man.
+
+Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a
+conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he
+made.  May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is
+proven false on me as that was proven false on him.  I will add a
+little more than that, I will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man
+shall be brought to believe that the charge is not true.  I have
+asked Judge Douglas's attention to certain matters of fact tending to
+prove the charge of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery, and he says
+he convinces me that this is all untrue because Buchanan was not in
+the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott case had not
+then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say the
+Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case.  I never did say
+that I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never
+uttered it.  [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated
+affirmatively at Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say
+I did, I tell you myself that I never said the "Democratic" owners of
+Dred Scott got up the case.  I have never pretended to know whether
+Dred Scott's owners were Democrats, or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers
+or Border Ruffians.  I have said that there is evidence about the
+case tending to show that it was a made-up case, for the purpose of
+getting that decision.  I have said that that evidence was very
+strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be a slave,
+the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the case
+tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that
+decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his
+by that decision.  But my time is out, and I can say no more.
+
+
+
+LAST JOINT DEBATE,
+
+AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY
+
+LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have been somewhat, in my own mind,
+complimented by a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech,--I mean
+that portion which he devotes to the controversy between himself and
+the present Administration.  This is the seventh time Judge Douglas
+and myself have met in these joint discussions, and he has been
+gradually improving in regard to his war with the Administration.  At
+Quincy, day before yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the
+Administration than I had heard him upon any occasion, and I took
+pains to compliment him for it.  I then told him to give it to them
+with all the power he had; and as some of them were present, I told
+them I would be very much obliged if they would give it to him in
+about the same way.  I take it he has now vastly improved upon the
+attack he made then upon the Administration.  I flatter myself he has
+really taken my advice on this subject.  All I can say now is to
+re-commend to him and to them what I then commended,--to prosecute
+the war against one another in the most vigorous manner.  I say to
+them again: "Go it, husband!--Go it, bear!"
+
+There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this branch of
+the discussion,--although I do not consider it much of my business,
+anyway.  I refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where he
+undertakes to involve Mr. Buchanan in an inconsistency.  He reads
+something from Mr. Buchanan, from which he undertakes to involve him
+in an inconsistency; and he gets something of a cheer for having done
+so.  I would only remind the Judge that while he is very valiantly
+fighting for the Nebraska Bill and the repeal of the Missouri
+Compromise, it has been but a little while since he was the valiant
+advocate of the Missouri Compromise.  I want to know if Buchanan has
+not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has?  Has Douglas the
+exclusive right, in this country, of being on all sides of all
+questions?  Is nobody allowed that high privilege but himself?  Is he
+to have an entire monopoly on that subject?
+
+So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it
+was about me, it is my business to pay some attention to it.  I have
+heard the Judge state two or three times what he has stated to-day,
+that in a speech which I made at Springfield, Illinois, I had in a
+very especial manner complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred
+Scott case had decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the
+United States.  I have omitted by some accident heretofore to analyze
+this statement, and it is required of me to notice it now.  In point
+of fact it is untrue.  I never have complained especially of the Dred
+Scott decision because it held that a negro could not be a citizen,
+and the Judge is always wrong when he says I ever did so complain of
+it.  I have the speech here, and I will thank him or any of his
+friends to show where I said that a negro should be a citizen, and
+complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it declared
+he could not be one.  I have done no such thing; and Judge Douglas,
+so persistently insisting that I have done so, has strongly impressed
+me with the belief of a predetermination on his part to misrepresent
+me.  He could not get his foundation for insisting that I was in
+favor of this negro equality anywhere else as well as he could by
+assuming that untrue proposition.  Let me tell this audience what is
+true in regard to that matter; and the means by which they may
+correct me if I do not tell them truly is by a recurrence to the
+speech itself.  I spoke of the Dred Scott decision in my Springfield
+speech, and I was then endeavoring to prove that the Dred Scott
+decision was a portion of a system or scheme to make slavery national
+in this country.  I pointed out what things had been decided by the
+court.  I mentioned as a fact that they had decided that a negro
+could not be a citizen; that they had done so, as I supposed, to
+deprive the negro, under all circumstances, of the remotest
+possibility of ever becoming a citizen and claiming the rights of a
+citizen of the United States under a certain clause of the
+Constitution.  I stated that, without making any complaint of it at
+all.  I then went on and stated the other points decided in the case;
+namely, that the bringing of a negro into the State of Illinois and
+holding him in slavery for two years here was a matter in regard to
+which they would not decide whether it would make him free or not;
+that they decided the further point that taking him into a United
+States Territory where slavery was prohibited by Act of Congress did
+not make him free, because that Act of Congress, as they held, was
+unconstitutional.  I mentioned these three things as making up the
+points decided in that case.  I mentioned them in a lump, taken in
+connection with the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, and the
+amendment of Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of the right of
+the people of the Territories to exclude slavery, which was voted
+down by the friends of the bill.  I mentioned all these things
+together, as evidence tending to prove a combination and conspiracy
+to make the institution of slavery national.  In that connection and
+in that way I mentioned the decision on the point that a negro could
+not be a citizen, and in no other connection.
+
+Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of my
+purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between
+the white and black races.  His assertion that I made an "especial
+objection" (that is his exact language) to the decision on this
+account is untrue in point of fact.
+
+Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry Clay has been alluded
+to, I desire to place myself, in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly
+right before this people as may be.  I am quite aware what the
+Judge's object is here by all these allusions.  He knows that we are
+before an audience having strong sympathies southward, by
+relationship, place of birth, and so on.  He desires to place me in
+an extremely Abolition attitude.  He read upon a former occasion, and
+alludes, without reading, to-day to a portion of a speech which I
+delivered in Chicago.  In his quotations from that speech, as he has
+made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken in such a
+way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of what is
+called garbling,  --taking portions of a speech which, when taken by
+themselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as
+expressed at the time.  I propose, therefore, out of that same
+speech, to show how one portion of it which he skipped over (taking
+an extract before and an extract after) will give a different idea,
+and the true idea I intended to convey.  It will take me some little
+time to read it, but I believe I will occupy the time that way.
+
+You have heard him frequently allude to my controversy with him in
+regard to the Declaration of Independence.  I confess that I have had
+a struggle with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try briefly
+to place myself right in regard to it on this occasion.  I said--and
+it is between the extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech,
+and put in his published speeches:
+
+"It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make
+necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a
+necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it.  I think that
+was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established
+this government.  We had slaves among us, we could not get our
+Constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery, we could
+not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more; and having
+by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the
+principle that is the charter of our liberties.  Let the charter
+remain as our standard."
+
+Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas
+against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of
+slavery.  You hear me read it from the same speech from which he
+takes garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a
+disposition to interfere with the institution of slavery, and
+establish a perfect social and political equality between negroes and
+white people.
+
+Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other extract
+from a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at Springfield, in
+discussing this very same question, soon after Judge Douglas took his
+ground that negroes were, not included in the Declaration of
+Independence:
+
+"I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include
+all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all
+respects.  They did not mean to say all men were equal in color,
+size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity.  They defined
+with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created
+equal,--equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life,
+liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This they said, and this they
+meant.  They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were
+then actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to
+confer it immediately upon them.  In fact they had no power to confer
+such a boon.  They meant simply to declare the right, so that the
+enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should
+permit.
+
+"They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should
+be familiar to all,--constantly looked to, constantly labored for,
+and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated,
+and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and
+augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all
+colors, everywhere."
+
+There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard to the
+Declaration of Independence upon a former occasion,--sentiments which
+have been put in print and read wherever anybody cared to know what
+so humble an individual as myself chose to say in regard to it.
+
+At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas,
+that three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or
+believed, in the whole world, who had said that the Declaration of
+Independence did not include negroes in the term "all men."  I
+reassert it to-day.  I assert that Judge Douglas and all his friends
+may search the whole records of the country, and it will be a matter
+of great astonishment to me if they shall be able to find that one
+human being three years ago had ever uttered the astounding sentiment
+that the term "all men" in the Declaration did not include the negro.
+Do not let me be misunderstood.  I know that more than three years
+ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly in the way
+of their schemes to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation of
+slavery, denied the truth of it.  I know that Mr. Calhoun and all the
+politicians of his school denied the truth of the Declaration.  I
+know that it ran along in the mouth of some Southern men for a period
+of years, ending at last in that shameful, though rather forcible,
+declaration of Pettit of Indiana, upon the floor of the United States
+Senate, that the Declaration of Independence was in that respect "a
+self-evident lie," rather than a self-evident truth.  But I say, with
+a perfect knowledge of all this hawking at the Declaration without
+directly attacking it, that three years ago there never had lived a
+man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking way of pretending
+to believe it, and then asserting it did not include the negro.  I
+believe the first man who ever said it was Chief Justice Taney in the
+Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friend Stephen A.
+Douglas.  And now it has become the catchword of the entire party.  I
+would like to call upon his friends everywhere to consider how they
+have come in so short a time to view this matter in a way so entirely
+different from their former belief; to ask whether they are not being
+borne along by an irresistible current,--whither, they know not.
+
+In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last week, I see that some
+man in Chicago has got up a letter, addressed to the Chicago Times,
+to show, as he professes, that somebody had said so before; and he
+signs himself "An Old-Line Whig," if I remember correctly.  In the
+first place, I would say he was not an old-line Whig.  I am somewhat
+acquainted with old-line Whigs from the origin to the end of that
+party; I became pretty well acquainted with them, and I know they
+always had some sense, whatever else you could ascribe to them.  I
+know there never was one who had not more sense than to try to show
+by the evidence he produces that some men had, prior to the time I
+named, said that negroes were not included in the term "all men" in
+the Declaration of Independence.  What is the evidence he produces?
+I will bring forward his evidence, and let you see what he offers by
+way of showing that somebody more than three years ago had said
+negroes were not included in the Declaration.  He brings forward part
+of a speech from Henry Clay,--the part of the speech of Henry Clay
+which I used to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary.  I
+guess we are surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of
+Mr. Clay, and they will be glad to hear anything from that authority.
+While he was in Indiana a man presented a petition to liberate his
+negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made a speech in answer to it, which I
+suppose he carefully wrote out himself and caused to be published.  I
+have before me an extract from that speech which constitutes the
+evidence this pretended "Old-Line Whig" at Chicago brought forward to
+show that Mr. Clay did n't suppose the negro was included in the
+Declaration of Independence.  Hear what Mr. Clay said:
+
+"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to
+liberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky?  It is a general
+declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of
+the thirteen American colonies, that all men are created equal.  Now,
+as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that
+declaration; and it is desirable, in the original construction of
+society and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a great
+fundamental principle.  But, then, I apprehend that in no society
+that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, was or can the equality
+asserted among the members of the human race be practically enforced
+and carried out.  There are portions, large portions, women, minors,
+insane, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always probably
+remain subject to the government of another portion of the community.
+
+"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made
+by the delegations of the thirteen States.  In most of them slavery
+existed, and had long existed, and was established by law.  It was
+introduced and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of
+England.  Do you believe that in making that declaration the States
+that concurred in it intended that it should be tortured into a
+virtual emancipation of all the slaves within their respective
+limits?  Would Virginia and other Southern States have ever united in
+a declaration which was to be interpreted into an abolition of
+slavery among them?  Did any one of the thirteen colonies entertain
+such a design or expectation?  To impute such a secret and unavowed
+purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest band
+of patriots that ever assembled in council,--a fraud upon the
+Confederacy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of those States
+whose Constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but
+permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808."
+
+
+This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that somebody
+previous to three years ago had said the negro was not included in
+the term "all men" in the Declaration.  How does it do so?  In what
+way has it a tendency to prove that?  Mr. Clay says it is true as an
+abstract principle that all men are created equal, but that we cannot
+practically apply it in all eases.  He illustrates this by bringing
+forward the cases of females, minors, and insane persons, with whom
+it cannot be enforced; but he says it is true as an abstract
+principle in the organization of society as well as in organized
+society and it should be kept in view as a fundamental principle.
+Let me read a few words more before I add some comments of my own.
+Mr. Clay says, a little further on:
+
+"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution
+of slavery.  I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that
+we have derived it from the parental government and from our
+ancestors.  I wish every slave in the United States was in the
+country of his ancestors.  But here they are, and the question is,
+How can they be best dealt with?  If a state of nature existed, and
+we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more
+strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of
+slavery amongst its elements."
+
+
+Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, in this same
+extract, brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held that the negro
+was not included in the Declaration of Independence, is no such
+statement on his part, but the declaration that it is a great
+fundamental truth which should be constantly kept in view in the
+organization of society and in societies already organized.  But if I
+say a word about it; if I attempt, as Mr. Clay said all good men
+ought to do, to keep it in view; if, in this "organized society," I
+ask to have the public eye turned upon it; if I ask, in relation to
+the organization of new Territories, that the public eye should be
+turned upon it, forthwith I am vilified as you hear me to-day.  what
+have I done that I have not the license of Henry Clay's illustrious
+example here in doing?  Have I done aught that I have not his
+authority for, while maintaining that in organizing new Territories
+and societies this fundamental principle should be regarded, and in
+organized society holding it up to the public view and recognizing
+what he recognized as the great principle of free government?
+
+And when this new principle--this new proposition that no human being
+ever thought of three years ago--is brought forward, I combat it as
+having an evil tendency, if not an evil design.  I combat it as
+having a tendency to dehumanize the negro, to take away from him the
+right of ever striving to be a man.  I combat it as being one of the
+thousand things constantly done in these days to prepare the public
+mind to make property, and nothing but property, of the negro in all
+the States of this  Union.
+
+But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of the
+discussion, to ask attention to.  I have read and I repeat the words
+of Henry Clay:
+
+"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution
+of slavery.  I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that
+we have derived it from the parental government and from our
+ancestors.  I wish every slave in the United States was in the
+country of his ancestors.  But here they are, and the question is,
+How can they be best dealt with?  If a state of nature existed, and
+we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more
+strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of
+slavery amongst its elements."
+
+The principle upon which I have insisted in this canvass is in
+relation to laying the foundations of new societies.  I have never
+sought to apply these principles to the old States for the purpose of
+abolishing slavery in those States.  It is nothing but a miserable
+perversion of what I have said, to assume that I have declared
+Missouri, or any other slave State, shall emancipate her slaves; I
+have proposed no such thing.  But when Mr. Clay says that in laying
+the foundations of society in our Territories where it does not
+exist, he would be opposed to the introduction of slavery as an
+element, I insist that we have his warrant--his license--for
+insisting upon the exclusion of that element which he declared in
+such strong and emphatic language was most hurtful to  him.
+
+Judge Douglas has again referred to a Springfield speech in which I
+said "a house divided against itself cannot stand."  The Judge has so
+often made the entire quotation from that speech that I can make it
+from memory.  I used this language:
+
+"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with
+the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the
+slavery agitation.  Under the operation of this policy, that
+agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.  In
+my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached
+and passed.  'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe
+this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free.
+I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to
+be divided.  It will become all one thing, or all the other.  Either
+the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and
+place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in
+the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it
+forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as
+well as new, North as well as South."
+
+That extract and the sentiments expressed in it have been extremely
+offensive to Judge Douglas.  He has warred upon them as Satan wars
+upon the Bible.  His perversions upon it are endless.  Here now are
+my views upon it in brief:
+
+I said we were now far into the fifth year since a policy was
+initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an
+end to the slavery agitation.  Is it not so?  When that Nebraska Bill
+was brought forward four years ago last January, was it not for the
+"avowed object" of putting an end to the slavery agitation?  We were
+to have no more agitation in Congress; it was all to be banished to
+the Territories.  By the way, I will remark here that, as Judge
+Douglas is very fond of complimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days,
+Mr. Crittenden has said there was a falsehood in that whole business,
+for there was no slavery agitation at that time to allay.  We were
+for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and that very
+allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again.  But was it
+not understood or intimated with the "confident promise" of putting
+an end to the slavery agitation?  Surely it was.  In every speech you
+heard Judge Douglas make, until he got into this "imbroglio," as they
+call it, with the Administration about the Lecompton Constitution,
+every speech on that Nebraska Bill was full of his felicitations that
+we were just at the end of the slavery agitation.  The last tip of
+the last joint of the old serpent's tail was just drawing out of
+view.  But has it proved so?  I have asserted that under that policy
+that agitation "has not only not ceased, but has constantly
+augmented."  When was there ever a greater agitation in Congress than
+last winter?  When was it as great in the country as to-day?
+
+There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska
+policy, which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a
+superior degree of self-government, beyond what they had ever had
+before.  The first object and the main one of conferring upon the
+people a higher degree of "self-government" is a question of fact to
+be determined by you in answer to a single question.  Have you ever
+heard or known of a people anywhere on earth who had as little to do
+as, in the first instance of its use, the people of Kansas had with
+this same right of "self-government "?  In its main policy and in its
+collateral object, it has been nothing but a living, creeping lie
+from the time of its introduction till to-day.
+
+I have intimated that I thought the agitation would not cease until a
+crisis should have been reached and passed.  I have stated in what
+way I thought it would be reached and passed.  I have said that it
+might go one way or the other.  We might, by arresting the further
+spread of it, and placing it where the fathers originally placed it,
+put it where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in
+the course of ultimate extinction.  Thus the agitation may cease.  It
+may be pushed forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the
+States, old as well as new, North as well as South.  I have said, and
+I repeat, my wish is that the further spread of it may be arrested,
+and that it may be  where the public mind shall rest in the belief
+that it is in the course of ultimate extinction--I have expressed
+that as my wish  I entertain the opinion, upon evidence sufficient to
+my mind, that the fathers of this government placed that institution
+where the public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the
+course of ultimate extinction.  Let me ask why they made provision
+that the source of slavery--the African slave-trade--should be cut
+off at the end of twenty years?  Why did they make provision that in
+all the new territory we owned at that time slavery should be forever
+inhibited?  Why stop its spread in one direction, and cut off its
+source in another, if they did not look to its being placed in the
+course of its ultimate extinction?
+
+Again: the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the
+Constitution of the United States two or three times, and in neither
+of these cases does the word "slavery" or "negro race" occur; but
+covert language is used each time, and for a purpose full of
+significance.  What is the language in regard to the prohibition of
+the African slave-trade?  It runs in about this way:
+
+"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States
+now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
+the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight."
+
+The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of slavery and
+the black race is on the subject of the basis of representation, and
+there the language used is:
+
+"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
+several States which may be included within this Union, according to
+their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
+whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a
+term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,  three-fifths of all
+other persons."
+
+It says "persons," not slaves, not negroes; but this "three-fifths"
+can be applied to no other class among us than the negroes.
+
+Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it
+is said:
+
+"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
+thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or
+regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but
+shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or
+labor may be due."
+
+There again there is no mention of the word "negro" or of slavery.
+In all three of these places, being the only allusions to slavery in
+the instrument, covert language is used.  Language is used not
+suggesting that slavery existed or that the black race were among us.
+And I understand the contemporaneous history of those times to be
+that covert language was used with a purpose, and that purpose was
+that in our Constitution, which it was hoped and is still hoped will
+endure forever,--when it should be read by intelligent and patriotic
+men, after the institution of slavery had passed from among us,--
+there should be nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty
+suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed among
+us.  This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the government
+expected and intended the institution of slavery to come to an end.
+They expected and intended that it should be in the course of
+ultimate extinction.  And when I say that I desire to see the further
+spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the
+fathers have first done.  When I say I desire to see it placed where
+the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of
+ultimate extinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they
+placed it.  It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas
+assumes, made this government part slave and part free.  Understand
+the sense in which he puts it.  He assumes that slavery is a rightful
+thing within itself,--was introduced by the framers of the
+Constitution.  The exact truth is, that they found the institution
+existing among us, and they left it as they found it.  But in making
+the government they left this institution with many clear marks of
+disapprobation upon it.  They found slavery among them, and they left
+it among them because of the difficulty--the absolute impossibility--
+of its immediate removal.  And when Judge Douglas asks me why we
+cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the
+government made it, he asks a question based upon an assumption which
+is itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him and ask him the question,
+when the policy that the fathers of the government had adopted in
+relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world,
+the only wise policy, the only policy that we can ever safely
+continue upon that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous
+element masters us all and becomes a national institution,--I turn
+upon him and ask him why he could not leave it alone.  I turn and ask
+him why he was driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy in
+regard to it.  He has himself said he introduced a new policy.  He
+said so in his speech on the 22d of March of the present year, 1858.
+I ask him why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it.
+I ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall not again
+place this institution upon the basis on which the fathers left it.
+I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and
+slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude
+by those who made the Constitution, did they make any war?  If we had
+no war out of it when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief
+that we shall have war out of it if we return to that policy?  Have
+we had any peace upon this matter springing from any other basis?  I
+maintain that we have not.  I have proposed nothing more than a
+return to the policy of the fathers.
+
+I confess, when I propose a certain measure of policy, it is not
+enough for me that I do not intend anything evil in the result, but
+it is incumbent on me to show that it has not a tendency to that
+result.  I have met Judge Douglas in that point of view.  I have not
+only made the declaration that I do not mean to produce a conflict
+between the States, but I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I
+think I have shown to the minds of fair men, that I propose nothing
+but what has a most peaceful tendency.  The quotation that I happened
+to make in that Springfield Speech, that "a house divided against
+itself cannot stand," and which has proved so offensive to the judge,
+was part and parcel of the same thing.  He tries to show that variety
+in the democratic institutions of the different States is necessary
+and indispensable.  I do not dispute it.  I have no controversy with
+Judge Douglas about that.  I shall very readily agree with him that
+it would be foolish for us to insist upon having a cranberry law here
+in Illinois, where we have no cranberries, because they have a
+cranberry law in Indiana, where they have cranberries.  I should
+insist that it would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia
+the right to enact oyster laws, where they have oysters, because we
+want no such laws here.  I understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge
+Douglas or anybody else, that the variety in the soil and climate and
+face of the country, and consequent variety in the industrial
+pursuits and productions of a country, require systems of law
+conforming to this variety in the natural features of the country.  I
+understand quite as well as Judge Douglas that if we here raise a
+barrel of flour more than we want, and the Louisianians raise a
+barrel of sugar more than they want, it is of mutual advantage to
+exchange.  That produces commerce, brings us together, and makes us
+better friends.  We like one another the more for it.  And I
+understand as well as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, that these
+mutual accommodations are the cements which bind together the
+different parts of this Union; that instead of being a thing to
+"divide the house,"--figuratively expressing the Union,--they tend to
+sustain it; they are the props of the house, tending always to hold
+it up.
+
+But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is any parallel
+between these things and this institution of slavery?  I do not see
+that there is any parallel at all between them.  Consider it.  When
+have we had any difficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the
+cranberry laws of Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the
+pine-lumber laws of Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar,
+and Illinois flour?  When have we had any quarrels over these things?
+When have we had perfect peace in regard to this thing which I say is
+an element of discord in this Union?  We have sometimes had peace,
+but when was it?  It was when the institution of slavery remained
+quiet where it was.  We have had difficulty and turmoil whenever it
+has made a struggle to spread itself where it was not.  I ask, then,
+if experience does not speak in thunder-tones telling us that the
+policy which has given peace to the country heretofore, being
+returned to, gives the greatest promise of peace again.  You may say,
+and Judge Douglas has intimated the same thing, that all this
+difficulty in regard to the institution of slavery is the mere
+agitation of office-seekers and ambitious Northern politicians.  He
+thinks we want to get "his place," I suppose.  I agree that there are
+office-seekers amongst us.  The Bible says somewhere that we are
+desperately selfish.  I think we would have discovered that fact
+without the Bible.  I do not claim that I am any less so than the
+average of men, but I do claim that I am not more selfish than Judge
+Douglas.
+
+But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in
+regard to this institution of slavery spring from office-seeking,
+from the mere ambition of politicians?  Is that the truth?  How many
+times have we had danger from this question?  Go back to the day of
+the Missouri Compromise.  Go back to the nullification question, at
+the bottom of which lay this same slavery question.  Go back to the
+time of the annexation of Texas.  Go back to the troubles that led to
+the Compromise of 1850.  You will find that every time, with the
+single exception of the Nullification question, they sprung from an
+endeavor to spread this institution.  There never was a party in the
+history of this country, and there probably never will be, of
+sufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country.
+Parties themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet
+it extends not beyond the parties themselves.  But
+does not this question make a disturbance outside of political
+circles?  Does it not enter into the churches and rend them asunder?
+What divided the great Methodist Church into two parts, North and
+South?  What has raised this constant disturbance in every
+Presbyterian General Assembly that meets?  What disturbed the
+Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago?  What has jarred
+and shaken the great American Tract Society recently, not yet
+splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end?  Is it not this same
+mighty, deep-seated power that somehow operates on the minds of men,
+exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society,--in
+politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold
+relations of life?  Is this the work of politicians?  Is that
+irresistible power, which for fifty years has shaken the government
+and agitated the people, to be stifled and subdued by pretending that
+it is an exceedingly simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it?
+If you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, I assure you
+I will quit before they have half done so.  But where is the
+philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that
+disturbing element in our society which has disturbed us for more
+than half a century, which has been the only serious danger that has
+threatened our institutions,--I say, where is the philosophy or the
+statesmanship based on the assumption that we are to quit talking
+about it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being
+agitated by it?  Yet this is the policy here in the North that
+Douglas is advocating, that we are to care nothing about it!  I ask
+you if it is not a false philosophy.  Is it not a false statesmanship
+that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of
+caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most
+about--a thing which all experience has shown we care a very great
+deal about?
+
+The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the
+exclusive right which the States have to decide the whole thing for
+themselves.  I agree with him very readily that the different States
+have that right.  He is but fighting a man of straw when he assumes
+that I am contending against the right of the States to do as they
+please about it.  Our controversy with him is in regard to the new
+Territories.  We agree that when the States come in as States they
+have the right and the power to do as they please.  We have no power
+as citizens of the free-States, or in our Federal capacity as members
+of the Federal Union through the General Government, to disturb
+slavery in the States where it exists.  We profess constantly that we
+have no more inclination than belief in the power of the government
+to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from
+the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the Sates.
+What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free
+from it while in the Territorial condition.  Judge Douglas assumes
+that we have no interest in them,--that we have no right whatever to
+interfere.  I think we have some interest.  I think that as white men
+we have.  Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if
+I may so express myself?  Do we not feel an interest in getting to
+that outlet with such institutions as we would like to have prevail
+there?  If you go to the Territory opposed to slavery, and another
+man comes upon the same ground with his slave, upon the assumption
+that the things are equal, it turns out that he has the equal right
+all his way, and you have no part of it your way.  If he goes in and
+makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence a slave State, is it
+not time that those who desire to have it a free State were on equal
+ground?  Let me suggest it in a different way.  How many Democrats
+are there about here ["A thousand"] who have left slave States and
+come into the free State of Illinois to get rid of the institution of
+slavery?  [Another voice: 'A thousand and one."] I reckon there are a
+thousand and one.  I will ask you, if the policy you are now
+advocating had prevailed when this country was in a Territorial
+condition, where would you have gone to get rid of it?  Where would
+you have found your free State or Territory to go to?  And when
+hereafter, for any cause, the people in this place shall desire to
+find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will
+they find the place to go to?
+
+Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether
+there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor
+of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may
+find a home,--may find some spot where they can better their
+condition; where they can settle upon new soil and better their
+condition in life.  I am in favor of this, not merely (I must say it
+here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us,
+but as an outlet for free white people everywhere the world over--in
+which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the
+world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life.
+
+I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again,
+what I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between
+Judge Douglas and myself.  On the point of my wanting to make war
+between the free and the slave States, there has been no issue
+between us.  So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of producing
+a perfect social and political equality between the white and black
+races.  These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to
+force the controversy.  There is no foundation in truth for the
+charge that I maintain either of these propositions.  The real issue
+in this controversy--the one pressing upon every mind--is the
+sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of
+slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it
+as a wrong.  The sentiment that contemplates the institution of
+slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican
+party.  It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their
+arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate.  They
+look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while
+they contemplate it a, such, they nevertheless have due regard for
+its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of
+it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations
+thrown about it.  Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a
+policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more
+danger.  They insist that it should, as far as may be, be treated as
+a wrong; and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make
+provision that it shall grow no larger.  They also desire a policy
+that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some time.  These are the
+views they entertain in regard to it as I understand them; and all
+their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are brought
+within this range.  I have said, and I repeat it here, that if there
+be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of
+slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he
+is misplaced, and ought not to be with us.  And if there be a man
+amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its
+actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it
+suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional
+obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our
+platform.  We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action.  He is
+not placed properly with us.
+
+On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread,
+let me say a word.  Has anything ever threatened the existence of
+this Union save and except this very institution of slavery?  What is
+it that we hold most dear amongst us?  Our own liberty and
+prosperity.  What has ever threatened our liberty and prosperity,
+save and except this institution of slavery?  If this is true, how do
+you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery,
+by spreading it out and making it bigger?  You may have a wen or
+cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out, lest you
+bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and
+spread it over your whole body.  That is no proper way of treating
+what you regard a wrong.  You see this peaceful way of dealing with
+it as a wrong, restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to
+go into new countries where it has not already existed.  That is the
+peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers
+themselves set us the example.
+
+On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it
+as not being wrong.  That is the Democratic sentiment of this day.  I
+do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range
+positively asserts that it is right.  That class will include all who
+positively assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge Douglas,
+treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either right or wrong.
+These two classes of men fall within the general class of those who
+do not look upon it as a wrong.  And if there be among you anybody
+who supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself "as much
+opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with him.  You
+never treat it as a wrong.  What other thing that you consider as a
+wrong do you deal with as you deal with that?  Perhaps you say it is
+wrong--but your leader never does, and you quarrel with anybody who
+says it is wrong.  Although you pretend to say so yourself, you can
+find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong.  You must not say
+anything about it in the free States, because it is not here.  You
+must not say anything about it in the slave States, because it is
+there.  You must not say anything about it in the pulpit, because
+that is religion, and has nothing to do with it.  You must not say
+anything about it in politics, because that will disturb the security
+of "my place."  There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong,
+although you say yourself it is a wrong.  But, finally, you will
+screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the slave
+States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the slavery
+question, you would be in favor of it.  You would be in favor of it.
+You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad
+to see it succeed.  But you are deceiving yourself.  You all know
+that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St.  Louis, undertook
+to introduce that system in Missouri.  They fought as valiantly as
+they could for the system of gradual emancipation which you pretend
+you would be glad to see succeed.  Now, I will bring you to the test.
+After a hard fight they were beaten, and when the news came over
+here, you threw up your hats and hurrahed for Democracy.  More than
+that, take all the argument made in favor of the system you have
+proposed, and it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything
+wrong in the institution of slavery.  The arguments to sustain that
+policy carefully exclude it.  Even here to-day you heard Judge
+Douglas quarrel with me because I uttered a wish that it might
+sometime come to an end.  Although Henry Clay could say he wished
+every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors,
+I am denounced by those pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering
+a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end.
+The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate
+the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong
+about it.  Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments.  He says he
+"don't care whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories.
+I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is
+intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the
+subject, or only of the national policy he desires to have
+established.  It is alike valuable for my purpose.  Any man can say
+that who does not see anything wrong in slavery; but no man can
+logically say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can
+logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted
+down.  He may say he don't care whether an indifferent thing is voted
+up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing
+and a wrong thing.  He contends that whatever community wants slaves
+has a right to have them.  So they have, if it is not a wrong.  But
+if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong.  He
+says that upon the score of equality slaves should be allowed to go
+in a new Territory, like other property.  This is strictly logical if
+there is no difference between it and other property.  If it and
+other property are equal, this argument is entirely logical.  But if
+you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to
+institute a comparison between right and wrong.  You may turn over
+everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in
+the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the
+Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the
+shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,--it everywhere
+carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it.
+
+That is the real issue.  That is the issue that will continue in this
+country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be
+silent.  It is the eternal struggle between these two principles--
+right and wrong--throughout the world.  They are the two principles
+that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will
+ever continue to struggle.  The one is the common right of humanity,
+and the other the divine right of kings.  It is the same principle in
+whatever shape it develops itself.  It is the same spirit that says,
+"You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it."  No matter in
+what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to
+bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their
+labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another
+race, it is the same tyrannical principle.  I was glad to express my
+gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, to Judge Douglas,--
+that he looks to no end of the institution of slavery.  That will
+help the people to see where the struggle really is.  It will
+hereafter place with us all men who really do wish the wrong may have
+an end.  And whenever we can get rid of the fog which obscures the
+real question, when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to avow
+a policy looking to its perpetuation,--we can get out from among that
+class of men and bring them to the side of those who treat it as a
+wrong.  Then there will soon be an end of it, and that end will be
+its "ultimate extinction."  Whenever the issue can be distinctly
+made, and all extraneous matter thrown out so that men can fairly see
+the real difference between the parties, this controversy will soon
+be settled, and it will be done peaceably too.  There will be no war,
+no violence.  It will be placed again where the wisest and best men
+of the world placed it.  Brooks of South Carolina once declared that
+when this Constitution was framed its framers did not look to the
+institution existing until this day.  When he said this, I think he
+stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history of the times.
+But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men of these
+days, yet the men of these days had experience which they had not,
+and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this
+country that slavery should be perpetual.  I now say that, willingly
+or unwillingly--purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been
+the most prominent instrument in changing the position of the
+institution of slavery,--which the fathers of the government expected
+to come to an end ere this, and putting it upon Brooks's cotton-gin
+basis; placing it where he openly confesses he has no desire there
+shall ever be an end of it.
+
+I understand I have ten minutes yet.  I will employ it in saying
+something about this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains
+the Dred Scott decision, that the people of the Territories can still
+somehow exclude slavery.  The first thing I ask attention to is the
+fact that Judge Douglas constantly said, before the decision, that
+whether they could or not, was a question for the Supreme Court.  But
+after the court had made the decision he virtually says it is not a
+question for the Supreme Court, but for the people.  And how is it he
+tells us they can exclude it?  He says it needs "police regulations,"
+and that admits of "unfriendly legislation."  Although it is a right
+established by the Constitution of the United States to take a slave
+into a Territory of the United States and hold him as property, yet
+unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation,
+and more especially if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can
+practically exclude him.  Now, without meeting this proposition as a
+matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional
+obligation.  Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face
+before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial
+Legislature.  The first thing he will do will be to swear that he
+will support the Constitution of the United States.  His neighbor by
+his side in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial
+legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional right.  Can he
+withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment
+of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Constitution of the
+United States which he has sworn to support?  Can he withhold it
+without violating his oath?  And, more especially, can he pass
+unfriendly legislation to violate his oath?  Why, this is a monstrous
+sort of talk about the Constitution of the United States!  There has
+never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any
+respectable man on earth.  I do not believe it is a constitutional
+right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States.  I believe
+the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it.  Judge
+Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision.
+But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself
+stands.  I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine
+uttered from the mouth of a respectable man.
+
+I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of
+the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave
+law,--that is a right fixed in the Constitution.  But it cannot be
+made available to them without Congressional legislation.  In the
+Judge's language, it is a "barren right," which needs legislation
+before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it
+is guaranteed.  And as the right is constitutional, I agree that the
+legislation shall be granted to it, and that not that we like the
+institution of slavery.  We profess to have no taste for running and
+catching niggers, at least, I profess no taste for that job at all.
+Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law?  Because I do
+not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right,
+can be supported without it.  And if I believed that the right to
+hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution
+with the right to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to give it the
+legislation necessary to support it.  I say that no man can deny his
+obligation to give the necessary legislation to support slavery in a
+Territory, who believes it is a constitutional right to have it
+there.  No man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument
+to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a
+Fugitive State law.  Try it now.  It is the strongest Abolition
+argument ever made.  I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct,
+then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a
+constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his
+runaway returned.  No one can show the distinction between them.  The
+one is express, so that we cannot deny it.  The other is construed to
+be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be
+correct believes in the right.  And the man who argues that by
+unfriendly legislation, in spite of that constitutional right,
+slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing
+an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return
+fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right
+of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive.  I do not know how such
+an arguement may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy
+anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to
+estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of
+difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive and
+the constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided
+this Dred Scott decision is correct, I defy any man to make an
+argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a
+slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will
+not equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an
+argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law.  Why, there is not
+such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all!
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 4
+
diff --git a/old/4linc10.zip b/old/4linc10.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8f20418
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/4linc10.zip
diff --git a/old/4linc11.txt b/old/4linc11.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..448b1d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/4linc11.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,3777 @@
+The Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, v4
+#4 in our series of the Writings of Abraham Lincoln
+
+Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
+copyright laws for your country before distributing this or any other
+Project Gutenberg file.
+
+We encourage you to keep this file, exactly as it is, on your
+own disk, thereby keeping an electronic path open for future
+readers.  Please do not remove this.
+
+This header should be the first thing seen when anyone starts to
+view the etext. Do not change or edit it without written permission.
+The words are carefully chosen to provide users with the
+information they need to understand what they may and may not
+do with the etext.
+
+
+**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
+
+**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
+
+*****These Etexts Are Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****
+
+Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get etexts, and
+further information, is included below.  We need your donations.
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a 501(c)(3)
+organization with EIN [Employee Identification Number] 64-6221541
+
+
+
+Title: The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, v4
+
+Author: Abraham Lincoln
+
+Release Date: May, 2001 [Etext #2656]
+[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule]
+[Most recently updated: December 4, 2001]
+
+Edition: 11
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+The Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, v4
+*******This file should be named 4linc11.txt or 4linc11.zip*******
+
+Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, 4linc12.txt
+VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, 4linc11a.txt
+
+This etext was produced by David Widger  <widger@cecomet.net>
+
+Project Gutenberg Etexts are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we usually do not
+keep etexts in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+We are now trying to release all our etexts one year in advance
+of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
+Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections,
+even years after the official publication date.
+
+Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til
+midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
+The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at
+Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
+preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
+and editing by those who wish to do so.
+
+Most people start at our sites at:
+http://gutenberg.net or
+http://promo.net/pg
+
+These Web sites include award-winning information about Project
+Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new
+etexts, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!).
+
+
+Those of you who want to download any Etext before announcement
+can get to them as follows, and just download by date.  This is
+also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
+indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
+announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.
+
+http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03 or
+ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03
+
+Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90
+
+Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
+as it appears in our Newsletters.
+
+
+Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)
+
+We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
+time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
+to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
+searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.   Our
+projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If the value
+per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
+million dollars per hour in 2001 as we release over 50 new Etext
+files per month, or 500 more Etexts in 2000 for a total of 4000+
+If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
+should reach over 300 billion Etexts given away by year's end.
+
+The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext
+Files by December 31, 2001.  [10,000 x 100,000,000 = 1 Trillion]
+This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
+which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.
+
+At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third
+of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 4,000 Etexts.  We need
+funding, as well as continued efforts by volunteers, to maintain
+or increase our production and reach our goals.
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created
+to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.
+
+We need your donations more than ever!
+
+As of November, 2001, contributions are being solicited from people
+and organizations in: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,
+Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
+Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
+Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,
+Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
+Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
+and Wyoming.
+
+*In Progress
+
+We have filed in about 45 states now, but these are the only ones
+that have responded.
+
+As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
+will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
+Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.
+
+In answer to various questions we have received on this:
+
+We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally
+request donations in all 50 states.  If your state is not listed and
+you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have,
+just ask.
+
+While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are
+not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting
+donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to
+donate.
+
+International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about
+how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made
+deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are
+ways.
+
+All donations should be made to:
+
+Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+PMB 113
+1739 University Ave.
+Oxford, MS 38655-4109
+
+Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment
+method other than by check or money order.
+
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by
+the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN
+[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154.  Donations are
+tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law.  As fundraising
+requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be
+made and fundraising will begin in the additional states.
+
+We need your donations more than ever!
+
+You can get up to date donation information at:
+
+http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html
+
+
+***
+
+If you can't reach Project Gutenberg,
+you can always email directly to:
+
+Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>
+
+Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.
+
+We would prefer to send you information by email.
+
+
+**The Legal Small Print**
+
+
+(Three Pages)
+
+***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START***
+Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
+They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
+your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from
+someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
+fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
+disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
+you may distribute copies of this etext if you want to.
+
+*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT
+By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
+etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
+this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
+a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by
+sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
+you got it from. If you received this etext on a physical
+medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
+
+ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS
+This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etexts,
+is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
+through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
+Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
+on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
+distribute it in the United States without permission and
+without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
+below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext
+under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
+
+Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
+any commercial products without permission.
+
+To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable
+efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
+works. Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any
+medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
+things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
+intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
+disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer
+codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
+
+LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
+But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
+[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may
+receive this etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims
+all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
+legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
+UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
+INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
+OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+
+If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of
+receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
+you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
+time to the person you received it from. If you received it
+on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
+such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
+copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
+choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
+receive it electronically.
+
+THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
+TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
+LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
+PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
+the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
+above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
+may have other legal rights.
+
+INDEMNITY
+You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation,
+and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated
+with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
+texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including
+legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
+following that you do or cause:  [1] distribution of this etext,
+[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the etext,
+or [3] any Defect.
+
+DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
+You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by
+disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
+"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
+or:
+
+[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
+     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
+     etext or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
+     if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable
+     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
+     including any form resulting from conversion by word
+     processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
+     *EITHER*:
+
+     [*]  The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
+          does *not* contain characters other than those
+          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
+          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
+          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
+          author, and additional characters may be used to
+          indicate hypertext links; OR
+
+     [*]  The etext may be readily converted by the reader at
+          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
+          form by the program that displays the etext (as is
+          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
+          OR
+
+     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
+          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
+          etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
+          or other equivalent proprietary form).
+
+[2]  Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this
+     "Small Print!" statement.
+
+[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
+     gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
+     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
+     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
+     payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
+     the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
+     legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
+     periodic) tax return.  Please contact us beforehand to
+     let us know your plans and to work out the details.
+
+WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
+Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of
+public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
+in machine readable form.
+
+The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
+public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
+Money should be paid to the:
+"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
+software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
+hart@pobox.com
+
+[Portions of this header are copyright (C) 2001 by Michael S. Hart
+and may be reprinted only when these Etexts are free of all fees.]
+[Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be used in any sales
+of Project Gutenberg Etexts or other materials be they hardware or
+software or any other related product without express permission.]
+
+*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.10/04/01*END*
+
+
+
+
+
+This etext was produced by David Widger  <widger@cecomet.net>
+
+
+
+
+
+THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Volume Four
+
+CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION
+
+
+
+
+THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II
+
+
+
+LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH JOINT DEBATE,
+
+AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858.
+
+LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--It will be very difficult for an audience so
+large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and
+consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as
+possible.
+
+While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me
+to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality
+between the negroes and white people.  While I had not proposed to
+myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
+question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes
+in saying something in regard to it.  I will say, then, that I am
+not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
+social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am
+not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of
+negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry
+with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is
+a physical difference between the white and black races which I
+believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of
+social and political equality.  And in as much as they cannot so
+live, while they do remain together there must be the position of
+superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of
+having the superior position assigned to the white race.  I say upon
+this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have
+the superior position the negro should be denied everything.  I do
+not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I
+must necessarily want her for a wife.  My understanding is that I can
+just let her alone.  I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly
+never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife.  So it
+seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either
+slaves or wives of negroes.  I will add to this that I have never
+seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of
+producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes
+and white men.  I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I
+ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its
+correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend
+Colonel Richard M. Johnson.  I will also add to the remarks I have
+made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I
+have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would
+marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it; but as Judge
+Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they
+might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most
+solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this
+State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.  I
+will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand
+that there is any place where an alteration of the social and
+political relations of the negro and the white man can be made,
+except in the State Legislature,--not in the Congress of the United
+States; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such
+thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror
+that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best
+means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the
+State Legislature to fight the measure.  I do not propose dwelling
+longer at this time on this subject.
+
+When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to
+Illinois in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in
+which he made what may be called a charge against Judge Douglas,
+which I understand proved to be very offensive to him.  The Judge was
+at that time out upon one of his speaking tours through the country,
+and when the news of it reached him, as I am informed, he denounced
+Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for having said what he did in
+regard to that matter.  I was traveling at that time, and speaking at
+the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent days, and when I
+heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and what Douglas
+had said back again, I felt that I was in a position where I could
+not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter.  Consequently,
+upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no
+other wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by
+Trumbull against Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to
+say nothing about it; that I did personally know Judge Trumbull; that
+I believed him to be a man of veracity; that I believed him to be a
+man of capacity sufficient to know very well whether an assertion he
+was making, as a conclusion drawn from a set of facts, was true or
+false; and as a conclusion of my own from that, I stated it as my
+belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove
+everything he had said.  I said this upon two or three occasions.
+Upon a subsequent occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before an
+audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his
+charge against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to
+substantiate it.  This speech was published at length; and
+subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas alluded to the matter.  In
+the course of his speech, and near the close of it, he stated in
+regard to myself what I will now read:
+
+"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter
+occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that,
+Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he
+should hold him (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders."
+
+I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this
+invitation to notice the charge.  I now wish to say that it had not
+originally been my purpose to discuss that matter at all  But in-as-
+much as it seems to be the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me
+responsible for it, then for once in my life I will play General
+Jackson, and to the just extent I take the responsibility.
+
+I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that
+portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this
+matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at
+Jacksonville in answer to it.  I shall thereby furnish the readers of
+this debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and
+Douglas.  I cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take
+half of my first hour to do so.  I can only make some comments upon
+them.  Trumbull's charge is in the following words:
+
+"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a
+constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the
+people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in
+the plot."
+
+I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an
+opportunity of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings
+forward what he regards as sufficient evidence to substantiate this
+charge.
+
+It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon
+the floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference
+among the senators, in which conference it was determined to have an
+enabling act passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution
+under, and in this conference it was agreed among them that it was
+best not to have a provision for submitting the constitution to a
+vote of the people after it should be formed.  He then brings forward
+to show, and showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the
+bill back to the Senate with that clause stricken out.  He then shows
+that there was a new clause inserted into the bill, which would in
+its nature prevent a reference of the constitution back for a vote of
+the people,--if, indeed, upon a mere silence in the law, it could be
+assumed that they had the right to vote upon it.  These are the
+general statements that he has made.
+
+I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he
+attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's.  When you come to
+examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he
+makes is:
+
+"Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and
+that I struck it out,--is that a proof of a plot to force a
+constitution upon them against their will?"
+
+His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the
+bill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken
+out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right.  I would
+say, in the first place, that that would be a most manifest reason
+for it.  It is true, as Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial
+bills have passed without having such a provision in them.  I believe
+it is true, though I am not certain, that in some instances
+constitutions framed under such bills have been submitted to a vote
+of the people with the law silent upon the subject; but it does not
+appear that they once had their enabling acts framed with an express
+provision for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of
+the people, then that they were stricken out when Congress did not
+mean to alter the effect of the law.  That there have been bills
+which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when was
+that provision taken out of one that it was in?  More especially does
+the evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced,
+when we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill
+almost simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a
+conference among certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a
+bill should be passed leaving that out.  Judge Douglas, in answering
+Trumbull, omits to attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was
+a meeting in which it was agreed they should so frame the bill that
+there should be no submission of the constitution to a vote of the
+people.  The Judge does not notice this part of it.  If you take this
+as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that simultaneously
+Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to be
+submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty
+fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter
+into a plot to put in force a constitution for Kansas, without giving
+the people any opportunity of voting upon it.
+
+But I must hurry on.  The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is
+this:
+
+"But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did
+contain a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted."
+
+This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence.
+I only want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that
+these words were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill
+from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out,--a bill
+which goes by the name of Toomb's, because he originally brought it
+forward?  I ask why, if the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with
+Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition Trumbull made in his
+speech, and say it was not stricken out?  Trumbull has given the
+exact words that he says were in the Toomb's bill, and he alleges
+that when the bill came back, they were stricken out.  Judge Douglas
+does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken out
+were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision in the
+Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people.  We
+see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the
+words.  He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about
+these words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to
+it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words.  Now, then,
+if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be
+upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken
+out, I have before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the
+Toomb's bill, in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says
+were in it were, in fact, originally there.  If there be any dispute
+upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show they were there.
+If there be any controversy upon the sense of the words,--whether
+these words which were stricken out really constituted a provision
+for submitting the matter to a vote of the people,--as that is a
+matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull's own
+argument.  He says that the proposition is in these words:
+
+"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered
+to the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their
+free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention
+and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the
+constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said
+State of Kansas."
+
+Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the
+bill when it came back, and he says this was a provision for
+submitting the constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument
+is this:
+
+"Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the
+election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an
+election was to be held?"
+
+This is Trumbull's argument.  Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the
+charge at all, but he stands up and says there was no such
+proposition in that bill for submitting the constitution to be framed
+to a vote of the people.  Trumbull admits that the language is not a
+direct provision for submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily
+implied from another provision.  He asks you how it is possible to
+ratify the land proposition at the election for the adoption of the
+constitution, if there was no election to be held for the adoption of
+the constitution.  And he goes on to show that it is not any less a
+law because the provision is put in that indirect shape than it would
+be if it were put directly.  But I presume I have said enough to draw
+attention to this point, and I pass it by also.
+
+Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and
+at very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending,
+said in a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to
+be made would have to be submitted to the people.  He asks, if
+Trumbull thought so then, what ground is there for anybody thinking
+otherwise now?  Fellow-citizens, this much may be said in reply: That
+bill had been in the hands of a party to which Trumbull did not
+belong.  It had been in the hands of the committee at the head of
+which Judge Douglas stood.  Trumbull perhaps had a printed copy of
+the original Toomb's bill.  I have not the evidence on that point
+except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of business
+there.  What alterations, or what provisions in the way of altering,
+were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, until
+the altered bill was reported back.  Soon afterwards, when it was
+reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull
+in reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the
+bearings of the alterations.  He was hastily borne into the debate,
+and it does not follow that because there was something in it
+Trumbull did not perceive, that something did not exist.  More than
+this, is it true that what Trumbull did can have any effect on what
+Douglas did?  Suppose Trumbull had been in the plot with these other
+men, would that let Douglas out of it?   Would it exonerate Douglas
+that Trumbull did n't then perceive he was in the plot?  He also asks
+the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose to amend the bill, if he
+thought it needed any amendment?  Why, I believe that everything
+Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection with this
+question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of
+the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his
+friends.  He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to
+anything on this subject would receive the slightest consideration.
+Judge Trumbull did bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the
+fact that there was no provision for submitting the constitution
+about to be made for the people of Kansas to a vote of the people.  I
+believe I may venture to say that Judge Douglas made some reply to
+this speech of Judge Trumbull's, but he never noticed that part of it
+at all.  And so the thing passed by.  I think, then, the fact that
+Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not throw much blame upon
+him; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact as to what
+Judge Douglas was doing.  I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself been
+in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it
+from blame.  If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial
+it should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder,
+but that the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at
+all touch the question of my crime.  It would be no relief to my neck
+that they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to
+be guilty too.
+
+Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is,
+that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the
+fact that the bill had the provision in it for submitting the
+constitution to a vote of the people when it went into his Judge
+Douglas's hands, that it was missing when he reported it to the
+Senate, and that in a public speech he had subsequently said the
+alterations in the bill were made while it was in committee, and that
+they were made in consultation between him (Judge Douglas) and
+Toomb's.  And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of
+Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill
+not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with
+another clause and another provision in it, saying that "until the
+complete execution of this Act there shall be no election in said
+Territory,"--which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the
+provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but
+was adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from
+exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the
+question.  Now, in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the
+issue, that he shifts his ground,--and I believe he uses the term
+that, "it being proven false, he has changed ground," I call upon all
+of you, when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's speech
+(for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trumbull has
+shifted his ground or not.  I say he did not shift his ground, but
+that he brought forward his original charge and the evidence to
+sustain it yet more fully,
+but precisely as he originally made it.  Then, in addition thereto,
+he brought in a new piece of evidence.  He shifted no ground.  He
+brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with his former
+testimony; but he brought a new piece, tending, as he thought, and as
+I think, to prove his proposition.  To illustrate: A man brings an
+accusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge
+introduces A and B to prove the accusation.  At a second trial he
+introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and
+a third witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives
+further testimony corroborative of the charge.  So with Trumbull.
+There was no shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony
+between the new piece of evidence and what he originally introduced.
+
+But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last
+provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and
+a substitute inserted.  That I presume is the truth.  I presume it is
+true that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas.
+Trumbull has not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it
+was so stricken out.  He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as
+Judge Douglas reported it back.  It was amended somewhat in the
+Senate before it passed, but I am speaking of it as he brought it
+back."  Now, when Judge Douglas parades the fact that the provision
+was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he asserts nothing
+contrary to what Trumbull alleges.  Trumbull has only said that he
+originally put it in, not that he did not strike it out.  Trumbull
+says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee.  When it
+came back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made
+by him in consultation with Toomb's.  Trumbull alleges, therefore, as
+his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in.  Then, if Douglas wants
+to contradict Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not
+put it in, and not that he did n't take it out again.  It is said
+that a bear is sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I
+presume it was in this case.  I presume the truth is that Douglas put
+it in, and afterward took it out.  That, I take it, is the truth
+about it.  Judge Trumbull says one thing, Douglas says another thing,
+and the two don't contradict one another at all.  The question is,
+what did he put it in for?  In the first place, what did he take the
+other provision out of the bill for,--the provision which Trumbull
+argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of the
+people?  What did he take that out for; and, having taken it out,
+what did he put this in for?  I say that in the run of things it is
+not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge
+Douglas to take that latter clause out again.  The question that
+Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in; and he don't meet
+Trumbull at all unless he denies that.
+
+In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses
+this language toward Judge Trumbull.  He says:
+
+"He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the
+record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge."
+
+Well, that is a pretty serious statement--Trumbull forges his
+evidence from beginning to end.  Now, upon my own authority I say
+that it is not true.  What is a forgery?  Consider the evidence that
+Trumbull has brought forward.  When you come to read the speech, as
+you will be able to, examine whether the evidence is a forgery from
+beginning to end.  He had the bill or document in his hand like that
+[holding up a paper].  He says that is a copy of the Toomb's bill,--
+the amendment offered by Toomb's.  He says that is a copy of the bill
+as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas's hands.  Now, does
+Judge Douglas say that is a forgery?  That is one thing Trumbull
+brought forward.  Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning to
+end!  That is the "beginning," we will say.  Does Douglas say that is
+a forgery?  Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent
+examination upon this subject.  Trumbull then holds up another
+document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it
+came back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands.  Does
+Judge Douglas say that is a forgery?  Does he say it in his general
+sweeping charge?  Does he say so now?  If he does not, then take this
+Toomb's bill and the bill in the amended form, and it only needs to
+compare them to see that the provision is in the one and not in the
+other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken out.
+
+But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what
+Trumbull's other evidence is.  One other piece of evidence I will
+read.  Trumbull says there are in this original Toomb's bill these
+words:
+
+"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered
+to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for
+their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the
+Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the
+adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United
+States and the said State of Kansas."
+
+Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper
+here and see whether it is or not.  Again, Trumbull says, as he goes
+along, that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in
+the Senate, December 9, 1857:
+
+"I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the
+bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed,
+whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote
+of the people.  It was held by those most intelligent on the subject
+that, in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the
+danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be
+better there should be no such provision in the Toomb's bill; and it
+was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the
+Convention would make a constitution, and send it here, without
+submitting it to the popular vote."
+
+Then Trumbull follows on:
+
+"In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857
+[Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said:
+
+"'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or
+confidential interview.  The meeting was not of that character.
+Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good.
+My recollection was clear that I left the conference under the
+impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit
+Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and
+that for delegates to this Convention.  This impression was stronger
+because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine
+of non-intervention, to which I had great aversion; but with the hope
+of accomplishing a great good, and as no movement had been made in
+that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and
+concluded to support the measure.  I have a few items of testimony as
+to the correctness of these impressions, and with their submission I
+shall be content.  I have before me the bill reported by the senator
+from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission
+of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows:
+
+"That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered
+to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for
+their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the
+Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the
+adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United
+States and the said State of Kansas."
+
+The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of
+June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the
+same section word for word.  Both these bills were under
+consideration at the conference referred to; but, sir, when the
+senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate with
+amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the
+third section which indicated to the Convention that the constitution
+should be approved by the people.  The words 'and ratified by the
+people at the election for the adoption of the constitution" had been
+stricken out.'"
+
+Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor
+of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the
+Congressional Globe on certain pages.  Does Judge Douglas say this is
+a forgery?  Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional
+Globe?  What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his
+evidence from beginning to end?  So again he says in another place
+that Judge Douglas, in his speech, December 9, 1857 (Congressional
+Globe, part I., page 15), stated:
+
+"That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a
+bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of
+Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves.
+Subsequently the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a
+substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and
+myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate."
+
+Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and
+is recorded in the Congressional Globe.  Is it a forgery?  Is it
+there or not?  It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take
+these pieces of evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he
+dare do it.
+
+[A voice: "He will."]
+
+Well, sir, you had better not commit him.  He gives other quotations,
+--another from Judge Douglas.  He says:
+
+"I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member
+of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the
+Union, from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be
+submitted to the people.  I will venture to say that on all sides of
+the chamber it was so understood at the time.  If the opponents of
+the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on
+it; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it,
+and put in the clause.  That is a discovery made since the President
+found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would
+be done, which ought in fairness to have been done."
+
+Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded.
+Does Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true?  Trumbull
+says somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any
+one who will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the
+notice of those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that
+provision; and then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge
+Douglas, where Judge Trumbull uses this language:
+
+"Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate,
+probably recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had
+objected to the Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for
+a submission of the constitution to the people, made another
+statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the Globe, page
+22, in which he says:
+'That the bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention
+was called to that about the time it was passed; and I took the fair
+construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that
+of course the constitution would be submitted to the people.'
+
+"Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before
+made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or
+that it was a new discovery, you will determine."
+
+So I say.  I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and
+yet maintain his position that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from
+beginning to end."  I will remark that I have not got these
+Congressional Globes with me.  They are large books, and difficult to
+carry about, and if Judge Douglas shall say that on these points
+where Trumbull has quoted from them there are no such passages there,
+I shall not be able to prove they are there upon this occasion, but I
+will have another chance.  Whenever he points out the forgery and
+says, "I declare that this particular thing which Trumbull has
+uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then my attention
+will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest, stating
+now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find
+every quotation just where Trumbull says it is.  Then the question
+is, How can Douglas call that a forgery?  How can he make out that it
+is a forgery?  What is a forgery?  It is the bringing forward
+something in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect
+when it is altogether untrue.  If you come forward with my note for
+one hundred dollars when I have never given such a note, there is a
+forgery.  If you come forward with a letter purporting to be written
+by me which I never wrote, there is another forgery.  If you produce
+anything in writing or in print saying it is so and so, the document
+not being genuine, a forgery has been committed.  How do you make
+this forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine?   If Judge
+Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false and forged,
+he has a full right to do so; but until he does it specifically, we
+don't know how to get at him.  If he does say they are false and
+forged, I will then look further into it, and presume I can procure
+the certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies.
+I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where
+Trumbull says it is.  Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in
+making his sweeping charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged
+from beginning to end, at all meets the case,--if that is the way to
+get at the facts.  I repeat again, if he will point out which one is
+a forgery, I will carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one
+of them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it
+any longer.  I have always wanted to deal with everyone I meet
+candidly and honestly.  If I have made any assertion not warranted by
+facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully.
+But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and the
+evidence he has brought forward branded in general terms "a forgery
+from beginning to end."  This is not the legal way of meeting a
+charge, and I submit it to all intelligent persons, both friends of
+Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is.
+
+The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill that went into his
+hands had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to
+the people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision
+for a submission, and that he took the provision out.  He says it was
+known that the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge
+Douglas, it was not silent when you got it.  It was vocal with the
+declaration, when you got it, for a submission of the constitution to
+the people.  And now, my direct question to Judge Douglas is, to
+answer why, if he deemed the bill silent on this point, he found it
+necessary to strike out those particular harmless words.  If he had
+found the bill silent and without this provision, he might say what
+he does now.  If he supposes it was implied that the constitution
+would be submitted to a vote of the people, how could these two lines
+so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to strike them out?
+How could he infer that a submission was still implied, after its
+express provision had been stricken from the bill?  I find the bill
+vocal with the provision, while he silenced it.  He took it out, and
+although he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a
+vote of the people, I ask, Why did you first put it in?  I ask him
+whether he took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges
+was in the bill.  If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he
+did it for.  It looks to us as if he had altered the bill.  If it
+looks differently to him,--if he has a different reason for his
+action from the one we assign him--he can tell it.  I insist upon
+knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point when it was vocal
+before he put his hands upon it.
+
+I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three
+minutes of being out.  I presume it is expired now; I therefore
+close.
+
+
+
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER.
+
+FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour
+answer to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried
+one.  I shall only be able to touch upon a few of the points
+suggested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I
+shall have to totally omit others for the want of time.
+
+Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from
+me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro
+citizenship.  So far as I know the Judge never asked me the question
+before.  He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell
+him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship.  This
+furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject.  I
+mentioned in a certain speech of mine, which has been printed, that
+the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made
+a citizen; and without saying what was my ground of complaint in
+regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge
+Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he
+ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the
+negroes and the white people.  If any one will read my speech, he
+will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course
+of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I
+had to it.  But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was
+when I did not tell them myself.  Now, my opinion is that the
+different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the
+Constitution of the United States if they choose.  The Dred Scott
+decision decides that they have not that power.  If the State of
+Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it.
+That is all I have to say about it.
+
+Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my
+speeches south; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the
+north and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very
+different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different
+points.  I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully
+misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take these
+speeches and read them, and I dare him to point out any difference
+between my speeches north and south.  While I am here perhaps I ought
+to say a word, if I have the time, in regard to the latter portion of
+the Judge's speech, which was a sort of declamation in reference to
+my having said I entertained the belief that this government would
+not endure half slave and half free.  I have said so, and I did not
+say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons.  It perhaps
+would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in
+detail; but let me ask you a few questions.  Have we ever had any
+peace on this slavery question?  When are we to have peace upon it,
+if it is kept in the position it now occupies?  How are we ever to
+have peace upon it?  That is an important question.  To be sure, if
+we will all stop, and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march on
+in their present career until they plant the institution all over the
+nation, here and wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in
+it, there will be peace.  But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is
+going to get the people to do that?  They have been wrangling over
+this question for at least forty years.  This was the cause of the
+agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise; this produced the
+troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the
+territory acquired in the Mexican War.  Again, this was the trouble
+which was quieted by the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled
+"forever" as both the great political parties declared in their
+National Conventions.  That "forever" turned out to be just four
+years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it.  When is it likely to
+come to an end?  He introduced the Nebraska Bill in 1854 to put
+another end to the slavery agitation.  He promised that it would
+finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since,
+until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton
+Constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the
+end of the slavery agitation.  But in one speech, I think last
+winter, he did say that he did n't quite see when the end of the
+slavery agitation would come.  Now he tells us again that it is all
+over and the people of Kansas have voted down the Lecompton
+Constitution.  How is it over?  That was only one of the attempts at
+putting an end to the slavery agitation--one of these "final
+settlements."  Is Kansas in the Union?  Has she formed a constitution
+that she is likely to come in under?  Is not the slavery agitation
+still an open question in that Territory?  Has the voting down of
+that constitution put an end to all the trouble?  Is that more likely
+to settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the
+slavery agitation?  Now, at this day in the history of the world we
+can no more foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be
+than we can see the end of the world itself.  The Nebraska-Kansas
+Bill was introduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation
+is ever to come to an end we may say we are four years and a half
+nearer the end.  So, too, we can say we are four years and a half
+nearer the end of the world, and we can just as clearly see the end
+of the world as we can see the end of this agitation.  The Kansas
+settlement did not conclude it.  If Kansas should sink to-day, and
+leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed
+question would still be among us.  I say, then, there is no way of
+putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back
+upon the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out
+of our new Territories,--to restrict it forever to the old States
+where it now exists.  Then the public mind will rest in the belief
+that it is in the course of ultimate extinction.  That is one way of
+putting an end to the slavery agitation.
+
+The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his
+friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease
+speaking of it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the
+common matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our
+horses and cattle.  But while it drives on in its state of progress
+as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I
+have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end
+to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other.  I do
+not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will
+be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years.  I do not suppose that
+in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than
+a hundred years at least; but that it will occur in the best way for
+both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt.  But, my
+friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this
+point.
+
+Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a
+bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854:
+Judge Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge,
+except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he
+told a cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral
+principles that Judge Douglas tells it here to-day.  This is the
+simple truth.  I do not care greatly for the story, but this is the
+truth of it: and I have twice told Judge Douglas to his face that
+from beginning to end there is not one word of truth in it.  I have
+called upon him for the proof, and he does not at all meet me as
+Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just talking, by
+producing the record.  He did n't bring the record because there was
+no record for him to bring.  When he asks if I am ready to indorse
+Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply
+that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would not be likely
+to indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity
+because neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years
+that I have known Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his
+word or tell a falsehood large or small.  It is for that reason that
+I indorse Lyman Trumbull.
+
+[Mr. JAMES BROWN (Douglas postmaster): "What does Ford's History say
+about him?"]
+
+Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him.  My own
+recollection is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful
+terms in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal
+worse of Judge Douglas.  I refer you, sir, to the History for
+examination.
+
+Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on
+the part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally.  I want to
+attend to that suggestion a moment.  I don't want to be unjustly
+accused of dealing illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either
+in court or in a political canvass or anywhere else.  I would despise
+myself if I supposed myself ready to deal less liberally with an
+adversary than I was willing to be treated myself.  Judge Douglas in
+a general way, without putting it in a direct shape, revives the old
+charge against me in reference to the Mexican War.  He does not take
+the responsibility of putting it in a very definite form, but makes a
+general reference to it.  That charge is more than ten years old.  He
+complains of Trumbull and myself because he says we bring charges
+against him one or two years old.  He knows, too, that in regard to
+the Mexican War story the more respectable papers of his own party
+throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and
+acknowledge that it was a lie.
+
+[Here Mr. LINCOLN turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting
+HON. ORLANDO B. FICKLIN, led him forward and said:]
+
+I do not mean to do anything with Mr. FICKLIN except to present his
+face and tell you that he personally knows it to be a lie!  He was a
+member of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [FICKLIN]
+knows that whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine
+which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to
+give such indorsement and voted against it; but I never voted against
+the supplies for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas,
+that whenever a dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise
+for the benefit of the soldiers I gave all the votes that FICKLIN or
+Douglas did, and perhaps more.
+
+[Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the
+matter: Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as
+Judge Douglas and myself.  In reference to this Mexican War, my
+recollection is that when Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered
+by Mr. Ashmun of Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican
+War was unnecessary and unconstitutionally commenced by the President
+-my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.]
+
+That is the truth.  Now, you all remember that was a resolution
+censuring the President for the manner in which the war was begun.
+You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by
+which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of
+their country.  I say that FICKLIN knows it is false.  When that
+charge was brought forward by the Chicago Times, the Springfield
+Register [Douglas's organ] reminded the Times that the charge really
+applied to John Henry; and I do know that John Henry is now making
+speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas.  If the Judge now
+says that he offers this as a sort of setoff to what I said to-day in
+reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that he made this
+charge before I said a word about Trumbull's.  He brought this
+forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the
+opening speech that Judge Douglas made he attacked me in regard to a
+matter ten years old.  Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about
+people making charges against him only two years old!
+
+The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon
+this charge of Trumbull's at all.  I gave the apology for doing so in
+my opening speech.  Perhaps it did n't fix your attention.  I said
+that when Judge Douglas was speaking at place--where I spoke on the
+succeeding day he used very harsh language about this charge.  Two or
+three times afterward I said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's
+veracity and intelligence; and my own opinion was, from what I knew
+of the character of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his
+position and prove whatever he had stated to be true.  This I
+repeated two or three times; and then I dropped it, without saying
+anything more on the subject for weeks--perhaps a month.  I passed it
+by without noticing it at all till I found, at Jacksonville, Judge
+Douglas in the plenitude of his power is not willing to answer
+Trumbull and let me alone, but he comes out there and uses this
+language: "He should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such
+charges made by Trumbull but that, Lincoln having indorsed the
+character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln]
+responsible for the slanders."  What was Lincoln to do?  Did he not
+do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas
+here, to tell him he was ready for the responsibility?  I ask a
+candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the
+assailant rather than I?  Here I meet him face to face, and say I am
+ready to take the responsibility, so far as it rests on me.
+
+Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the question
+whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge
+Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it?  You all heard me call
+upon him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery.
+Does he say that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs
+bill is a forgery?  Does he say that what I present as a copy of the
+bill reported by himself is a forgery, or what is presented as a
+transcript from the Globe of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a
+forgery?  Does he say the quotations from his own speech are
+forgeries?  Does he say this transcript from Trumbull's speech is a
+forgery?
+
+["He didn't deny one of them."]
+
+I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of
+a story is true the whole story turns out false.  I take it these
+people have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is
+playing cuttle-fish, a small species of fish that has no mode of
+defending itself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid,
+which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it
+escapes.  Ain't the Judge playing the cuttle-fish?
+
+Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge
+Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech
+of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces
+of testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown
+to be such.  Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery.  Then I
+ask the original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is
+true, how is it possible that the whole is a falsehood?
+
+In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision
+into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the
+people, what was his answer?  He comes here and reads from the
+Congressional Globe to show that on his motion that provision was
+struck out of the bill.  Why, Trumbull has not said it was not
+stricken out, but Trumbull says he [Douglas] put it in; and it is no
+answer to the charge to say he afterwards took it out.  Both are
+perhaps true.  It was in regard to that thing precisely that I told
+him he had dropped the cub.  Trumbull shows you that by his
+introducing the bill it was his cub.  It is no answer to that
+assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially
+say that Douglas struck it out.  Suppose that were the case, does it
+answer Trumbull?  I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are
+here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you
+were in Mattoon yesterday.  I say that you took your hat off your
+head, and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head.  That is
+the whole force of Douglas's argument.
+
+Now, I want to come back to my original question.  Trumbull says that
+Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a
+constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas.  Does
+Judge Douglas deny that fact?  Does be deny that the provision which
+Trumbull reads was put in that bill?  Then Trumbull says he struck it
+out.  Does he dare to deny that?  He does not, and I have the right
+to repeat the question ,--Why Judge Douglas took it out?  Bigler has
+said there was a combination of certain senators, among whom he did
+not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas
+Bill should have a clause in it not to have the constitution formed
+under it submitted to a vote of the people.  He did not say that
+Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the
+same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken
+out of the bill.  Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in
+concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and
+done with a mutual understanding after the conference; and while we
+do not know that it was absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that
+we have a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it
+was done to tell what the true reason was.  When he will not tell
+what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude of an accused
+thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to
+account refuses to tell where he got them.  Not only is this the
+evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision
+stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then but since, that these
+alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, in
+consultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill.  He tells us
+the same to-day.  He says there were certain modifications made in
+the bill in committee that he did not vote for.  I ask you to
+remember, while certain amendments were made which he disapproved of,
+but which a majority of the committee voted in, he has himself told
+us that in this particular the alterations and modifications were
+made by him, upon consultation with Toombs.  We have his own word
+that these alterations were made by him, and not by the committee.
+Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about coming
+to the exact question?  What is the reason he will not tell you
+anything about How it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that he
+remembers it being made at all?  Why does he stand playing upon the
+meaning of words and quibbling around the edges of the evidence?  If
+he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have the right
+to infer that Judge Douglas understood it was the purpose of his
+party, in engineering that bill through, to make a constitution, and
+have Kansas come into the Union with that constitution, without its
+being submitted to a vote of the people.  If he will explain his
+action on this question, by giving a better reason for the facts that
+happened than he has done, it will be satisfactory.  But until he
+does that--until he gives a better or more plausible reason than he
+has offered against the evidence in the case--I suggest to him it
+will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, takes on
+dignity, and calls people liars.  Why, sir, there is not a word in
+Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all.  He has
+only arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of
+reasoning.  There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends
+on Trumbull's word.  If you have ever studied geometry, you remember
+that by a course of reasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a
+triangle are equal to two right angles.  Euclid has shown you how to
+work it out.  Now, if you undertake to disprove that proposition, and
+to show that it is erroneous, would you prove it to be false by
+calling Euclid a liar?  They tell me that my time is out, and
+therefore I close.
+
+
+
+
+FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH,
+
+OCTOBER 7, 1858
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY.
+
+MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge
+Douglas has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in
+print.  I do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all.---  If I
+had not been interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I
+was able to make to a very large portion of it had already been more
+than once made and published.  There has been an opportunity afforded
+to the public to see our respective views upon the topics discussed
+in a large portion of the speech which he has just delivered.  I make
+these remarks for the purpose of excusing myself for not passing over
+the entire ground that the Judge has traversed.  I however desire to
+take up some of the points that he has attended to, and ask your
+attention to them, and I shall follow him backwards upon some notes
+which I have taken, reversing the order, by beginning where he
+concluded.
+
+The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and
+insisted that negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that
+it is a slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that
+negroes were meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possible to
+believe that Mr. Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have
+supposed himself applying the language of that instrument to the
+negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery?  Would he
+not at once have freed them?  I only have to remark upon this part of
+the Judge's speech (and that, too, very briefly, for I shall not
+detain myself, or you, upon that point for any great length of time),
+that I believe the entire records of the world, from the date of the
+Declaration of Independence up to within three years ago, may be
+searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single man,
+that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence; I
+think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that
+Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any
+member of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the
+whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present policy
+of the Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that
+affirmation.  And I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience that
+while Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was,
+in speaking upon this very subject he used the strong language that
+"he trembled for his country when he remembered that God was just";
+and I will offer the highest premium in my power to Judge Douglas if
+he will show that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at
+all akin to that of Jefferson.
+
+The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's
+comments upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call
+our public meetings as Republican meetings; and he instances Tazewell
+County as one of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called
+a public meeting and have not dared to name it a Republican meeting.
+He instances Monroe County as another, where Judge Trumbull and Jehu
+Baker addressed the persons whom the Judge assumes to be the friends
+of Lincoln calling them the "Free Democracy."  I have the honor to
+inform Judge Douglas that he spoke in that very county of Tazewell
+last Saturday, and I was there on Tuesday last; and when he spoke
+there, he spoke under a call not venturing to use the word
+"Democrat."  [Turning to Judge Douglas.] what think you of this?
+
+So, again, there is another thing to which I would ask the Judge's
+attention upon this subject.  In the contest of 1856 his party
+delighted to call themselves together as the "National Democracy";
+but now, if there should be a notice put up anywhere for a meeting of
+the "National Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not
+come.  They would not suppose themselves invited.  They would
+understand that it was a call for those hateful postmasters whom he
+talks about.
+
+Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine
+which Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in
+very great contrast to each other.  Those speeches have been before
+the public for a considerable time, and if they have any
+inconsistency in them, if there is any conflict in them, the public
+have been able to detect it.  When the Judge says, in speaking on
+this subject, that I make speeches of one sort for the people of the
+northern end of the State, and of a different sort for the southern
+people, he assumes that I do not understand that my speeches will be
+put in print and read north and south.  I knew all the while that the
+speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at Jonesboro and
+the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all the reading
+and intelligent men in the community would see them and know all
+about my opinions.  And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose,
+that there is any conflict whatever between them.  But the Judge will
+have it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality
+between the white and black races which justifies us in making them
+slaves, we must then insist that there is a degree of equality that
+requires us to make them our wives.  Now, I have all the while taken
+a broad distinction in regard to that matter; and that is all there
+is in these different speeches which he arrays here; and the entire
+reading of either of the speeches will show that that distinction was
+made.  Perhaps by taking two parts of the same speech he could have
+got up as much of a conflict as the one he has found.  I have all the
+while maintained that in so far as it should be insisted that there
+was an equality between the white and black races that should produce
+a perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility.
+This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have said
+that in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"
+as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our
+equals.  And these declarations I have constantly made in reference
+to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we
+are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed
+with the actual presence of the evil,--slavery.  I have never
+manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the
+actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence
+of slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have
+insisted that, in legislating for new countries where it does not
+exist there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract
+right!  With reference to those new countries, those maxims as to the
+right of a people to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
+were the just rules to be constantly referred to.  There is no
+misunderstanding this, except by men interested to misunderstand it.
+I take it that I have to address an intelligent and reading
+community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge
+whether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I advanced
+hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions
+of the country.  I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as
+the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free
+from all error in the opinions I advance.
+
+The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction
+between his party and our party.  His he assumes to be a national
+party, ours a sectional one.  He does this in asking the question
+whether this country has any interest in the maintenance of the
+Republican party.  He assumes that our party is altogether sectional,
+that the party to which he adheres is national; and the argument is,
+that no party can be a rightful party--and be based upon rightful
+principles--unless it can announce its principles everywhere.  I
+presume that Judge Douglas could not go into Russia and announce the
+doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not denounce the
+doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Russia; and it may
+be true of this country that in some places we may not be able to
+proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of democracy,
+because there is a section so directly opposed to it that they will
+not tolerate us in doing so.  Is it the true test of the soundness of
+a doctrine that in some places people won't let you proclaim it?  Is
+that the way to test the truth of any doctrine?  Why, I understood
+that at one time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas
+preach a certain favorite doctrine of his.  I commend to his
+consideration the question whether he takes that as a test of the
+unsoundness of what he wanted to preach.
+
+There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little
+while on this occasion.  What has always been the evidence brought
+forward to prove that the Republican party is a sectional party?  The
+main one was that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did
+not let the Republicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them.  That
+has been the main evidence brought forward,--that they had no
+supporters, or substantially none, in the Slave States.  The South
+have not taken hold of our principles as we announce them; nor does
+Judge Douglas now grapple with those principles.  We have a
+Republican State Platform, laid down in Springfield in June last
+stating our position all the way through the questions before the
+country.  We are now far advanced in this canvass.  Judge Douglas and
+I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have now for the
+fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I have not
+found either Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of the
+Republican platform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is
+wrong.  I ask you all to recollect that.  Judge Douglas turns away
+from the platform of principles to the fact that he can find people
+somewhere who will not allow us to announce those principles.  If he
+had great confidence that our principles were wrong, he would take
+hold of them and demonstrate them to be wrong.  But he does not do
+so.  The only evidence he has of their being wrong is in the fact
+that there are people who won't allow us to preach them.  I ask
+again, is that the way to test the soundness of a doctrine?
+
+I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality
+he is himself fast becoming sectional.  I ask his attention to the
+fact that his speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio
+River as they have formerly gone there  I ask his attention to the
+fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all the Democrats of the
+free States are agreeing with him, while he omits to tell us that the
+Democrats of any slave State agree with him.  If he has not thought
+of this, I commend to his consideration the evidence in his own
+declaration, on this day, of his becoming sectional too.  I see it
+rapidly approaching.  Whatever may be the result of this ephemeral
+contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day rapidly
+approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has been
+thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be
+crowded down his own throat.
+
+Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his
+speech) about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principles of the
+Nebraska Bill, although I have often presented my views upon that
+subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you
+please, detain you a little with them.  I have always maintained, so
+far as I was able, that there was nothing of the principle of the
+Nebraska Bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all,--nothing whatever.
+Where can you find the principle of the Nebraska Bill in that
+Compromise?  If anywhere, in the two pieces of the Compromise
+organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah.  It was expressly
+provided in these two acts that when they came to be admitted into
+the Union they should be admitted with or without slavery, as they
+should choose, by their own constitutions.  Nothing was said in
+either of those acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery
+during the Territorial existence of those Territories, while Henry
+Clay constantly made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him
+as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control
+that question during the Territorial existence, and that these old
+Mexican laws excluded slavery.  How can that be used as a principle
+for declaring that during the Territorial existence as well as at the
+time of framing the constitution the people, if you please, might
+have slaves if they wanted them?  I am not discussing the question
+whether it is right or wrong; but how are the New Mexican and Utah
+laws patterns for the Nebraska Bill?  I maintain that the
+organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general
+principle at all.  It had no feature of establishing a general
+principle.  The acts to which I have referred were a part of a
+general system of Compromises.  They did not lay down what was
+proposed as a regular policy for the Territories, only an agreement
+in this particular case to do in that way, because other things were
+done that were to be a compensation for it.  They were allowed to
+come in in that shape, because in another way it was paid for,
+considering that as a part of that system of measures called the
+Compromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen acts.  It
+included the admission of California as a free State, which was kept
+out of the Union for half a year because it had formed a free
+constitution.  It included the settlement of the boundary of Texas,
+which had been undefined before, which was in itself a slavery
+question; for if you pushed the line farther west, you made Texas
+larger, and made more slave territory; while, if you drew the line
+toward the east, you narrowed the boundary and diminished the domain
+of slavery, and by so much increased free territory.  It included the
+abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia.  It
+included the passage of a new Fugitive Slave law.  All these things
+were put together, and, though passed in separate acts, were
+nevertheless, in legislation (as the speeches at the time will show),
+made to depend upon each other.  Each got votes with the
+understanding that the other measures were to pass, and by this
+system of compromise, in that series of measures, those two bills--
+the New Mexico and Utah bills--were passed: and I say for that reason
+they could not be taken as models, framed upon their own intrinsic
+principle, for all future Territories.  And I have the evidence of
+this in the fact that Judge Douglas, a year afterward, or more than a
+year afterward, perhaps, when he first introduced bills for the
+purpose of framing new Territories, did not attempt to follow these
+bills of New Mexico and Utah; and even when he introduced this
+Nebraska Bill, I think you will discover that he did not exactly
+follow them.  But I do not wish to dwell at great length upon this
+branch of the discussion.  My own opinion is, that a thorough
+investigation will show most plainly that the New Mexico and Utah
+bills were part of a system of compromise, and not designed as
+patterns for future Territorial legislation; and that this Nebraska
+Bill did not follow them as a pattern at all.
+
+The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any
+odious distinctions between free and slave States.  I am altogether
+unaware that the Republicans are in favor of making any odious
+distinctions between the free and slave States.  But there is still a
+difference, I think, between Judge Douglas and the Republicans in
+this.  I suppose that the real difference between Judge Douglas and
+his friends, and the Republicans on the contrary, is, that the Judge
+is not in favor of making any difference between slavery and liberty;
+that he is in favor of eradicating, of pressing out of view, the
+questions of preference in this country for free or slave
+institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the
+idea that there is any wrong in slavery.  Everything that emanates
+from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully
+excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery.  All
+their arguments, if you will consider them, will be seen to exclude
+the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in slavery.  If you
+will take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed
+sentences expressed by him,--as his declaration that he "don't care
+whether slavery is voted up or down,"--you will see at once that this
+is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong.  If
+you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he
+don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down.  Judge Douglas
+declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to
+have it.  He can say that logically, if he says that there is no
+wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he
+cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.  He
+insists that upon the score of equality the owners of slaves and
+owners of property--of horses and every other sort of property--
+should be alike, and hold them alike in a new Territory.  That is
+perfectly logical if the two species of property are alike and are
+equally founded in right.  But if you admit that one of them is
+wrong, you cannot institute any equality between right and wrong.
+And from this difference of sentiment,--the belief on the part of one
+that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that
+belief which looks to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong,
+and this other sentiment, that it is no wrong, and a policy sprung
+from that sentiment, which will tolerate no idea of preventing the
+wrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end to
+it through all the existence of things,--arises the real difference
+between Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand and the
+Republicans on the other.  Now, I confess myself as belonging to that
+class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and
+political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us
+and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way,
+and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown
+about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the
+prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as
+a wrong it may come to an end.
+
+Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, if not the
+seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or
+combination between the National Democrats and Republicans.  What
+evidence Judge Douglas has upon this subject I know not, inasmuch as
+he never favors us with any.  I have said upon a former occasion, and
+I do not choose to suppress it now, that I have no objection to the
+division in the Judge's party.  He got it up himself.  It was all his
+and their work.  He had, I think, a great deal more to do with the
+steps that led to the Lecompton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had;
+though at last, when they reached it, they quarreled over it, and
+their friends divided upon it.  I am very free to confess to Judge
+Douglas that I have no objection to the division; but I defy the
+Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way promoted that
+division, unless he insists on being a witness himself in merely
+saying so.  I can give all fair friends of Judge Douglas here to
+understand exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to that
+division.  Don't you remember how two years ago the opponents of the
+Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore?  I guess
+you do.  Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also
+that he was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to
+see all there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans.
+What we now think of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought
+of the Fremont and Fillmore divisions.  That is all there is of it.
+
+But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there
+is an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the
+National Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving
+him as an entirely competent witness upon that subject.  I want to
+call to the Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first
+one of these
+debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August.  In order to fix extreme
+Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which
+he declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in
+October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken
+part in that Convention.  It turned out that although a few men
+calling themselves an anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at
+Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take any part in it,
+nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as Judge
+Douglas read.  So apparent had it become that the resolutions which
+he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by a State
+Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days afterward, at
+Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by Charles
+H.  Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L.  Harris,
+member of Congress in that district, and he promised in that speech
+that when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter.
+Since then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has
+made the investigation; but a month has passed since he has been
+there, and, so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of
+his investigation.  I have waited as I think sufficient time for the
+report of that investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and
+hear it.  A fraud, an absolute forgery was committed, and the
+perpetration of it was traced to the three,--Lanphier, Harris, and
+Douglas.  Whether it can be narrowed in any way so as to exonerate
+any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's report would probably show.
+
+It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were
+published in the Illinois State Register on the 16th of October,
+1854, as being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention which
+had sat in that same month of October, at Springfield.  But it is
+also true that the publication in the Register was a forgery then,
+and the question is still behind, which of the three, if not all of
+them, committed that forgery.  The idea that it was done by mistake
+is absurd.  The article in the Illinois State Register contains part
+of the real proceedings of that Springfield Convention, showing that
+the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him, and
+purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the Convention
+and fraudulently substituted the others.  Lanphier then, as now, was
+the editor of the Register, so that there seems to be but little room
+for his escape.  But then it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had
+less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the other
+two.  The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat Yates
+and elect Harris to Congress, and that object was known to be
+exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time.  Harris and Douglas
+were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, and
+although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register,
+subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon
+that Convention.
+
+The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both
+Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to
+put it to new uses.  As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband
+was brought home with his body full of eels, said when she was asked
+what was to be done with him, "Take the eels out and set him again,"
+so Harris and Douglas have shown a disposition to take the eels out
+of that stale fraud by which they gained Harris's election, and set
+the fraud again more than once.  On the 9th of July, 1856, Douglas
+attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the Senate
+of the United States, as will appear from the appendix of the
+Congressional Globe of that date.
+
+On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton in the
+House of Representatives, as will appear by the same documents,--the
+appendix to the Congressional Globe of that date.  On the 21st of
+August last, all three--Lanphier, Douglas, and Harris--reattempted it
+upon me at Ottawa.  It has been clung to and played out again and
+again as an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio.  And now
+that it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud we find that Judge
+Douglas manifests no surprise at it at all.  He makes no complaint of
+Lanphier, who must have known it to be a fraud from the beginning.
+He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as cozy now and just as active in
+the concoction of new schemes as they were before the general
+discovery of this fraud.  Now, all this is very natural if they are
+all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any one
+of them is innocent.  Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honor
+among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself,
+and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a
+satisfactory report upon his investigation.  But meanwhile the three
+are agreed that each is "a most honorable man."
+
+Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a
+re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports
+against me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which
+we know to be utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to think
+that this one unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate,
+will be the least drawback to his claim to belief.  Harris ditto.  He
+asks a re-election to the lower House of Congress without seeming to
+remember at all that he is involved in this dishonorable fraud!  The
+Illinois State Register, edited by Lanphier, then, as now, the
+central organ of both Harris and Douglas, continues to din the public
+ear with this assertion, without seeming to suspect that these
+assertions are at all lacking in title to belief.
+
+After all, the question still recurs upon us, How did that fraud
+originally get into the State Register?  Lanphier then, as now, was
+the editor of that paper.  Lanphier knows.  Lanphier cannot be
+ignorant of how and by whom it was originally concocted.  Can he be
+induced to tell, or, if he has told, can Judge Douglas be induced to
+tell how it originally was concocted?  It may be true that Lanphier
+insists that the two men for whose benefit it was originally devised
+shall at least bear their share of it!  How that is, I do not know,
+and while it remains unexplained I hope to be pardoned if I insist
+that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making charges against Trumbull
+and myself is not quite sufficient evidence to establish them!
+
+While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I
+answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded
+to me, and then in turn propounded some to him, which he in a sort of
+way answered.  The third one of these interrogatories I have with me,
+and wish now to make some comments upon it.  It was in these words:
+ "If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that the
+States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of
+acquiescing in, adhering to, and following such decision as a rule of
+political action?"
+
+To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense
+of the word.  He contented himself with sneering at the thought that
+it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision.
+He sneered at me for propounding the interrogatory.  I had not
+propounded it without some reflection, and I wish now to address to
+this audience some remarks upon it.
+
+In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe it is, of the
+Constitution of the United States, we find the following language:
+
+"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be
+made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be
+made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
+law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound
+thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the
+contrary notwithstanding."
+
+The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence
+which I will now read:
+
+"Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion,
+upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is
+distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."
+
+I repeat it, "The right of property in a slave is distinctly and
+expressly affirmed in the Constitution"!  What is it to be "affirmed"
+in the Constitution?  Made firm in the Constitution, so made that it
+cannot be separated from the Constitution without breaking the
+Constitution; durable as the Constitution, and part of the
+Constitution.  Now, remembering the provision of the Constitution
+which I have read--affirming that that instrument is the supreme law
+of the land; that the judges of every State shall be bound by it, any
+law or constitution of any State to the contrary notwithstanding;
+that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that
+Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be separated from it
+without breaking it; durable as the instrument; part of the
+instrument;--what follows as a short and even syllogistic argument
+from it?  I think it follows, and I submit to the consideration of
+men capable of arguing whether, as I state it, in syllogistic form,
+the argument has any fault in it:
+
+Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right
+distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United
+States.
+
+The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed
+in the Constitution of the United States.
+
+Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can
+destroy the right of property in a slave.
+
+I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming
+the truth of the premises, the conclusion, so far as I have capacity
+at all to understand it, follows inevitably.  There is a fault in it
+as I think, but the fault is not in the reasoning; but the falsehood
+in fact is a fault of the premises.  I believe that the right of
+property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
+Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks it is.  I believe that the
+Supreme Court and the advocates of that decision may search in vain
+for the place in the Constitution where the right of property in a
+slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed I say, therefore, that I
+think one of the premises is not true in fact.  But it is true with
+Judge Douglas.  It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced it.
+They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying
+it, the conclusion follows that, the Constitution of the United
+States being the supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere
+with it.  It being affirmed in the decision that the right of
+property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
+Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or
+constitution can destroy that right.  I then say to Judge Douglas and
+to all others that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer
+to show that those who have said that the right of property in a
+slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, are
+not prepared to show that no constitution or law can destroy that
+right.  I say I believe it will take a far better argument than a
+mere sneer to show to the minds of intelligent men that whoever has
+so said is not prepared, whenever public sentiment is so far advanced
+as to justify it, to say the other.  This is but an opinion, and the
+opinion of one very humble man; but it is my opinion that the Dred
+Scott decision, as it is, never would have been made in its present
+form if the party that made it had not been sustained previously by
+the elections.  My own opinion is, that the new Dred Scott decision,
+deciding against the right of the people of the States to exclude
+slavery, will never be made if that party is not sustained by the
+elections.  I believe, further, that it is just as sure to be made as
+to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained.  I have said,
+upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course of
+arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge
+not his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new
+Dred Scott decision.  I have asked him again to point out to me the
+reasons for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is.
+I have turned his attention to the fact that General Jackson differed
+with him in regard to the political obligation of a Supreme Court
+decision.  I have asked his attention to the fact that Jefferson
+differed with him in regard to the political obligation of a Supreme
+Court decision.  Jefferson said that "Judges are as honest as other
+men, and not more so."  And he said, substantially, that whenever a
+free people should give up in absolute submission to any department
+of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their
+liberties were gone.  I have asked his attention to the fact that the
+Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, disregards a
+time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the power of
+Congress to establish a National Bank.  I have asked his attention to
+the fact that he himself was one of the most active instruments at
+one time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois
+because it had made a decision distasteful to him,--a struggle ending
+in the remarkable circumstance of his sitting down as one of the new
+Judges who were to overslaugh that decision; getting his title of
+Judge in that very way.
+
+So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from Judge
+Douglas upon these subjects.  Not one can I get from him, except that
+he swells himself up and says, "All of us who stand by the decision
+of the Supreme Court are the friends of the Constitution; all you
+fellows that dare question it in any way are the enemies of the
+Constitution."  Now, in this very devoted adherence to this decision,
+in opposition to all the great political leaders whom he has
+recognized as leaders, in opposition to his former self and history,
+there is something very marked.  And the manner in which he adheres
+to it,--not as being right upon the merits, as he conceives (because
+he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory
+upon every one simply because of the source from whence it comes, as
+that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be,--this is another
+marked feature of his adherence to that decision.  It marks it in
+this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it
+comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not
+investigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or
+wrong.  So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is
+right or wrong.  He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing
+prepares the public mind to take the next decision when it comes,
+without any inquiry.  In this I think I argue fairly (without
+questioning motives at all) that Judge Douglas is most ingeniously
+and powerfully preparing the public mind to take that decision when
+it comes; and not only so, but he is doing it in various other ways.
+In these general maxims about liberty, in his assertions that he
+"don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down,"; that
+"whoever wants slavery has a right to have it"; that "upon principles
+of equality it should be allowed to go everywhere"; that "there is no
+inconsistency between free and slave institutions"--in this he is
+also preparing (whether purposely or not) the way for making the
+institution of slavery national!  I repeat again, for I wish no
+misunderstanding, that I do not charge that he means it so; but I
+call upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best
+instrument you could, and then set it to work in the most ingenious
+way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, operating in the
+free States, where there is now an abhorrence of the institution of
+slavery, could you find an instrument so capable of doing it as Judge
+Douglas, or one employed in so apt a way to do it?
+
+I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay,
+when he was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society,
+that it had a tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves,
+said that:
+
+"Those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate
+emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the
+Colonization Society: they must go back to the era of our liberty and
+independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous
+return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must
+penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the
+love of liberty!"
+
+And I do think--I repeat, though I said it on a former occasion--that
+Judge Douglas and whoever, like him, teaches that the negro has no
+share, humble though it may be, in the Declaration of Independence,
+is going back to the era of our liberty and independence, and, so far
+as in him lies, muzzling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous
+return; that he is blowing out the moral lights around us, when he
+contends that whoever wants slaves has a right to hold them; that he
+is penetrating, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and
+eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty, when he is
+in every possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast
+influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual and
+national.
+
+There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your
+attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I
+shall not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may
+not take me clear through it.
+
+Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at
+Freeport, there was one in about this language:
+
+"Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the
+United States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?"
+
+I answered, as I thought, in this way: that I am not generally
+opposed to the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would
+support a proposition for the acquisition of additional territory
+according as my supporting it was or was not calculated to aggravate
+this slavery question amongst us.  I then proposed to Judge Douglas
+another interrogatory, which was correlative to that: "Are you in
+favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how it may
+affect us upon the slavery question?"  Judge Douglas answered,--that
+is, in his own way he answered it.  I believe that, although he took
+a good many words to answer it, it was a little more fully answered
+than any other.  The substance of his answer was that this country
+would continue to expand; that it would need additional territory;
+that it was as absurd to suppose that we could continue upon our
+present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as it would be
+to hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow to man's
+size without bursting the hoops.  I believe it was something like
+that.  Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of further
+territory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might
+affect the slavery question.  I do not say this as giving his exact
+language, but he said so substantially; and he would leave the
+question of slavery, where the territory was acquired, to be settled
+by the people of the acquired territory.  ["That's the doctrine."]
+May be it is; let us consider that for a while.  This will probably,
+in the run of things, become one of the concrete manifestations of
+this slavery question.  If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question
+succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until all opposition is
+crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor
+Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the
+adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promises additional
+slave-fields.  And this question is to be left to the people of those
+countries for settlement.  When we get Mexico, I don't know whether
+the Judge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it
+settling that question for themselves and all others; because we know
+the Judge has a great horror for mongrels, and I understand that the
+people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels.  I understand
+that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure
+white, and I suppose from the Judge's previous declaration that when
+we get Mexico, or any considerable portion of it, that he will be in
+favor of these mongrels settling the question, which would bring him
+somewhat into collision with his horror of an inferior race.
+
+It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring
+additional territory is a power confided to the President and the
+Senate of the United States.  It is a power not under the control of
+the representatives of the people any further than they, the
+President and the Senate, can be considered the representatives of
+the people.  Let me illustrate that by a case we have in our history.
+When we acquired the territory from Mexico in the Mexican War, the
+House of Representatives, composed of the immediate representatives
+of the people, all the time insisted that the territory thus to be
+acquired should be brought in upon condition that slavery should be
+forever prohibited therein, upon the terms and in the language that
+slavery had been prohibited from coming into this country.  That was
+insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an assurance
+that any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it,
+so far as the House of Representatives was concerned.  But at last
+the President and Senate acquired the territory without asking the
+House of Representatives anything about it, and took it without that
+prohibition.  They have the power of acquiring territory without the
+immediate representatives of the people being called upon to say
+anything about it, and thus furnishing a very apt and powerful means
+of bringing new territory into the Union, and, when it is once
+brought into the country, involving us anew in this slavery
+agitation.  It is therefore, as I think, a very important question
+for due consideration of the American people, whether the policy of
+bringing in additional territory, without considering at all how it
+will operate upon the safety of the Union in reference to this one
+great disturbing element in our national politics, shall be adopted
+as the policy of the country.  You will bear in mind that it is to be
+acquired, according to the Judge's view, as fast as it is needed, and
+the indefinite part of this proposition is that we have only Judge
+Douglas and his class of men to decide how fast it is needed.  We
+have no clear and certain way of determining or demonstrating how
+fast territory is needed by the necessities of the country.  Whoever
+wants to go out filibustering, then, thinks that more territory is
+needed.  Whoever wants wider slave-fields feels sure that some
+additional territory is needed as slave territory.  Then it is as
+easy to show the necessity of additional slave-territory as it is to
+assert anything that is incapable of absolute demonstration.
+Whatever motive a man or a set of men may have for making annexation
+of property or territory, it is very easy to assert, but much less
+easy to disprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country.
+
+And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very grave
+question for the people of this Union to consider, whether, in view
+of the fact that this slavery question has been the only one that has
+ever endangered our Republican institutions, the only one that has
+ever threatened or menaced a dissolution of the Union, that has ever
+disturbed us in such a way as to make us fear for the perpetuity of
+our liberty,--in view of these facts, I think it is an exceedingly
+interesting and important question for this people to consider
+whether we shall engage in the policy of acquiring additional
+territory, discarding altogether from our consideration, while
+obtaining new territory, the question how it may affect us in regard
+to this, the only endangering element to our liberties and national
+greatness.  The Judge's view has been expressed.  I, in my answer to
+his question, have expressed mine.  I think it will become an
+important and practical question.  Our views are before the public.
+I am willing and anxious that they should consider them fully; that
+they should turn it about and consider the importance of the
+question, and arrive at a just conclusion as to whether it is or is
+not wise in the people of this Union, in the acquisition of new
+territory, to consider whether it will add to the disturbance that is
+existing amongst us--whether it will add to the one only danger that
+has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union or our own liberties.
+I think it is extremely important that they shall decide, and rightly
+decide, that question before entering upon that policy.
+
+And now, my friends, having said the little I wish to say upon this
+head, whether I have occupied the whole of the remnant of my time or
+not, I believe I could not enter upon any new topic so as to treat it
+fully, without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment
+think of doing.  I give way to Judge Douglas.
+
+
+
+
+SIXTH JOINT DEBATE,
+
+AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, 1858.
+
+LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have had no immediate conference with Judge
+Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree
+that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will
+be most agreeable to us.
+
+In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois
+which have since been consolidated into the Republican party
+assembled together in a State Convention at Bloomington.  They
+adopted at that time what, in political language, is called a
+platform.  In June of the same year the elements of the Republican
+party in the nation assembled together in a National Convention at
+Philadelphia.  They adopted what is called the National Platform.  In
+June, 1858,--the present year,--the Republicans of Illinois
+reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again
+their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essential
+particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding
+something in relation to the new developments of political progress
+in the country.
+
+The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be
+one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the
+United States Senate.  I have supposed that, in entering upon this
+canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms.  We are now met
+together on the 13th of October of the same year, only four months
+from the adoption of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this
+canvass, from the beginning until to-day, any one of our adversaries
+has taken hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon anything
+that he calls wrong in them.
+
+In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator
+Douglas and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these
+platforms, or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to
+hold me responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the
+meeting of either one of these conventions of which I have spoken.
+And as a ground for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he
+assumed that they had been passed at a State Convention of the
+Republican party, and that I took part in that Convention.  It was
+discovered afterward that this was erroneous, that the resolutions
+which he endeavored to hold me responsible for had not been passed by
+any State Convention anywhere, had not been passed at Springfield,
+where he supposed they had, or assumed that they had, and that they
+had been passed in no convention in which I had taken part.  The
+Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the point that he was
+endeavoring to make upon me, and he therefore thought to still hold
+me to the point that he was endeavoring to make, by showing that the
+resolutions that he read had been passed at a local convention in the
+northern part of the State, although it was not a local convention
+that embraced my residence at all, nor one that reached, as I
+suppose, nearer than one hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of
+where I was when it met, nor one in which I took any part at all.  He
+also introduced other resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by
+combining the whole, although they were all antecedent to the two
+State Conventions and the one National Convention I have mentioned,
+still he insisted, and now insists, as I understand, that I am in
+some way responsible for them.
+
+At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I
+was in no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this
+local meeting or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in
+which I was in no way embraced; but I insisted to him that if he
+thought I was responsible for every man or every set of men
+everywhere, who happen to be my friends, the rule ought to work both
+ways, and he ought to be responsible for the acts and resolutions of
+all men or sets of men who were or are now his supporters and
+friends, and gave him a pretty long string of resolutions, passed by
+men who are now his friends, and announcing doctrines for which he
+does not desire to be held responsible.
+
+This still does not satisfy Judge Douglas.  He still adheres to his
+proposition, that I am responsible for what some of my friends in
+different parts of the State have done, but that he is not
+responsible for what his have done.  At least, so I understand him.
+But in addition to that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh,
+last week, undertakes to establish that I am guilty of a species of
+double dealing with the public; that I make speeches of a certain
+sort in the north, among the Abolitionists, which I would not make in
+the south, and that I make speeches of a certain sort in the south
+which I would not make in the north.  I apprehend, in the course I
+have marked out for myself, that I shall not have to dwell at very
+great length upon this subject.
+
+As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had
+an opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something
+in answer to it.  He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech
+of mine delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he
+brought forward an extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in
+which he insisted that I was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that
+his conclusion followed, that I was playing a double part, and
+speaking in one region one way, and in another region another way.  I
+have not time now to dwell on this as long as I would like, and wish
+only now to requote that portion of my speech at Charleston which the
+Judge quoted, and then make some comments upon it.  This he quotes
+from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I believe correctly:
+
+"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of
+bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the
+white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of
+making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold
+office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in
+addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the
+white and black races which will forever forbid the two races living
+together on terms of social and political equality.  And inasmuch as
+they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the
+position of superior and inferior.  I am as much as any other man in
+favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
+
+This, I believe, is the entire quotation from Charleston speech, as
+Judge Douglas made it his comments are as follows:
+
+"Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right
+when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares
+that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a
+superior and inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and
+expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of
+races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man
+and negro were declared equal, and endowed by divine law with
+equality.  And down South, with the old-line Whigs, with the
+Kentuckians, the Virginians and the Tennesseeans, he tells you that
+there is a physical difference between the races, making the one
+superior, the other inferior, and he is in favor of maintaining the
+superiority of the white race over the negro."
+
+Those are the Judges comments.  Now, I wish to show you that a month,
+or only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech at
+Charleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say
+substantially the same thing  It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa-
+-and I will say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was
+in, after a while--but at our first meeting, at Ottawa, I read an
+extract from an old speech of mine, made nearly four years ago, not
+merely to show my sentiments, but to show that my sentiments were
+long entertained and openly expressed; in which extract I expressly
+declared that my own feelings would not admit a social and political
+equality between the white and black races, and that even if my own
+feelings would admit of it, I still knew that the public sentiment of
+the country would not, and that such a thing was an utter
+impossibility, or substantially that.  That extract from my old
+speech the reporters by some sort of accident passed over, and it was
+not reported.  I lay no blame upon anybody.  I suppose they thought
+that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while I was
+giving it, but afterward went away without getting it from me.  At
+the end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at Ottawa,
+I made the comments which were reported at that time, and which I
+will now read, and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the
+same as Judge Douglas says were delivered by me down in Egypt.  After
+reading, I added these words:
+
+"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length; but this
+is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the
+institution of slavery or the black race, and this is the whole of
+it: anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and
+political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastical
+arrangement of words by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be
+a chestnut horse.  I will say here, while upon this subject, that I
+have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
+institution in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no right
+to do so.  I have no inclination to do so.  I have no purpose to
+introduce political and social equality between the white and black
+races.  There is a physical difference between the two which, in my
+judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the
+footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity
+that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in
+favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.  I
+have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that,
+notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the
+negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration
+of Independence,--the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
+happiness.  I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white
+man.  I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many
+respects, certainly not in color, perhaps not in intellectual and
+moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread, without the
+leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and
+the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."
+
+I have chiefly introduced this for the purpose of meeting the Judge's
+charge that the quotation he took from my Charleston speech was what
+I would say down South among the Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc.,
+but would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of
+the Abolition element.  I now make this comment: That speech from
+which I have now read the quotation, and which is there given
+correctly--perhaps too much so for good taste--was made away up North
+in the Abolition District of this State par excellence, in the
+Lovejoy District, in the personal presence of Lovejoy, for he was on
+the stand with us when I made it.  It had been made and put in print
+in that region only three days less than a month before the speech
+made at Charleston, the like of which Judge Douglas thinks I would
+not make where there was any Abolition element.  I only refer to this
+matter to say that I am altogether unconscious of having attempted
+any double-dealing anywhere; that upon one occasion I may say one
+thing, and leave other things unsaid, and vice versa, but that I have
+said anything on one occasion that is inconsistent with what I have
+said elsewhere, I deny, at least I deny it so far as the intention is
+concerned.  I find that I have devoted to this topic a larger portion
+of my time than I had intended.  I wished to show, but I will pass it
+upon this occasion, that in the sentiment I have occasionally
+advanced upon the Declaration of Independence I am entirely borne out
+by the sentiments advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I
+have the book here to show it from but because I have already
+occupied more time than I intended to do on that topic, I pass over
+it.
+
+At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision,
+pushed to its legitimate consequences, slavery would be established
+in all the States as well as in the Territories.  I did this because,
+upon a former occasion, I had asked Judge Douglas whether, if the
+Supreme Court should make a decision declaring that the States had
+not the power to exclude slavery from their limits, he would adopt
+and follow that decision as a rule of political action; and because
+he had not directly answered that question, but had merely contented
+himself with sneering at it, I again introduced it, and tried to show
+that the conclusion that I stated followed inevitably and logically
+from the proposition already decided by the court.  Judge Douglas had
+the privilege of replying to me at Galesburgh, and again he gave me
+no direct answer as to whether he would or would not sustain such a
+decision if made.  I give him his third chance to say yes or no.  He
+is not obliged to do either, probably he will not do either; but I
+give him the third chance.  I tried to show then that this result,
+this conclusion, inevitably followed from the point already decided
+by the court.  The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thought
+of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his
+remarks upon this subject uses the language which I will now read.
+Speaking of me, the Judge says:
+
+"He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry
+slavery into the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself
+says the contrary."  And he adds:
+
+"Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that
+holds that doctrine.  He knows that every one of them in their
+opinions held the reverse."
+
+I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying
+that I have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge
+Douglas to lay his finger upon the place in the entire opinions of
+the court where any one of them "says the contrary."  It is very hard
+to affirm a negative with entire confidence.  I say, however, that I
+have examined that decision with a good deal of care, as a lawyer
+examines a decision and, so far as I have been able to do so, the
+court has nowhere in its opinions said that the States have the power
+to exclude slavery, nor have they used other language substantially
+that, I also say, so far as I can find, not one of the concurring
+judges has said that the States can exclude slavery, nor said
+anything that was substantially that.  The nearest approach that any
+one of them has made to it, so far as I can find, was by Judge
+Nelson, and the approach he made to it was exactly, in substance, the
+Nebraska Bill,--that the States had the exclusive power over the
+question of slavery, so far as they are not limited by the
+Constitution of the United States.  I asked the question, therefore,
+if the non-concurring judges, McLean or Curtis, had asked to get an
+express declaration that the States could absolutely exclude slavery
+from their limits, what reason have we to believe that it would not
+have been voted down by the majority of the judges, just as Chase's
+amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it
+was offered to the Nebraska Bill.
+
+Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield
+resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at
+Ottawa, and commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as
+presented, not genuine.  Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to
+be somewhat exasperated.  He said he would never have believed that
+Abraham Lincoln, as he kindly called me, would have attempted such a
+thing as I had attempted upon that occasion; and among other
+expressions which he used toward me, was that I dared to say forgery,
+that I had dared to say forgery [turning to Judge Douglas].  Yes,
+Judge, I did dare to say forgery.  But in this political canvass the
+Judge ought to remember that I was not the first who dared to say
+forgery.  At Jacksonville, Judge Douglas made a speech in answer to
+something said by Judge Trumbull, and at the close of what he said
+upon that subject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged his
+evidence.  He said, too, that he should not concern himself with
+Trumbull any more, but thereafter he should hold Lincoln responsible
+for the slanders upon him.  When I met him at Charleston after that,
+although I think that I should not have noticed the subject if he had
+not said he would hold me responsible for it, I spread out before him
+the statements of the evidence that Judge Trumbull had used, and I
+asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger upon one piece
+of all that evidence that he would say was a forgery!  When I went
+through with each and every piece, Judge Douglas did not dare then to
+say that any piece of it was a forgery.  So it seems that there are
+some things that Judge Douglas dares to do, and some that he dares
+not to do.
+
+[A voice: It is the same thing with you.]
+
+Yes, sir, it is the same thing with me.  I do dare to say forgery
+when it is true, and don't dare to say forgery when it is false.  Now
+I will say here to this audience and to Judge Douglas I have not
+dared to say he committed a forgery, and I never shall until I know
+it; but I did dare to say--just to suggest to the Judge--that a
+forgery had been committed, which by his own showing had been traced
+to him and two of his friends.  I dared to suggest to him that he had
+expressly promised in one of his public speeches to investigate that
+matter, and I dared to suggest to him that there was an implied
+promise that when he investigated it he would make known the result.
+I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could not expect to be quite
+clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the time that promise was
+made he had been with those friends, and had not kept his promise in
+regard to the investigation and the report upon it.  I am not a very
+daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much scared
+about it yet.  When the Judge says he would n't have believed of
+Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that he
+reminds me of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the
+purpose to treat me courteously; that touched me somewhat.  It sets
+me to thinking.  I was aware, when it was first agreed that Judge
+Douglas and I were to have these seven joint discussions, that they
+were the successive acts of a drama, perhaps I should say, to be
+enacted, not merely in the face of audiences like this, but in the
+face of the nation, and to some extent, by my relation to him, and
+not from anything in myself, in the face of the world; and I am
+anxious that they should be conducted with dignity and in the good
+temper which would be befitting the vast audiences before which it
+was conducted.  But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and
+made his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some
+sort of a reply to it.  His second speech was made at Bloomington, in
+which he commented upon my speech at Chicago and said that I had used
+language ingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions, or words to
+that effect.  Now, I understand that this is an imputation upon my
+veracity and my candor.  I do not know what the Judge understood by
+it, but in our first discussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a
+bargain, somewhat corrupt in its character, upon Trumbull and
+myself,--that we had entered into a bargain, one of the terms of
+which was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize the old Democratic party,
+and I (Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig party; I pretending
+to be as good an old-line Whig as ever.  Judge Douglas may not
+understand that he implicated my truthfulness and my honor when he
+said I was doing one thing and pretending another; and I
+misunderstood him if he thought he was treating me in a dignified
+way, as a man of honor and truth, as he now claims he was disposed to
+treat me.  Even after that time, at Galesburgh, when he brings
+forward an extract from a speech made at Chicago and an extract from
+a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I was trying to play a
+double part, that I was trying to cheat the public, and get votes
+upon one set of principles at one place, and upon another set of
+principles at another place,--I do not understand but what he
+impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does
+this, I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground
+for it, to keep my hands off of him.  As soon as I learned that Judge
+Douglas was disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of
+my speeches that I should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble
+resources I might have,--to adopt a new course with him.  I was not
+entirely sure that I should be able to hold my own with him, but I at
+least had the purpose made to do as well as I could upon him; and now
+I say that I will not be the first to cry "Hold."  I think it
+originated with the Judge, and when he quits, I probably will.  But I
+shall not ask any favors at all.  He asks me, or he asks the
+audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of personal
+difficulty.  I tell him, no.  He did not make a mistake, in one of
+his early speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though
+perhaps he did when he called me an "intelligent" man.  It really
+hurts me very much to suppose that I have wronged anybody on earth.
+I again tell him, no!  I very much prefer, when this canvass shall be
+over, however it may result, that we at least part without any bitter
+recollections of personal difficulties.
+
+The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was
+pushing this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the
+responsibility for the enormity of my principles.  I say to the Judge
+and this audience, now, that I will again state our principles, as
+well as I hastily can, in all their enormity, and if the Judge
+hereafter chooses to confine himself to a war upon these principles,
+he will probably not find me departing from the same course.
+
+We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery.  It is a
+matter of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element.  It is
+the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon
+it, that it is a dangerous element.  We keep up a controversy in
+regard to it.  That controversy necessarily springs from difference
+of opinion; and if we can learn exactly--can reduce to the lowest
+elements--what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be
+better prepared for discussing the different systems of policy that
+we would propose in regard to that disturbing element.  I suggest
+that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest of terms, is no
+other than the difference between the men who think slavery a wrong
+and those who do not think it wrong.  The Republican party think it
+wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong.  We
+think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the
+States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to
+say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole
+nation.  Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy
+that shall deal with it as a wrong.  We deal with it as with any
+other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and
+so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of
+an end to it.  We have a due regard to the actual presence of it
+amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any
+satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about
+it.  I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the
+nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at
+all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that
+we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to
+do it.  We go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it
+where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us.
+We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the
+District of Columbia.  Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it
+should be in terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely
+soon to agree to,--the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and
+compensating the unwilling owners.  Where we suppose we have the
+constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the
+actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about
+it.  We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread
+itself.  We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its
+present limits.  We don't suppose that in doing this we violate
+anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything
+due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it.
+
+We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I
+ought perhaps to address you a few words.  We do not propose that
+when Dred Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a
+mob, will decide him to be free.  We do not propose that, when any
+other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be
+slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property
+thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a
+political rule which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody
+who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members of
+Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually
+concur with the principles of that decision.  We do not propose to be
+bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays
+the foundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we
+consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil
+into the States themselves.  We propose so resisting it as to have it
+reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established upon this
+subject.
+
+I will add this: that if there be any man who does not believe that
+slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in
+any one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while
+on the other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is
+impatient over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and
+is impatient of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and
+would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with
+us.  He will find his place somewhere else; for we have a due regard,
+so far as we are capable of understanding them, for all these things.
+This, gentlemen, as well as I can give it, is a plain statement of
+our principles in all their enormity.
+I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to
+me,--a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore
+it goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a
+wrong.  That policy is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is
+the Democratic sentiment.  If there be a doubt in the mind of any one
+of this vast audience that this is really the central idea of the
+Democratic party in relation to this subject, I ask him to bear with
+me while I state a few things tending, as I think, to prove that
+proposition.  In the first place, the leading man--I think I may do
+my friend Judge Douglas the honor of calling him such advocating the
+present Democratic policy never himself says it is wrong.  He has the
+high distinction, so far as I know, of never having said slavery is
+either right or wrong.  Almost everybody else says one or the other,
+but the Judge never does.  If there be a man in the Democratic party
+who thinks it is wrong, and yet clings to that party, I suggest to
+him, in the first place, that his leader don't talk as he does, for
+he never says that it is wrong.  In the second place, I suggest to
+him that if he will examine the policy proposed to be carried
+forward, he will find that he carefully excludes the idea that there
+is anything wrong in it.  If you will examine the arguments that are
+made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea
+that there is anything wrong in slavery.  Perhaps that Democrat who
+says he is as much opposed to slavery as I am will tell me that I am
+wrong about this.  I wish him to examine his own course in regard to
+this matter a moment, and then see if his opinion will not be changed
+a little.  You say it is wrong; but don't you constantly object to
+anybody else saying so?  Do you not constantly argue that this is not
+the right place to oppose it?  You say it must not be opposed in the
+free States, because slavery is not here; it must not be opposed in
+the slave States, because it is there; it must not be opposed in
+politics, because that will make a fuss; it must not be opposed in
+the pulpit, because it is not religion.  Then where is the place to
+oppose it?  There is no suitable place to oppose it.  There is no
+place in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent,
+which you say yourself is coming.  Frank Blair and Gratz Brown tried
+to get up a system of gradual emancipation in Missouri, had an
+election in August, and got beat, and you, Mr. Democrat, threw up
+your hat, and hallooed "Hurrah for Democracy!"  So I say, again, that
+in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas Says he
+"don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he
+means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a
+sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true
+to say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything
+wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery
+is wrong.  He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up
+as voted down.  When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever
+community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is
+perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but
+if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody
+has a right to do wrong.  When he says that slave property and horse
+and hog property are alike to be allowed to go into the Territories,
+upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if there is
+no difference between them as property; but if the one is property
+held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no equality
+between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in anyway you can, in
+all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that
+policy itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that
+there is anything wrong in slavery.  Let us understand this.  I am
+not, just here, trying to prove that we are right, and they are
+wrong.  I have been stating where we and they stand, and trying to
+show what is the real difference between us; and I now say that
+whenever we can get the question distinctly stated, can get all these
+men who believe that slavery is in some of these respects wrong to
+stand and act with us in treating it as a wrong,--then, and not till
+then, I think we will in some way come to an end of this slavery
+agitation.
+
+
+
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER.
+
+MY FRIENDS:--Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion
+that he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said
+in an hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in
+half an hour all that he said in an hour and a half.
+
+I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public
+annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of
+policy in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it
+shall last forever.  We are getting a little nearer the true issue of
+this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence.
+Judge Douglas asks you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or
+rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as
+our fathers made it, forever?  In the first place, I insist that our
+fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part
+slave and part free.  I insist that they found the institution of
+slavery existing here.  They did not make it so but they left it so
+because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time.  When
+Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the
+fathers of the government made this nation part slave and part free,
+he assumes what is historically a falsehood.  More than that: when
+the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the
+abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it
+from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that
+they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men
+understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when
+Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it,
+I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our
+fathers made it?
+
+It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of
+slavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers
+placed it upon.  Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly
+said, that when this government was established, no one expected the
+institution of slavery to last until this day, and that the men who
+formed this government were wiser and better than the men of these
+days; but the men of these days had experience which the fathers had
+not, and that experience had taught them the invention of the
+cotton-gin, and this had made the perpetuation of the institution of
+slavery a necessity in this country.  Judge Douglas could not let it
+stand upon the basis which our fathers placed it, but removed it, and
+put it upon the cotton-gin basis.  It is a question, therefore, for
+him and his friends to answer, why they could not let it remain where
+the fathers of the government originally placed it.  I hope nobody
+has understood me as trying to sustain the doctrine that we have a
+right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or any of the slave
+States, about the institution of slavery,--thus giving the Judge an
+opportunity to be eloquent and valiant against us in fighting for
+their rights.  I expressly declared in my opening speech that I had
+neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence
+of, the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in
+doing as they pleased with slavery Or any other existing institution.
+Then what becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the rights of
+States, which are assailed by no living man?
+
+But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour.  The Judge has
+informed me, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is
+laboring for my election to the United States Senate.  This is news
+to me,--not very ungrateful news either.  [Turning to Mr. W.  H.
+Carlin, who was on the stand]--I hope that Carlin will be elected to
+the State Senate, and will vote for me.  [Mr. Carlin shook his head.]
+Carlin don't fall in, I perceive, and I suppose he will not do much
+for me; but I am glad of all the support I can get, anywhere, if I
+can get it without practicing any deception to obtain it.  In respect
+to this large portion of Judge Douglas's speech in which he tries to
+show that in the controversy between himself and the Administration
+party he is in the right, I do not feel myself at all competent or
+inclined to answer him.  I say to him, "Give it to them,--give it to
+them just all you can!" and, on the other hand, I say to Carlin, and
+Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in Hancock, "Give it to
+Douglas, just pour it into him!"
+
+Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to
+say a word or two.  After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a
+decision is made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude
+slavery, he will support it or not.  He obstinately refuses to say
+what he will do in that case.  The judges of the Supreme Court as
+obstinately refused to say what they would do on this subject.
+Before this I reminded him that at Galesburgh he said the judges had
+expressly declared the contrary, and you remember that in my Opening
+speech I told him I had the book containing that decision here, and I
+would thank him to lay his finger on the place where any such thing
+was said.  He has occupied his hour and a half, and he has not
+ventured to try to sustain his assertion.  He never will.  But he is
+desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred Scott
+decision.  Judge Douglas ought to know how.  Did not he and his
+political friends find a way to reverse the decision of that same
+court in favor of the constitutionality of the National Bank?  Didn't
+they find a way to do it so effectually that they have reversed it as
+completely as any decision ever was reversed, so far as its practical
+operation is concerned?
+
+And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the
+decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father--
+old Governor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a
+Secretary of State?  Did he not appeal to the "MOBS," as he calls
+them?  Did he not make speeches in the lobby to show how villainous
+that decision was, and how it ought to be overthrown?  Did he not
+succeed, too, in getting an act passed by the Legislature to have it
+overthrown?  And did n't he himself sit down on that bench as one of
+the five added judges, who were to overslaugh the four old ones,
+getting his name of "judge" in that way, and no other?  If there is a
+villainy in using disrespect or making opposition to Supreme Court
+decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration.  I
+know of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know so well
+about how much villainy it takes to oppose a decision of the Supreme
+Court as our honorable friend Stephen A.  Douglas.
+
+Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are
+bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not.  In
+the sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you
+what I have said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day.  I have
+said that as the Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and
+that the extension of slavery is affirmed in the National
+Constitution, they are bound to support it as such; and I will tell
+you here that General Jackson once said each man was bound to support
+the Constitution "as he understood it."  Now, Judge Douglas
+understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision,
+and he is bound to support it as he understands it.  I understand it
+another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in
+which I understand it.  And as Judge Douglas believes that decision
+to be correct, I will remake that argument if I have time to do so.
+Let me talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in
+the face.  We will say you are a member of the Territorial
+Legislature, and, like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to
+take and hold slaves there is a constitutional right The first thing
+you do is to swear you will support the Constitution, and all rights
+guaranteed therein; that you will, whenever your neighbor needs your
+legislation to support his constitutional rights, not withhold that
+legislation.  If you withhold that necessary legislation for the
+support of the Constitution and constitutional rights, do you not
+commit perjury?  I ask every sensible man if that is not so?  That is
+undoubtedly just so, say what you please.  Now, that is precisely
+what Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutional right.  Does
+the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in legislating
+may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly laws,
+nullify that constitutional right?  Does he mean to say that?  Does
+he mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in
+law, that what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly?
+Does he mean that?  The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas
+has sung paeans to his "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his
+Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter
+Sovereignty out.  But he will keep up this species of humbuggery
+about Squatter Sovereignty.  He has at last invented this sort of
+do-nothing sovereignty,--that the people may exclude slavery by a
+sort of "sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all.  Is
+not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully?  Has it not
+got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the
+shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death?  But at last, when it
+is brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even that
+thin decoction of it left.  It is a presumption impossible in the
+domain of thought.  It is precisely no other than the putting of that
+most unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same
+space at the same time.  The Dred Scott decision covers the whole
+ground, and while it occupies it, there is no room even for the
+shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground.
+
+Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a
+previous occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an
+extract from at Charleston, says it only shows that I practiced the
+deception twice.  Now, my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to
+swallow that?  Judge Douglas had said I had made a speech at
+Charleston that I would not make up north, and I turned around and
+answered him by showing I had made that same speech up north,--had
+made it at Ottawa; made it in his hearing; made it in the Abolition
+District,--in Lovejoy's District,--in the personal presence of
+Lovejoy himself,--in the same atmosphere exactly in which I had made
+my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much.
+
+Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation
+from the Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me
+to handle.  Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the
+Chicago speech I delivered two years ago in "Egypt," as he calls it.
+It was down at Springfield.  That speech is here in this book, and I
+could turn to it and read it to you but for the lack of time.  I have
+not now the time to read it.  ["Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I
+am obliged to use discretion in disposing most advantageously of my
+brief time.  The Judge has taken great exception to my adopting the
+heretical statement in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men
+are created equal," and he has a great deal to say about negro
+equality.  I want to say that in sometimes alluding to the
+Declaration of Independence, I have only uttered the sentiments that
+Henry Clay used to hold.  Allow me to occupy your time a moment with
+what he said.  Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indiana, and
+in a way that I suppose was very insulting, to liberate his slaves;
+and he made a written reply to that application, and one portion of
+it is in these words:
+
+"What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate
+the slaves under my care in Kentucky?  It is a general declaration in
+the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen
+American colonies, that men are created equal.  Now, as an abstract
+principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it
+is desirable in the original construction of society, and in
+organized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundamental
+principle."
+
+When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in
+new countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we
+should keep that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I
+want a negro wife.  He never can be brought to understand that there
+is any middle ground on this subject.  I have lived until my fiftieth
+year, and have never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife,
+and I think I can live fifty centuries, for that matter, without
+having had one for either.  I maintain that you may take Judge
+Douglas's quotations from my Chicago speech, and from my Charleston
+speech, and the Galesburgh speech,--in his speech of to-day,--and
+compare them over, and I am willing to trust them with you upon his
+proposition that they show rascality or double-dealing.  I deny that
+they do.
+
+The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he
+is disposed to have a personal warfare with me.  He says that my oath
+would not be taken against the bare word of Charles H.  Lanphier or
+Thomas L.  Harris.  Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion.  It
+is certainly not for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these
+gentlemen, but I will tell Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I
+"dared" to say they proved a forgery.  I pointed out at Galesburgh
+that the publication of these resolutions in the Illinois State
+Register could not have been the result of accident, as the
+proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable evidence of being done
+by a man who knew it was a forgery; that it was a publication partly
+taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and partly from
+the proceedings of a convention at another place, which showed that
+he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part of the
+resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and
+fraudulent ones in their stead.  I pointed that out to him, and also
+that his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time
+and now is, must have known how it was done.  Now, whether he did it,
+or got some friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he
+certainly knew all about it.  I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in
+his Freeport speech he had  promised to investigate that matter.
+Does he now say that he did not make that promise?   I have a right
+to ask why he did not keep it.  I call upon him to tell here to-day
+why he did not keep that promise?  That fraud has been traced up so
+that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier.  There is little room
+for escape for Lanphier.  Lanphier is doing the Judge good service,
+and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth.  He desires
+Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his newspaper.
+He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; and when
+this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where the
+guilt really belongs.  Now, as he has said that he would investigate
+it, and implied that he would tell us the result of his
+investigation, I demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it,
+if he did not; and if he did, why he won't tell the result.  I call
+upon him for that.
+
+This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned
+about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against
+Norton on the floor of Congress.  I tell Judge Douglas the public
+records of the country show that he himself attempted it upon
+Trumbull a month before Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had
+the opportunity of learning it from him, rather than he from Harris.
+I now ask his attention to that part of the record on the case.  My
+friends, I am not disposed to detain you longer in regard to that
+matter.
+
+I am told that I still have five minutes left.  There is another
+matter I wish to call attention to.  He says, when he discovered
+there was a mistake in that case, he came forward magnanimously,
+without my calling his attention to it, and explained it.  I will
+tell you how he became so magnanimous.  When the newspapers of our
+side had discovered and published it, and put it beyond his power to
+deny it, then he came forward and made a virtue of necessity by
+acknowledging it.  Now he argues that all the point there was in
+those resolutions, although never passed at Springfield, is retained
+by their being passed at other localities.  Is that true?  He said I
+had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech, that I was in the
+convention and helped to pass them.  Do the resolutions touch me at
+all?  It strikes me there is some difference between holding a man
+responsible for an act which he has not done and holding him
+responsible for an act that he has
+done.  You will judge whether there is any difference in the "spots."
+And he has taken credit for great magnanimity in coming forward and
+acknowledging what is proved on him beyond even the capacity of Judge
+Douglas to deny; and he has more capacity in that way than any other
+living man.
+
+Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a
+conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he
+made.  May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is
+proven false on me as that was proven false on him.  I will add a
+little more than that, I will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man
+shall be brought to believe that the charge is not true.  I have
+asked Judge Douglas's attention to certain matters of fact tending to
+prove the charge of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery, and he says
+he convinces me that this is all untrue because Buchanan was not in
+the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott case had not
+then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say the
+Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case.  I never did say
+that I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never
+uttered it.  [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated
+affirmatively at Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say
+I did, I tell you myself that I never said the "Democratic" owners of
+Dred Scott got up the case.  I have never pretended to know whether
+Dred Scott's owners were Democrats, or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers
+or Border Ruffians.  I have said that there is evidence about the
+case tending to show that it was a made-up case, for the purpose of
+getting that decision.  I have said that that evidence was very
+strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be a slave,
+the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the case
+tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that
+decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his
+by that decision.  But my time is out, and I can say no more.
+
+
+
+LAST JOINT DEBATE,
+
+AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858
+
+Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY
+
+LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have been somewhat, in my own mind,
+complimented by a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech,--I mean
+that portion which he devotes to the controversy between himself and
+the present Administration.  This is the seventh time Judge Douglas
+and myself have met in these joint discussions, and he has been
+gradually improving in regard to his war with the Administration.  At
+Quincy, day before yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the
+Administration than I had heard him upon any occasion, and I took
+pains to compliment him for it.  I then told him to give it to them
+with all the power he had; and as some of them were present, I told
+them I would be very much obliged if they would give it to him in
+about the same way.  I take it he has now vastly improved upon the
+attack he made then upon the Administration.  I flatter myself he has
+really taken my advice on this subject.  All I can say now is to
+re-commend to him and to them what I then commended,--to prosecute
+the war against one another in the most vigorous manner.  I say to
+them again: "Go it, husband!--Go it, bear!"
+
+There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this branch of
+the discussion,--although I do not consider it much of my business,
+anyway.  I refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where he
+undertakes to involve Mr. Buchanan in an inconsistency.  He reads
+something from Mr. Buchanan, from which he undertakes to involve him
+in an inconsistency; and he gets something of a cheer for having done
+so.  I would only remind the Judge that while he is very valiantly
+fighting for the Nebraska Bill and the repeal of the Missouri
+Compromise, it has been but a little while since he was the valiant
+advocate of the Missouri Compromise.  I want to know if Buchanan has
+not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has?  Has Douglas the
+exclusive right, in this country, of being on all sides of all
+questions?  Is nobody allowed that high privilege but himself?  Is he
+to have an entire monopoly on that subject?
+
+So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it
+was about me, it is my business to pay some attention to it.  I have
+heard the Judge state two or three times what he has stated to-day,
+that in a speech which I made at Springfield, Illinois, I had in a
+very especial manner complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred
+Scott case had decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the
+United States.  I have omitted by some accident heretofore to analyze
+this statement, and it is required of me to notice it now.  In point
+of fact it is untrue.  I never have complained especially of the Dred
+Scott decision because it held that a negro could not be a citizen,
+and the Judge is always wrong when he says I ever did so complain of
+it.  I have the speech here, and I will thank him or any of his
+friends to show where I said that a negro should be a citizen, and
+complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it declared
+he could not be one.  I have done no such thing; and Judge Douglas,
+so persistently insisting that I have done so, has strongly impressed
+me with the belief of a predetermination on his part to misrepresent
+me.  He could not get his foundation for insisting that I was in
+favor of this negro equality anywhere else as well as he could by
+assuming that untrue proposition.  Let me tell this audience what is
+true in regard to that matter; and the means by which they may
+correct me if I do not tell them truly is by a recurrence to the
+speech itself.  I spoke of the Dred Scott decision in my Springfield
+speech, and I was then endeavoring to prove that the Dred Scott
+decision was a portion of a system or scheme to make slavery national
+in this country.  I pointed out what things had been decided by the
+court.  I mentioned as a fact that they had decided that a negro
+could not be a citizen; that they had done so, as I supposed, to
+deprive the negro, under all circumstances, of the remotest
+possibility of ever becoming a citizen and claiming the rights of a
+citizen of the United States under a certain clause of the
+Constitution.  I stated that, without making any complaint of it at
+all.  I then went on and stated the other points decided in the case;
+namely, that the bringing of a negro into the State of Illinois and
+holding him in slavery for two years here was a matter in regard to
+which they would not decide whether it would make him free or not;
+that they decided the further point that taking him into a United
+States Territory where slavery was prohibited by Act of Congress did
+not make him free, because that Act of Congress, as they held, was
+unconstitutional.  I mentioned these three things as making up the
+points decided in that case.  I mentioned them in a lump, taken in
+connection with the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, and the
+amendment of Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of the right of
+the people of the Territories to exclude slavery, which was voted
+down by the friends of the bill.  I mentioned all these things
+together, as evidence tending to prove a combination and conspiracy
+to make the institution of slavery national.  In that connection and
+in that way I mentioned the decision on the point that a negro could
+not be a citizen, and in no other connection.
+
+Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of my
+purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between
+the white and black races.  His assertion that I made an "especial
+objection" (that is his exact language) to the decision on this
+account is untrue in point of fact.
+
+Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry Clay has been alluded
+to, I desire to place myself, in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly
+right before this people as may be.  I am quite aware what the
+Judge's object is here by all these allusions.  He knows that we are
+before an audience having strong sympathies southward, by
+relationship, place of birth, and so on.  He desires to place me in
+an extremely Abolition attitude.  He read upon a former occasion, and
+alludes, without reading, to-day to a portion of a speech which I
+delivered in Chicago.  In his quotations from that speech, as he has
+made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken in such a
+way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of what is
+called garbling,--taking portions of a speech which, when taken by
+themselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as
+expressed at the time.  I propose, therefore, out of that same
+speech, to show how one portion of it which he skipped over (taking
+an extract before and an extract after) will give a different idea,
+and the true idea I intended to convey.  It will take me some little
+time to read it, but I believe I will occupy the time that way.
+
+You have heard him frequently allude to my controversy with him in
+regard to the Declaration of Independence.  I confess that I have had
+a struggle with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try briefly
+to place myself right in regard to it on this occasion.  I said--and
+it is between the extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech,
+and put in his published speeches:
+
+"It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make
+necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a
+necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it.  I think that
+was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established
+this government.  We had slaves among us, we could not get our
+Constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery, we could
+not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more; and having
+by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the
+principle that is the charter of our liberties.  Let the charter
+remain as our standard."
+
+Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas
+against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of
+slavery.  You hear me read it from the same speech from which he
+takes garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a
+disposition to interfere with the institution of slavery, and
+establish a perfect social and political equality between negroes and
+white people.
+
+Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other extract
+from a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at Springfield, in
+discussing this very same question, soon after Judge Douglas took his
+ground that negroes were, not included in the Declaration of
+Independence:
+
+"I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include
+all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all
+respects.  They did not mean to say all men were equal in color,
+size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity.  They defined
+with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created
+equal,--equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life,
+liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This they said, and this they
+meant.  They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were
+then actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to
+confer it immediately upon them.  In fact they had no power to confer
+such a boon.  They meant simply to declare the right, so that the
+enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should
+permit.
+
+"They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should
+be familiar to all,--constantly looked to, constantly labored for,
+and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated,
+and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and
+augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all
+colors, everywhere."
+
+There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard to the
+Declaration of Independence upon a former occasion,--sentiments which
+have been put in print and read wherever anybody cared to know what
+so humble an individual as myself chose to say in regard to it.
+
+At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas,
+that three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or
+believed, in the whole world, who had said that the Declaration of
+Independence did not include negroes in the term "all men."  I
+reassert it to-day.  I assert that Judge Douglas and all his friends
+may search the whole records of the country, and it will be a matter
+of great astonishment to me if they shall be able to find that one
+human being three years ago had ever uttered the astounding sentiment
+that the term "all men" in the Declaration did not include the negro.
+Do not let me be misunderstood.  I know that more than three years
+ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly in the way
+of their schemes to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation of
+slavery, denied the truth of it.  I know that Mr. Calhoun and all the
+politicians of his school denied the truth of the Declaration.  I
+know that it ran along in the mouth of some Southern men for a period
+of years, ending at last in that shameful, though rather forcible,
+declaration of Pettit of Indiana, upon the floor of the United States
+Senate, that the Declaration of Independence was in that respect "a
+self-evident lie," rather than a self-evident truth.  But I say, with
+a perfect knowledge of all this hawking at the Declaration without
+directly attacking it, that three years ago there never had lived a
+man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking way of pretending
+to believe it, and then asserting it did not include the negro.  I
+believe the first man who ever said it was Chief Justice Taney in the
+Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friend Stephen A.
+Douglas.  And now it has become the catchword of the entire party.  I
+would like to call upon his friends everywhere to consider how they
+have come in so short a time to view this matter in a way so entirely
+different from their former belief; to ask whether they are not being
+borne along by an irresistible current,--whither, they know not.
+
+In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last week, I see that some
+man in Chicago has got up a letter, addressed to the Chicago Times,
+to show, as he professes, that somebody had said so before; and he
+signs himself "An Old-Line Whig," if I remember correctly.  In the
+first place, I would say he was not an old-line Whig.  I am somewhat
+acquainted with old-line Whigs from the origin to the end of that
+party; I became pretty well acquainted with them, and I know they
+always had some sense, whatever else you could ascribe to them.  I
+know there never was one who had not more sense than to try to show
+by the evidence he produces that some men had, prior to the time I
+named, said that negroes were not included in the term "all men" in
+the Declaration of Independence.  What is the evidence he produces?
+I will bring forward his evidence, and let you see what he offers by
+way of showing that somebody more than three years ago had said
+negroes were not included in the Declaration.  He brings forward part
+of a speech from Henry Clay,--the part of the speech of Henry Clay
+which I used to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary.  I
+guess we are surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of
+Mr. Clay, and they will be glad to hear anything from that authority.
+While he was in Indiana a man presented a petition to liberate his
+negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made a speech in answer to it, which I
+suppose he carefully wrote out himself and caused to be published.  I
+have before me an extract from that speech which constitutes the
+evidence this pretended "Old-Line Whig" at Chicago brought forward to
+show that Mr. Clay did n't suppose the negro was included in the
+Declaration of Independence.  Hear what Mr. Clay said:
+
+"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to
+liberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky?  It is a general
+declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of
+the thirteen American colonies, that all men are created equal.  Now,
+as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that
+declaration; and it is desirable, in the original construction of
+society and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a great
+fundamental principle.  But, then, I apprehend that in no society
+that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, was or can the equality
+asserted among the members of the human race be practically enforced
+and carried out.  There are portions, large portions, women, minors,
+insane, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always probably
+remain subject to the government of another portion of the community.
+
+"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made
+by the delegations of the thirteen States.  In most of them slavery
+existed, and had long existed, and was established by law.  It was
+introduced and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of
+England.  Do you believe that in making that declaration the States
+that concurred in it intended that it should be tortured into a
+virtual emancipation of all the slaves within their respective
+limits?  Would Virginia and other Southern States have ever united in
+a declaration which was to be interpreted into an abolition of
+slavery among them?  Did any one of the thirteen colonies entertain
+such a design or expectation?  To impute such a secret and unavowed
+purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest band
+of patriots that ever assembled in council,--a fraud upon the
+Confederacy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of those States
+whose Constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but
+permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808."
+
+
+This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that somebody
+previous to three years ago had said the negro was not included in
+the term "all men" in the Declaration.  How does it do so?  In what
+way has it a tendency to prove that?  Mr. Clay says it is true as an
+abstract principle that all men are created equal, but that we cannot
+practically apply it in all eases.  He illustrates this by bringing
+forward the cases of females, minors, and insane persons, with whom
+it cannot be enforced; but he says it is true as an abstract
+principle in the organization of society as well as in organized
+society and it should be kept in view as a fundamental principle.
+Let me read a few words more before I add some comments of my own.
+Mr. Clay says, a little further on:
+
+"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution
+of slavery.  I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that
+we have derived it from the parental government and from our
+ancestors.  I wish every slave in the United States was in the
+country of his ancestors.  But here they are, and the question is,
+How can they be best dealt with?  If a state of nature existed, and
+we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more
+strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of
+slavery amongst its elements."
+
+
+Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, in this same
+extract, brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held that the negro
+was not included in the Declaration of Independence, is no such
+statement on his part, but the declaration that it is a great
+fundamental truth which should be constantly kept in view in the
+organization of society and in societies already organized.  But if I
+say a word about it; if I attempt, as Mr. Clay said all good men
+ought to do, to keep it in view; if, in this "organized society," I
+ask to have the public eye turned upon it; if I ask, in relation to
+the organization of new Territories, that the public eye should be
+turned upon it, forthwith I am vilified as you hear me to-day.  what
+have I done that I have not the license of Henry Clay's illustrious
+example here in doing?  Have I done aught that I have not his
+authority for, while maintaining that in organizing new Territories
+and societies this fundamental principle should be regarded, and in
+organized society holding it up to the public view and recognizing
+what he recognized as the great principle of free government?
+
+And when this new principle--this new proposition that no human being
+ever thought of three years ago--is brought forward, I combat it as
+having an evil tendency, if not an evil design.  I combat it as
+having a tendency to dehumanize the negro, to take away from him the
+right of ever striving to be a man.  I combat it as being one of the
+thousand things constantly done in these days to prepare the public
+mind to make property, and nothing but property, of the negro in all
+the States of this  Union.
+
+But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of the
+discussion, to ask attention to.  I have read and I repeat the words
+of Henry Clay:
+
+"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution
+of slavery.  I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that
+we have derived it from the parental government and from our
+ancestors.  I wish every slave in the United States was in the
+country of his ancestors.  But here they are, and the question is,
+How can they be best dealt with?  If a state of nature existed, and
+we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more
+strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of
+slavery amongst its elements."
+
+The principle upon which I have insisted in this canvass is in
+relation to laying the foundations of new societies.  I have never
+sought to apply these principles to the old States for the purpose of
+abolishing slavery in those States.  It is nothing but a miserable
+perversion of what I have said, to assume that I have declared
+Missouri, or any other slave State, shall emancipate her slaves; I
+have proposed no such thing.  But when Mr. Clay says that in laying
+the foundations of society in our Territories where it does not
+exist, he would be opposed to the introduction of slavery as an
+element, I insist that we have his warrant--his license--for
+insisting upon the exclusion of that element which he declared in
+such strong and emphatic language was most hurtful to  him.
+
+Judge Douglas has again referred to a Springfield speech in which I
+said "a house divided against itself cannot stand."  The Judge has so
+often made the entire quotation from that speech that I can make it
+from memory.  I used this language:
+
+"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with
+the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the
+slavery agitation.  Under the operation of this policy, that
+agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.  In
+my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached
+and passed.  'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe
+this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free.
+I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to
+be divided.  It will become all one thing, or all the other.  Either
+the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and
+place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in
+the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it
+forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as
+well as new, North as well as South."
+
+That extract and the sentiments expressed in it have been extremely
+offensive to Judge Douglas.  He has warred upon them as Satan wars
+upon the Bible.  His perversions upon it are endless.  Here now are
+my views upon it in brief:
+
+I said we were now far into the fifth year since a policy was
+initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an
+end to the slavery agitation.  Is it not so?  When that Nebraska Bill
+was brought forward four years ago last January, was it not for the
+"avowed object" of putting an end to the slavery agitation?  We were
+to have no more agitation in Congress; it was all to be banished to
+the Territories.  By the way, I will remark here that, as Judge
+Douglas is very fond of complimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days,
+Mr. Crittenden has said there was a falsehood in that whole business,
+for there was no slavery agitation at that time to allay.  We were
+for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and that very
+allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again.  But was it
+not understood or intimated with the "confident promise" of putting
+an end to the slavery agitation?  Surely it was.  In every speech you
+heard Judge Douglas make, until he got into this "imbroglio," as they
+call it, with the Administration about the Lecompton Constitution,
+every speech on that Nebraska Bill was full of his felicitations that
+we were just at the end of the slavery agitation.  The last tip of
+the last joint of the old serpent's tail was just drawing out of
+view.  But has it proved so?  I have asserted that under that policy
+that agitation "has not only not ceased, but has constantly
+augmented."  When was there ever a greater agitation in Congress than
+last winter?  When was it as great in the country as to-day?
+
+There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska
+policy, which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a
+superior degree of self-government, beyond what they had ever had
+before.  The first object and the main one of conferring upon the
+people a higher degree of "self-government" is a question of fact to
+be determined by you in answer to a single question.  Have you ever
+heard or known of a people anywhere on earth who had as little to do
+as, in the first instance of its use, the people of Kansas had with
+this same right of "self-government "?  In its main policy and in its
+collateral object, it has been nothing but a living, creeping lie
+from the time of its introduction till to-day.
+
+I have intimated that I thought the agitation would not cease until a
+crisis should have been reached and passed.  I have stated in what
+way I thought it would be reached and passed.  I have said that it
+might go one way or the other.  We might, by arresting the further
+spread of it, and placing it where the fathers originally placed it,
+put it where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in
+the course of ultimate extinction.  Thus the agitation may cease.  It
+may be pushed forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the
+States, old as well as new, North as well as South.  I have said, and
+I repeat, my wish is that the further spread of it may be arrested,
+and that it may be  where the public mind shall rest in the belief
+that it is in the course of ultimate extinction--I have expressed
+that as my wish  I entertain the opinion, upon evidence sufficient to
+my mind, that the fathers of this government placed that institution
+where the public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the
+course of ultimate extinction.  Let me ask why they made provision
+that the source of slavery--the African slave-trade--should be cut
+off at the end of twenty years?  Why did they make provision that in
+all the new territory we owned at that time slavery should be forever
+inhibited?  Why stop its spread in one direction, and cut off its
+source in another, if they did not look to its being placed in the
+course of its ultimate extinction?
+
+Again: the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the
+Constitution of the United States two or three times, and in neither
+of these cases does the word "slavery" or "negro race" occur; but
+covert language is used each time, and for a purpose full of
+significance.  What is the language in regard to the prohibition of
+the African slave-trade?  It runs in about this way:
+
+"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States
+now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
+the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight."
+
+The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of slavery and
+the black race is on the subject of the basis of representation, and
+there the language used is:
+
+"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
+several States which may be included within this Union, according to
+their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
+whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a
+term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,  three-fifths of all
+other persons."
+
+It says "persons," not slaves, not negroes; but this "three-fifths"
+can be applied to no other class among us than the negroes.
+
+Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it
+is said:
+
+"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
+thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or
+regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but
+shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or
+labor may be due."
+
+There again there is no mention of the word "negro" or of slavery.
+In all three of these places, being the only allusions to slavery in
+the instrument, covert language is used.  Language is used not
+suggesting that slavery existed or that the black race were among us.
+And I understand the contemporaneous history of those times to be
+that covert language was used with a purpose, and that purpose was
+that in our Constitution, which it was hoped and is still hoped will
+endure forever,--when it should be read by intelligent and patriotic
+men, after the institution of slavery had passed from among us,--
+there should be nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty
+suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed among
+us.  This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the government
+expected and intended the institution of slavery to come to an end.
+They expected and intended that it should be in the course of
+ultimate extinction.  And when I say that I desire to see the further
+spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the
+fathers have first done.  When I say I desire to see it placed where
+the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of
+ultimate extinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they
+placed it.  It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas
+assumes, made this government part slave and part free.  Understand
+the sense in which he puts it.  He assumes that slavery is a rightful
+thing within itself,--was introduced by the framers of the
+Constitution.  The exact truth is, that they found the institution
+existing among us, and they left it as they found it.  But in making
+the government they left this institution with many clear marks of
+disapprobation upon it.  They found slavery among them, and they left
+it among them because of the difficulty--the absolute impossibility--
+of its immediate removal.  And when Judge Douglas asks me why we
+cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the
+government made it, he asks a question based upon an assumption which
+is itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him and ask him the question,
+when the policy that the fathers of the government had adopted in
+relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world,
+the only wise policy, the only policy that we can ever safely
+continue upon that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous
+element masters us all and becomes a national institution,--I turn
+upon him and ask him why he could not leave it alone.  I turn and ask
+him why he was driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy in
+regard to it.  He has himself said he introduced a new policy.  He
+said so in his speech on the 22d of March of the present year, 1858.
+I ask him why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it.
+I ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall not again
+place this institution upon the basis on which the fathers left it.
+I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and
+slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude
+by those who made the Constitution, did they make any war?  If we had
+no war out of it when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief
+that we shall have war out of it if we return to that policy?  Have
+we had any peace upon this matter springing from any other basis?  I
+maintain that we have not.  I have proposed nothing more than a
+return to the policy of the fathers.
+
+I confess, when I propose a certain measure of policy, it is not
+enough for me that I do not intend anything evil in the result, but
+it is incumbent on me to show that it has not a tendency to that
+result.  I have met Judge Douglas in that point of view.  I have not
+only made the declaration that I do not mean to produce a conflict
+between the States, but I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I
+think I have shown to the minds of fair men, that I propose nothing
+but what has a most peaceful tendency.  The quotation that I happened
+to make in that Springfield Speech, that "a house divided against
+itself cannot stand," and which has proved so offensive to the judge,
+was part and parcel of the same thing.  He tries to show that variety
+in the democratic institutions of the different States is necessary
+and indispensable.  I do not dispute it.  I have no controversy with
+Judge Douglas about that.  I shall very readily agree with him that
+it would be foolish for us to insist upon having a cranberry law here
+in Illinois, where we have no cranberries, because they have a
+cranberry law in Indiana, where they have cranberries.  I should
+insist that it would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia
+the right to enact oyster laws, where they have oysters, because we
+want no such laws here.  I understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge
+Douglas or anybody else, that the variety in the soil and climate and
+face of the country, and consequent variety in the industrial
+pursuits and productions of a country, require systems of law
+conforming to this variety in the natural features of the country.  I
+understand quite as well as Judge Douglas that if we here raise a
+barrel of flour more than we want, and the Louisianians raise a
+barrel of sugar more than they want, it is of mutual advantage to
+exchange.  That produces commerce, brings us together, and makes us
+better friends.  We like one another the more for it.  And I
+understand as well as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, that these
+mutual accommodations are the cements which bind together the
+different parts of this Union; that instead of being a thing to
+"divide the house,"--figuratively expressing the Union,--they tend to
+sustain it; they are the props of the house, tending always to hold
+it up.
+
+But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is any parallel
+between these things and this institution of slavery?  I do not see
+that there is any parallel at all between them.  Consider it.  When
+have we had any difficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the
+cranberry laws of Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the
+pine-lumber laws of Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar,
+and Illinois flour?  When have we had any quarrels over these things?
+When have we had perfect peace in regard to this thing which I say is
+an element of discord in this Union?  We have sometimes had peace,
+but when was it?  It was when the institution of slavery remained
+quiet where it was.  We have had difficulty and turmoil whenever it
+has made a struggle to spread itself where it was not.  I ask, then,
+if experience does not speak in thunder-tones telling us that the
+policy which has given peace to the country heretofore, being
+returned to, gives the greatest promise of peace again.  You may say,
+and Judge Douglas has intimated the same thing, that all this
+difficulty in regard to the institution of slavery is the mere
+agitation of office-seekers and ambitious Northern politicians.  He
+thinks we want to get "his place," I suppose.  I agree that there are
+office-seekers amongst us.  The Bible says somewhere that we are
+desperately selfish.  I think we would have discovered that fact
+without the Bible.  I do not claim that I am any less so than the
+average of men, but I do claim that I am not more selfish than Judge
+Douglas.
+
+But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in
+regard to this institution of slavery spring from office-seeking,
+from the mere ambition of politicians?  Is that the truth?  How many
+times have we had danger from this question?  Go back to the day of
+the Missouri Compromise.  Go back to the nullification question, at
+the bottom of which lay this same slavery question.  Go back to the
+time of the annexation of Texas.  Go back to the troubles that led to
+the Compromise of 1850.  You will find that every time, with the
+single exception of the Nullification question, they sprung from an
+endeavor to spread this institution.  There never was a party in the
+history of this country, and there probably never will be, of
+sufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country.
+Parties themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet
+it extends not beyond the parties themselves.  But
+does not this question make a disturbance outside of political
+circles?  Does it not enter into the churches and rend them asunder?
+What divided the great Methodist Church into two parts, North and
+South?  What has raised this constant disturbance in every
+Presbyterian General Assembly that meets?  What disturbed the
+Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago?  What has jarred
+and shaken the great American Tract Society recently, not yet
+splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end?  Is it not this same
+mighty, deep-seated power that somehow operates on the minds of men,
+exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society,--in
+politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold
+relations of life?  Is this the work of politicians?  Is that
+irresistible power, which for fifty years has shaken the government
+and agitated the people, to be stifled and subdued by pretending that
+it is an exceedingly simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it?
+If you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, I assure you
+I will quit before they have half done so.  But where is the
+philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that
+disturbing element in our society which has disturbed us for more
+than half a century, which has been the only serious danger that has
+threatened our institutions,--I say, where is the philosophy or the
+statesmanship based on the assumption that we are to quit talking
+about it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being
+agitated by it?  Yet this is the policy here in the North that
+Douglas is advocating, that we are to care nothing about it!  I ask
+you if it is not a false philosophy.  Is it not a false statesmanship
+that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of
+caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most
+about--a thing which all experience has shown we care a very great
+deal about?
+
+The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the
+exclusive right which the States have to decide the whole thing for
+themselves.  I agree with him very readily that the different States
+have that right.  He is but fighting a man of straw when he assumes
+that I am contending against the right of the States to do as they
+please about it.  Our controversy with him is in regard to the new
+Territories.  We agree that when the States come in as States they
+have the right and the power to do as they please.  We have no power
+as citizens of the free-States, or in our Federal capacity as members
+of the Federal Union through the General Government, to disturb
+slavery in the States where it exists.  We profess constantly that we
+have no more inclination than belief in the power of the government
+to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from
+the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the Sates.
+What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free
+from it while in the Territorial condition.  Judge Douglas assumes
+that we have no interest in them,--that we have no right whatever to
+interfere.  I think we have some interest.  I think that as white men
+we have.  Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if
+I may so express myself?  Do we not feel an interest in getting to
+that outlet with such institutions as we would like to have prevail
+there?  If you go to the Territory opposed to slavery, and another
+man comes upon the same ground with his slave, upon the assumption
+that the things are equal, it turns out that he has the equal right
+all his way, and you have no part of it your way.  If he goes in and
+makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence a slave State, is it
+not time that those who desire to have it a free State were on equal
+ground?  Let me suggest it in a different way.  How many Democrats
+are there about here ["A thousand"] who have left slave States and
+come into the free State of Illinois to get rid of the institution of
+slavery?  [Another voice: "A thousand and one."] I reckon there are a
+thousand and one.  I will ask you, if the policy you are now
+advocating had prevailed when this country was in a Territorial
+condition, where would you have gone to get rid of it?  Where would
+you have found your free State or Territory to go to?  And when
+hereafter, for any cause, the people in this place shall desire to
+find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will
+they find the place to go to?
+
+Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether
+there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor
+of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may
+find a home,--may find some spot where they can better their
+condition; where they can settle upon new soil and better their
+condition in life.  I am in favor of this, not merely (I must say it
+here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us,
+but as an outlet for free white people everywhere the world over--in
+which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the
+world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life.
+
+I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again,
+what I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between
+Judge Douglas and myself.  On the point of my wanting to make war
+between the free and the slave States, there has been no issue
+between us.  So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of producing
+a perfect social and political equality between the white and black
+races.  These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to
+force the controversy.  There is no foundation in truth for the
+charge that I maintain either of these propositions.  The real issue
+in this controversy--the one pressing upon every mind--is the
+sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of
+slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it
+as a wrong.  The sentiment that contemplates the institution of
+slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican
+party.  It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their
+arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate.  They
+look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while
+they contemplate it a, such, they nevertheless have due regard for
+its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of
+it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations
+thrown about it.  Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a
+policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more
+danger.  They insist that it should, as far as may be, be treated as
+a wrong; and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make
+provision that it shall grow no larger.  They also desire a policy
+that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some time.  These are the
+views they entertain in regard to it as I understand them; and all
+their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are brought
+within this range.  I have said, and I repeat it here, that if there
+be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of
+slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he
+is misplaced, and ought not to be with us.  And if there be a man
+amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its
+actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it
+suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional
+obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our
+platform.  We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action.  He is
+not placed properly with us.
+
+On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread,
+let me say a word.  Has anything ever threatened the existence of
+this Union save and except this very institution of slavery?  What is
+it that we hold most dear amongst us?  Our own liberty and
+prosperity.  What has ever threatened our liberty and prosperity,
+save and except this institution of slavery?  If this is true, how do
+you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery,
+by spreading it out and making it bigger?  You may have a wen or
+cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out, lest you
+bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and
+spread it over your whole body.  That is no proper way of treating
+what you regard a wrong.  You see this peaceful way of dealing with
+it as a wrong, restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to
+go into new countries where it has not already existed.  That is the
+peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers
+themselves set us the example.
+
+On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it
+as not being wrong.  That is the Democratic sentiment of this day.  I
+do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range
+positively asserts that it is right.  That class will include all who
+positively assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge Douglas,
+treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either right or wrong.
+These two classes of men fall within the general class of those who
+do not look upon it as a wrong.  And if there be among you anybody
+who supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself "as much
+opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with him.  You
+never treat it as a wrong.  What other thing that you consider as a
+wrong do you deal with as you deal with that?  Perhaps you say it is
+wrong--but your leader never does, and you quarrel with anybody who
+says it is wrong.  Although you pretend to say so yourself, you can
+find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong.  You must not say
+anything about it in the free States, because it is not here.  You
+must not say anything about it in the slave States, because it is
+there.  You must not say anything about it in the pulpit, because
+that is religion, and has nothing to do with it.  You must not say
+anything about it in politics, because that will disturb the security
+of "my place."  There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong,
+although you say yourself it is a wrong.  But, finally, you will
+screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the slave
+States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the slavery
+question, you would be in favor of it.  You would be in favor of it.
+You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad
+to see it succeed.  But you are deceiving yourself.  You all know
+that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St.  Louis, undertook
+to introduce that system in Missouri.  They fought as valiantly as
+they could for the system of gradual emancipation which you pretend
+you would be glad to see succeed.  Now, I will bring you to the test.
+After a hard fight they were beaten, and when the news came over
+here, you threw up your hats and hurrahed for Democracy.  More than
+that, take all the argument made in favor of the system you have
+proposed, and it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything
+wrong in the institution of slavery.  The arguments to sustain that
+policy carefully exclude it.  Even here to-day you heard Judge
+Douglas quarrel with me because I uttered a wish that it might
+sometime come to an end.  Although Henry Clay could say he wished
+every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors,
+I am denounced by those pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering
+a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end.
+The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate
+the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong
+about it.  Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments.  He says he
+"don't care whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories.
+I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is
+intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the
+subject, or only of the national policy he desires to have
+established.  It is alike valuable for my purpose.  Any man can say
+that who does not see anything wrong in slavery; but no man can
+logically say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can
+logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted
+down.  He may say he don't care whether an indifferent thing is voted
+up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing
+and a wrong thing.  He contends that whatever community wants slaves
+has a right to have them.  So they have, if it is not a wrong.  But
+if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong.  He
+says that upon the score of equality slaves should be allowed to go
+in a new Territory, like other property.  This is strictly logical if
+there is no difference between it and other property.  If it and
+other property are equal, this argument is entirely logical.  But if
+you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to
+institute a comparison between right and wrong.  You may turn over
+everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in
+the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the
+Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the
+shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,--it everywhere
+carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it.
+
+That is the real issue.  That is the issue that will continue in this
+country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be
+silent.  It is the eternal struggle between these two principles--
+right and wrong--throughout the world.  They are the two principles
+that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will
+ever continue to struggle.  The one is the common right of humanity,
+and the other the divine right of kings.  It is the same principle in
+whatever shape it develops itself.  It is the same spirit that says,
+"You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it."  No matter in
+what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to
+bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their
+labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another
+race, it is the same tyrannical principle.  I was glad to express my
+gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, to Judge Douglas,--
+that he looks to no end of the institution of slavery.  That will
+help the people to see where the struggle really is.  It will
+hereafter place with us all men who really do wish the wrong may have
+an end.  And whenever we can get rid of the fog which obscures the
+real question, when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to avow
+a policy looking to its perpetuation,--we can get out from among that
+class of men and bring them to the side of those who treat it as a
+wrong.  Then there will soon be an end of it, and that end will be
+its "ultimate extinction."  Whenever the issue can be distinctly
+made, and all extraneous matter thrown out so that men can fairly see
+the real difference between the parties, this controversy will soon
+be settled, and it will be done peaceably too.  There will be no war,
+no violence.  It will be placed again where the wisest and best men
+of the world placed it.  Brooks of South Carolina once declared that
+when this Constitution was framed its framers did not look to the
+institution existing until this day.  When he said this, I think he
+stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history of the times.
+But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men of these
+days, yet the men of these days had experience which they had not,
+and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this
+country that slavery should be perpetual.  I now say that, willingly
+or unwillingly--purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been
+the most prominent instrument in changing the position of the
+institution of slavery,--which the fathers of the government expected
+to come to an end ere this, and putting it upon Brooks's cotton-gin
+basis; placing it where he openly confesses he has no desire there
+shall ever be an end of it.
+
+I understand I have ten minutes yet.  I will employ it in saying
+something about this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains
+the Dred Scott decision, that the people of the Territories can still
+somehow exclude slavery.  The first thing I ask attention to is the
+fact that Judge Douglas constantly said, before the decision, that
+whether they could or not, was a question for the Supreme Court.  But
+after the court had made the decision he virtually says it is not a
+question for the Supreme Court, but for the people.  And how is it he
+tells us they can exclude it?  He says it needs "police regulations,"
+and that admits of "unfriendly legislation."  Although it is a right
+established by the Constitution of the United States to take a slave
+into a Territory of the United States and hold him as property, yet
+unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation,
+and more especially if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can
+practically exclude him.  Now, without meeting this proposition as a
+matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional
+obligation.  Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face
+before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial
+Legislature.  The first thing he will do will be to swear that he
+will support the Constitution of the United States.  His neighbor by
+his side in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial
+legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional right.  Can he
+withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment
+of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Constitution of the
+United States which he has sworn to support?  Can he withhold it
+without violating his oath?  And, more especially, can he pass
+unfriendly legislation to violate his oath?  Why, this is a monstrous
+sort of talk about the Constitution of the United States!  There has
+never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any
+respectable man on earth.  I do not believe it is a constitutional
+right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States.  I believe
+the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it.  Judge
+Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision.
+But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself
+stands.  I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine
+uttered from the mouth of a respectable man.
+
+I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of
+the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave
+law,--that is a right fixed in the Constitution.  But it cannot be
+made available to them without Congressional legislation.  In the
+Judge's language, it is a "barren right," which needs legislation
+before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it
+is guaranteed.  And as the right is constitutional, I agree that the
+legislation shall be granted to it, and that not that we like the
+institution of slavery.  We profess to have no taste for running and
+catching niggers, at least, I profess no taste for that job at all.
+Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law?  Because I do
+not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right,
+can be supported without it.  And if I believed that the right to
+hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution
+with the right to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to give it the
+legislation necessary to support it.  I say that no man can deny his
+obligation to give the necessary legislation to support slavery in a
+Territory, who believes it is a constitutional right to have it
+there.  No man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument
+to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a
+Fugitive State law.  Try it now.  It is the strongest Abolition
+argument ever made.  I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct,
+then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a
+constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his
+runaway returned.  No one can show the distinction between them.  The
+one is express, so that we cannot deny it.  The other is construed to
+be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be
+correct believes in the right.  And the man who argues that by
+unfriendly legislation, in spite of that constitutional right,
+slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing
+an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return
+fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right
+of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive.  I do not know how such
+an arguement may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy
+anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to
+estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of
+difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive and
+the constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided
+this Dred Scott decision is correct, I defy any man to make an
+argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a
+slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will
+not equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an
+argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law.  Why, there is not
+such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all!
+
+
+
+
+End of this Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Lincoln, v4
+
diff --git a/old/4linc11.zip b/old/4linc11.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8b9b976
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/4linc11.zip