diff options
Diffstat (limited to '2656-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 2656-h/2656-h.htm | 3928 |
1 files changed, 3928 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2656-h/2656-h.htm b/2656-h/2656-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..db30371 --- /dev/null +++ b/2656-h/2656-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,3928 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?> + +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en"> + <head> + <title> + The Papers and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Volume Four + </title> + <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve"> + + body { margin:5%; background:#faebd7; text-align:justify} + P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 20%;} + div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; } + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;} + pre { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;} + +</style> + </head> + <body> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Papers And Writings Of Abraham Lincoln, +Volume Four, by Abraham Lincoln + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Papers And Writings Of Abraham Lincoln, Volume Four + Constitutional Edition + +Author: Abraham Lincoln + +Commentator: Theodore Roosevelt, Carl Schurz, and Joseph Choate + +Editor: Arthur Brooks Lapsley + +Release Date: July 5, 2009 [EBook #2656] +Last Updated: October 29, 2012 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LINCOLN'S PAPERS *** + + + + +Produced by David Widger + + + + + +</pre> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <h1> + THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN + </h1> + <h2> + VOLUME FOUR + </h2> + <h3> + CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION + </h3> + <h4> + Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley + </h4> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <blockquote> + <p class="toc"> + <big><b>CONTENTS</b></big> + </p> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0002"> <b>THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II</b> </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0003"> LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH DEBATE, AT + CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0004"> Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0005"> FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, OCTOBER 7, + 1858 </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0006"> SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, + 1858. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0007"> Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0008"> LAST DEBATE, AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858 </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0009"> Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY </a> + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h1> + THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN,<br /> Volume Four + </h1> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0002" id="link2H_4_0002"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h1> + THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II + </h1> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0003" id="link2H_4_0003"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH DEBATE, AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. + </h2> + <p> + LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—It will be very difficult for an audience so + large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it + is important that as profound silence be preserved as possible. + </p> + <p> + While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to + know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between + the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this + occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I + thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard + to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of + bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white + and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making + voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to + intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that + there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I + believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of + social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, + while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and + inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the + superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I + do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior + position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that + because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want + her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am + now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for + either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get + along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this + that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in + favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between + negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that + I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its + correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel + Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am + not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the + least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was + no law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to + be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep + them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very + last stand by the law of this State which forbids the marrying of white + people with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this: that I do + not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social + and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, except + in the State Legislature,—not in the Congress of the United States; + and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, + and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger + is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the + Judge be kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight the + measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject. + </p> + <p> + When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to Illinois + in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in which he made what + may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which I understand proved to + be very offensive to him. The Judge was at that time out upon one of his + speaking tours through the country, and when the news of it reached him, + as I am informed, he denounced Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for + having said what he did in regard to that matter. I was traveling at that + time, and speaking at the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent + days, and when I heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and + what Douglas had said back again, I felt that I was in a position where I + could not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter. Consequently, + upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no other + wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by Trumbull against + Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to say nothing about it; + that I did personally know Judge Trumbull; that I believed him to be a man + of veracity; that I believed him to be a man of capacity sufficient to + know very well whether an assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn + from a set of facts, was true or false; and as a conclusion of my own from + that, I stated it as my belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he + would prove everything he had said. I said this upon two or three + occasions. Upon a subsequent occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before + an audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his charge + against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to substantiate + it. This speech was published at length; and subsequently at Jacksonville + Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In the course of his speech, and near + the close of it, he stated in regard to myself what I will now read: + </p> + <p> + "Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his + time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, Lincoln having + indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him + (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders." + </p> + <p> + I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitation + to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally been my + purpose to discuss that matter at all But in-as-much as it seems to be the + wish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once in my + life I will play General Jackson, and to the just extent I take the + responsibility. + </p> + <p> + I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that + portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this matter, + and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at Jacksonville in + answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of this debate with the + complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I cannot now read them, + for the reason that it would take half of my first hour to do so. I can + only make some comments upon them. Trumbull's charge is in the following + words: + </p> + <p> + "Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a + constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the + people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the + plot." + </p> + <p> + I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity of + reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he regards + as sufficient evidence to substantiate this charge. + </p> + <p> + It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon the + floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference among the + senators, in which conference it was determined to have an enabling act + passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution under, and in this + conference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a + provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people after it + should be formed. He then brings forward to show, and showing, as he + deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with that + clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause inserted + into the bill, which would in its nature prevent a reference of the + constitution back for a vote of the people,—if, indeed, upon a mere + silence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to vote + upon it. These are the general statements that he has made. + </p> + <p> + I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he + attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to + examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he + makes is: + </p> + <p> + "Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and that I + struck it out,—is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution + upon them against their will?" + </p> + <p> + His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill, he + argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the + purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would say, in the first + place, that that would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, as + Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial bills have passed without + having such a provision in them. I believe it is true, though I am not + certain, that in some instances constitutions framed under such bills have + been submitted to a vote of the people with the law silent upon the + subject; but it does not appear that they once had their enabling acts + framed with an express provision for submitting the constitution to be + framed to a vote of the people, then that they were stricken out when + Congress did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have been + bills which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when was + that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does the + evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, when we + remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almost + simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a conference among + certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be passed + leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to attend to + the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which it was agreed + they should so frame the bill that there should be no submission of the + constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge does not notice this part + of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that + simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to + be submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty fair + show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter into a plot + to put in force a constitution for Kansas, without giving the people any + opportunity of voting upon it. + </p> + <p> + But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is this: + </p> + <p> + "But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain + a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted." + </p> + <p> + This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I only + want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that these words + were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill from which it is + alleged the provision was stricken out,—a bill which goes by the + name of Toomb's, because he originally brought it forward? I ask why, if + the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take the + exact proposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not stricken + out? Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the Toomb's + bill, and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were stricken out. + Judge Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull says were + stricken out were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision + in the Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We + see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the + words. He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about these + words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to it, only + taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if there be any + issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the question of + fact as to whether these words were stricken out, I have before me what I + suppose to be a genuine copy of the Toomb's bill, in which it can be shown + that the words Trumbull says were in it were, in fact, originally there. + If there be any dispute upon the fact, I have got the documents here to + show they were there. If there be any controversy upon the sense of the + words,—whether these words which were stricken out really + constituted a provision for submitting the matter to a vote of the people,—as + that is a matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull's own + argument. He says that the proposition is in these words: + </p> + <p> + "That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to the + said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their free + acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified + by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall + be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." + </p> + <p> + Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill + when it came back, and he says this was a provision for submitting the + constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument is this: + </p> + <p> + "Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the + election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an election was + to be held?" + </p> + <p> + This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge + at all, but he stands up and says there was no such proposition in that + bill for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people. + Trumbull admits that the language is not a direct provision for submitting + it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another provision. He + asks you how it is possible to ratify the land proposition at the election + for the adoption of the constitution, if there was no election to be held + for the adoption of the constitution. And he goes on to show that it is + not any less a law because the provision is put in that indirect shape + than it would be if it were put directly. But I presume I have said enough + to draw attention to this point, and I pass it by also. + </p> + <p> + Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and at + very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in + a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to be made would + have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thought so then, + what ground is there for anybody thinking otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, + this much may be said in reply: That bill had been in the hands of a party + to which Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of the + committee at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had a + printed copy of the original Toomb's bill. I have not the evidence on that + point except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of + business there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of + altering, were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, + until the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterwards, when it was + reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull in + reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the bearings + of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not + follow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive, + that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that what + Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did? Suppose Trumbull had + been in the plot with these other men, would that let Douglas out of it? + Would it exonerate Douglas that Trumbull did n't then perceive he was in + the plot? He also asks the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose to amend + the bill, if he thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe that + everything Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection with + this question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of + the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his friends. + He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to anything on this + subject would receive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull did + bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the fact that there was no + provision for submitting the constitution about to be made for the people + of Kansas to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture to say that + Judge Douglas made some reply to this speech of Judge Trumbull's, but he + never noticed that part of it at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, + then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not throw + much blame upon him; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact + as to what Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself + been in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it + from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial it + should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, but that + the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at all touch the + question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck that they + discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to be guilty too. + </p> + <p> + Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is, that + when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the fact that the + bill had the provision in it for submitting the constitution to a vote of + the people when it went into his Judge Douglas's hands, that it was + missing when he reported it to the Senate, and that in a public speech he + had subsequently said the alterations in the bill were made while it was + in committee, and that they were made in consultation between him (Judge + Douglas) and Toomb's. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact + of Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill + not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with another + clause and another provision in it, saying that "until the complete + execution of this Act there shall be no election in said Territory,"—which, + Trumbull argued, was not only taking the provision for submitting to a + vote of the people out of the bill, but was adding an affirmative one, in + that it prevented the people from exercising the right under a bill that + was merely silent on the question. Now, in regard to what he says, that + Trumbull shifts the issue, that he shifts his ground,—and I believe + he uses the term that, "it being proven false, he has changed ground," I + call upon all of you, when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's + speech (for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trumbull has + shifted his ground or not. I say he did not shift his ground, but that he + brought forward his original charge and the evidence to sustain it yet + more fully, but precisely as he originally made it. Then, in addition + thereto, he brought in a new piece of evidence. He shifted no ground. He + brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with his former testimony; + but he brought a new piece, tending, as he thought, and as I think, to + prove his proposition. To illustrate: A man brings an accusation against + another, and on trial the man making the charge introduces A and B to + prove the accusation. At a second trial he introduces the same witnesses, + who tell the same story as before, and a third witness, who tells the same + thing, and in addition gives further testimony corroborative of the + charge. So with Trumbull. There was no shifting of ground, nor + inconsistency of testimony between the new piece of evidence and what he + originally introduced. + </p> + <p> + But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last + provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and a + substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is true + that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. Trumbull has + not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it was so stricken + out. He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as Judge Douglas reported it + back. It was amended somewhat in the Senate before it passed, but I am + speaking of it as he brought it back." Now, when Judge Douglas parades the + fact that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he + asserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only said + that he originally put it in, not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull + says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. When it came + back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made by him in + consultation with Toomb's. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as his conclusion, + that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants to contradict + Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not put it in, and not + that he did n't take it out again. It is said that a bear is sometimes + hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I presume it was in this case. I + presume the truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward took it out. + That, I take it, is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing, + Douglas says another thing, and the two don't contradict one another at + all. The question is, what did he put it in for? In the first place, what + did he take the other provision out of the bill for,—the provision + which Trumbull argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a + vote of the people? What did he take that out for; and, having taken it + out, what did he put this in for? I say that in the run of things it is + not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge + Douglas to take that latter clause out again. The question that Trumbull + has made is that Judge Douglas put it in; and he don't meet Trumbull at + all unless he denies that. + </p> + <p> + In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses this + language toward Judge Trumbull. He says: + </p> + <p> + "He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the + record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge." + </p> + <p> + Well, that is a pretty serious statement—Trumbull forges his + evidence from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say that it + is not true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has + brought forward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to, + examine whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had + the bill or document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says + that is a copy of the Toomb's bill,—the amendment offered by + Toomb's. He says that is a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went + into Judge Douglas's hands. Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? + That is one thing Trumbull brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged + it from beginning to end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does + Douglas say that is a forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a + subsequent examination upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another + document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came + back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas + say that is a forgery? Does he say it in his general sweeping charge? Does + he say so now? If he does not, then take this Toomb's bill and the bill in + the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see that the + provision is in the one and not in the other; it leaves the inference + inevitable that it was taken out. + </p> + <p> + But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull's + other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull says + there are in this original Toomb's bill these words: + </p> + <p> + "That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to the + said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free + acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified + by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall + be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." + </p> + <p> + Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper here and + see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr. + Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December + 9, 1857: + </p> + <p> + "I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the bill + was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, whether the + constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It + was held by those most intelligent on the subject that, in view of all the + difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experiment at + that time of a popular vote, it would be better there should be no such + provision in the Toomb's bill; and it was my understanding, in all the + intercourse I had, that the Convention would make a constitution, and send + it here, without submitting it to the popular vote." + </p> + <p> + Then Trumbull follows on: + </p> + <p> + "In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 + [Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said: + </p> + <p> + "'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or + confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it + was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollection + was clear that I left the conference under the impression that it had been + deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the + agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this Convention. + This impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of the bill + infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great + aversion; but with the hope of accomplishing a great good, and as no + movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this + objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of + testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their + submission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the + senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the + admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as + follows: + </p> + <p> + "That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to + the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free + acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified + by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall + be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." + </p> + <p> + The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of + June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same + section word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the + conference referred to; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reported + the Toombs bill to the Senate with amendments, the next morning, it did + not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the + Convention that the constitution should be approved by the people. The + words "and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the + constitution" had been stricken out. + </p> + <p> + Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor of + the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the + Congressional Globe on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is a + forgery? Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional Globe? + What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his evidence from + beginning to end? So again he says in another place that Judge Douglas, in + his speech, December 9, 1857 (Congressional Globe, part I., page 15), + stated: + </p> + <p> + "That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill + from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to + assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently the senator + from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, + after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed + by the Senate." + </p> + <p> + Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and is + recorded in the Congressional Globe. Is it a forgery? Is it there or not? + It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take these pieces of + evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he dare do it. + </p> + <p> + [A voice: "He will."] + </p> + <p> + Well, sir, you had better not commit him. He gives other quotations,—another + from Judge Douglas. He says: + </p> + <p> + "I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member of + the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union, from + any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the people. + I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so + understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it was + not, they would have made the point on it; and if they had made it, we + should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a + discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take + it for granted that that would be done, which ought in fairness to have + been done." + </p> + <p> + Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. Does + Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true? Trumbull says + somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any one who + will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the notice of + those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that provision; and + then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge Douglas, where Judge + Trumbull uses this language: + </p> + <p> + "Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probably + recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had objected to the + Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for a submission of the + constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found + in the same volume of the Globe, page 22, in which he says: 'That the bill + was silent on this subject was true, and my attention was called to that + about the time it was passed; and I took the fair construction to be, that + powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the constitution + would be submitted to the people.' + </p> + <p> + "Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before made, + that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that it was + a new discovery, you will determine." + </p> + <p> + So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and yet + maintain his position that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from beginning + to end." I will remark that I have not got these Congressional Globes with + me. They are large books, and difficult to carry about, and if Judge + Douglas shall say that on these points where Trumbull has quoted from them + there are no such passages there, I shall not be able to prove they are + there upon this occasion, but I will have another chance. Whenever he + points out the forgery and says, "I declare that this particular thing + which Trumbull has uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then + my attention will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest, + stating now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find + every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the question is, How + can Douglas call that a forgery? How can he make out that it is a forgery? + What is a forgery? It is the bringing forward something in writing or in + print purporting to be of certain effect when it is altogether untrue. If + you come forward with my note for one hundred dollars when I have never + given such a note, there is a forgery. If you come forward with a letter + purporting to be written by me which I never wrote, there is another + forgery. If you produce anything in writing or in print saying it is so + and so, the document not being genuine, a forgery has been committed. How + do you make this forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine? If + Judge Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false and + forged, he has a full right to do so; but until he does it specifically, + we don't know how to get at him. If he does say they are false and forged, + I will then look further into it, and presume I can procure the + certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies. I have + no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where Trumbull says + it is. Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in making his sweeping + charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged from beginning to end, at + all meets the case,—if that is the way to get at the facts. I repeat + again, if he will point out which one is a forgery, I will carefully + examine it, and if it proves that any one of them is really a forgery, it + will not be me who will hold to it any longer. I have always wanted to + deal with everyone I meet candidly and honestly. If I have made any + assertion not warranted by facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will + withdraw it cheerfully. But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull + calumniated, and the evidence he has brought forward branded in general + terms "a forgery from beginning to end." This is not the legal way of + meeting a charge, and I submit it to all intelligent persons, both friends + of Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is. + </p> + <p> + The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill that went into his hands + had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to the + people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision for a + submission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was known that + the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge Douglas, it was + not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the declaration, when you + got it, for a submission of the constitution to the people. And now, my + direct question to Judge Douglas is, to answer why, if he deemed the bill + silent on this point, he found it necessary to strike out those particular + harmless words. If he had found the bill silent and without this + provision, he might say what he does now. If he supposes it was implied + that the constitution would be submitted to a vote of the people, how + could these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to + strike them out? How could he infer that a submission was still implied, + after its express provision had been stricken from the bill? I find the + bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it out, and + although he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a vote + of the people, I ask, Why did you first put it in? I ask him whether he + took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges was in the bill. + If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he did it for. It looks + to us as if he had altered the bill. If it looks differently to him,—if + he has a different reason for his action from the one we assign him—he + can tell it. I insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent upon that + point when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it. + </p> + <p> + I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three + minutes of being out. I presume it is expired now; I therefore close. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0004" id="link2H_4_0004"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. + </h2> + <p> + FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour answer + to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried one. I shall + only be able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by Judge Douglas, + and give them a brief attention, while I shall have to totally omit others + for the want of time. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an + answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far + as I know the Judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no + occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not + in favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying a + few words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine, which + has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could + not possibly be made a citizen; and without saying what was my ground of + complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, + Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he + ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes + and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he will find I + mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme + Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. But Judge + Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them + myself. Now, my opinion is that the different States have the power to + make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they + choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If + the State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise + of it. That is all I have to say about it. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speeches + south; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north and + recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very different cast of + sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. I will not charge + upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but I call upon + every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and I dare him + to point out any difference between my speeches north and south. While I + am here perhaps I ought to say a word, if I have the time, in regard to + the latter portion of the Judge's speech, which was a sort of declamation + in reference to my having said I entertained the belief that this + government would not endure half slave and half free. I have said so, and + I did not say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhaps + would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in + detail; but let me ask you a few questions. Have we ever had any peace on + this slavery question? When are we to have peace upon it, if it is kept in + the position it now occupies? How are we ever to have peace upon it? That + is an important question. To be sure, if we will all stop, and allow Judge + Douglas and his friends to march on in their present career until they + plant the institution all over the nation, here and wherever else our flag + waves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be peace. But let me ask Judge + Douglas how he is going to get the people to do that? They have been + wrangling over this question for at least forty years. This was the cause + of the agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise; this produced the + troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the territory + acquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was the trouble which was quieted + by the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled "forever" as both the great + political parties declared in their National Conventions. That "forever" + turned out to be just four years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. + When is it likely to come to an end? He introduced the Nebraska Bill in + 1854 to put another end to the slavery agitation. He promised that it + would finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since, + until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton + Constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the end of + the slavery agitation. But in one speech, I think last winter, he did say + that he did n't quite see when the end of the slavery agitation would + come. Now he tells us again that it is all over and the people of Kansas + have voted down the Lecompton Constitution. How is it over? That was only + one of the attempts at putting an end to the slavery agitation—one + of these "final settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formed a + constitution that she is likely to come in under? Is not the slavery + agitation still an open question in that Territory? Has the voting down of + that constitution put an end to all the trouble? Is that more likely to + settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery + agitation? Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more + foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can see + the end of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas Bill was introduced four + years and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end we + may say we are four years and a half nearer the end. So, too, we can say + we are four years and a half nearer the end of the world, and we can just + as clearly see the end of the world as we can see the end of this + agitation. The Kansas settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should + sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this + vexed question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of + putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon + the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out of our + new Territories,—to restrict it forever to the old States where it + now exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the + course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to the + slavery agitation. + </p> + <p> + The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his friends + have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease speaking of it + as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the common matters of + property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and cattle. But + while it drives on in its state of progress as it is now driving, and as + it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured the opinion, and I + say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery agitation until it + takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when it takes a turn + toward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two + years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction + would occur in less than a hundred years at least; but that it will occur + in the best way for both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt. + But, my friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this + point. + </p> + <p> + Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a + bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854: Judge + Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, except the + speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he told a + cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral principles that + Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the simple truth. I do not + care greatly for the story, but this is the truth of it: and I have twice + told Judge Douglas to his face that from beginning to end there is not one + word of truth in it. I have called upon him for the proof, and he does not + at all meet me as Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just + talking, by producing the record. He did n't bring the record because + there was no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready to + indorse Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply + that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would not be likely to + indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity because + neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years that I have + known Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his word or tell a + falsehood large or small. It is for that reason that I indorse Lyman + Trumbull. + </p> + <p> + [Mr. JAMES BROWN (Douglas postmaster): "What does Ford's History say about + him?"] + </p> + <p> + Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My own + recollection is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful terms + in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal worse of + Judge Douglas. I refer you, sir, to the History for examination. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on the + part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to attend to + that suggestion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly accused of dealing + illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either in court or in a + political canvass or anywhere else. I would despise myself if I supposed + myself ready to deal less liberally with an adversary than I was willing + to be treated myself. Judge Douglas in a general way, without putting it + in a direct shape, revives the old charge against me in reference to the + Mexican War. He does not take the responsibility of putting it in a very + definite form, but makes a general reference to it. That charge is more + than ten years old. He complains of Trumbull and myself because he says we + bring charges against him one or two years old. He knows, too, that in + regard to the Mexican War story the more respectable papers of his own + party throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and + acknowledge that it was a lie. + </p> + <p> + [Here Mr. LINCOLN turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting HON. + ORLANDO B. FICKLIN, led him forward and said:] + </p> + <p> + I do not mean to do anything with Mr. FICKLIN except to present his face + and tell you that he personally knows it to be a lie! He was a member of + Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [FICKLIN] knows that + whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine which would + indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such + indorsement and voted against it; but I never voted against the supplies + for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a + dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise for the benefit of + the soldiers I gave all the votes that FICKLIN or Douglas did, and perhaps + more. + </p> + <p> + [Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter: + Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas + and myself. In reference to this Mexican War, my recollection is that when + Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun of + Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican War was unnecessary + and unconstitutionally commenced by the President-my recollection is that + Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.] + </p> + <p> + That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution censuring + the President for the manner in which the war was begun. You know they + have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the + soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their country. I say that + FICKLIN knows it is false. When that charge was brought forward by the + Chicago Times, the Springfield Register [Douglas's organ] reminded the + Times that the charge really applied to John Henry; and I do know that + John Henry is now making speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. + If the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of setoff to what I + said to-day in reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that he + made this charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He brought this + forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the opening + speech that Judge Douglas made he attacked me in regard to a matter ten + years old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about people making + charges against him only two years old! + </p> + <p> + The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon this + charge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in my opening + speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said that when Judge + Douglas was speaking at place—where I spoke on the succeeding day he + used very harsh language about this charge. Two or three times afterward I + said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's veracity and intelligence; and + my own opinion was, from what I knew of the character of Judge Trumbull, + that he would vindicate his position and prove whatever he had stated to + be true. This I repeated two or three times; and then I dropped it, + without saying anything more on the subject for weeks—perhaps a + month. I passed it by without noticing it at all till I found, at + Jacksonville, Judge Douglas in the plenitude of his power is not willing + to answer Trumbull and let me alone, but he comes out there and uses this + language: "He should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such + charges made by Trumbull but that, Lincoln having indorsed the character + of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln] responsible for the + slanders." What was Lincoln to do? Did he not do right, when he had the + fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas here, to tell him he was ready + for the responsibility? I ask a candid audience whether in doing thus + Judge Douglas was not the assailant rather than I? Here I meet him face to + face, and say I am ready to take the responsibility, so far as it rests on + me. + </p> + <p> + Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the question + whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge + Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it? You all heard me call upon + him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery. Does he say + that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a + forgery? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported by + himself is a forgery, or what is presented as a transcript from the Globe + of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a forgery? Does he say the + quotations from his own speech are forgeries? Does he say this transcript + from Trumbull's speech is a forgery? + </p> + <p> + ["He didn't deny one of them."] + </p> + <p> + I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of a + story is true the whole story turns out false. I take it these people have + some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is playing cuttle-fish, a + small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself when pursued + except by throwing out a black fluid, which makes the water so dark the + enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Ain't the Judge playing the + cuttle-fish? + </p> + <p> + Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge + Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech of + to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces of + testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown to be + such. Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery. Then I ask the + original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is it + possible that the whole is a falsehood? + </p> + <p> + In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision into + the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the people, what + was his answer? He comes here and reads from the Congressional Globe to + show that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill. Why, + Trumbull has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull says he + [Douglas] put it in; and it is no answer to the charge to say he + afterwards took it out. Both are perhaps true. It was in regard to that + thing precisely that I told him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows you + that by his introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to that + assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially say + that Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case, does it answer + Trumbull? I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are here to-day, + and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you were in Mattoon + yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your head, and you prove me a + liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole force of Douglas's + argument. + </p> + <p> + Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that Judge + Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a constitution to + be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge Douglas deny that + fact? Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull reads was put in that + bill? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he dare to deny that? He + does not, and I have the right to repeat the question,—Why Judge + Douglas took it out? Bigler has said there was a combination of certain + senators, among whom he did not include Judge Douglas, by which it was + agreed that the Kansas Bill should have a clause in it not to have the + constitution formed under it submitted to a vote of the people. He did not + say that Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about + the same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken + out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in + concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and done + with a mutual understanding after the conference; and while we do not know + that it was absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that we have a right + to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it was done to tell + what the true reason was. When he will not tell what the true reason was, + he stands in the attitude of an accused thief who has stolen goods in his + possession, and when called to account refuses to tell where he got them. + Not only is this the evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having + the provision stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then but since, + that these alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, + in consultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells us the + same to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in the bill in + committee that he did not vote for. I ask you to remember, while certain + amendments were made which he disapproved of, but which a majority of the + committee voted in, he has himself told us that in this particular the + alterations and modifications were made by him, upon consultation with + Toombs. We have his own word that these alterations were made by him, and + not by the committee. Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so + chary about coming to the exact question? What is the reason he will not + tell you anything about How it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that he + remembers it being made at all? Why does he stand playing upon the meaning + of words and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? If he can explain + all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have the right to infer that Judge + Douglas understood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering that + bill through, to make a constitution, and have Kansas come into the Union + with that constitution, without its being submitted to a vote of the + people. If he will explain his action on this question, by giving a better + reason for the facts that happened than he has done, it will be + satisfactory. But until he does that—until he gives a better or more + plausible reason than he has offered against the evidence in the case—I + suggest to him it will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, + takes on dignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word in + Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has only + arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of reasoning. + There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends on Trumbull's + word. If you have ever studied geometry, you remember that by a course of + reasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a triangle are equal to two + right angles. Euclid has shown you how to work it out. Now, if you + undertake to disprove that proposition, and to show that it is erroneous, + would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar? They tell me that + my time is out, and therefore I close. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0005" id="link2H_4_0005"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, OCTOBER 7, 1858 + </h2> + <h3> + Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY. + </h3> + <p> + MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge Douglas + has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in print. I do + not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all.—-If I had not been + interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I was able to make + to a very large portion of it had already been more than once made and + published. There has been an opportunity afforded to the public to see our + respective views upon the topics discussed in a large portion of the + speech which he has just delivered. I make these remarks for the purpose + of excusing myself for not passing over the entire ground that the Judge + has traversed. I however desire to take up some of the points that he has + attended to, and ask your attention to them, and I shall follow him + backwards upon some notes which I have taken, reversing the order, by + beginning where he concluded. + </p> + <p> + The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and insisted + that negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that it is a + slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that negroes were + meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possible to believe that Mr. + Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have supposed himself + applying the language of that instrument to the negro race, and yet held a + portion of that race in slavery? Would he not at once have freed them? I + only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech (and that, too, + very briefly, for I shall not detain myself, or you, upon that point for + any great length of time), that I believe the entire records of the world, + from the date of the Declaration of Independence up to within three years + ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single + man, that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence; I + think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that + Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any member + of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the whole earth ever + said so, until the necessities of the present policy of the Democratic + party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that affirmation. And I will + remind Judge Douglas and this audience that while Mr. Jefferson was the + owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking upon this very subject + he used the strong language that "he trembled for his country when he + remembered that God was just"; and I will offer the highest premium in my + power to Judge Douglas if he will show that he, in all his life, ever + uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson. + </p> + <p> + The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's comments + upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call our public + meetings as Republican meetings; and he instances Tazewell County as one + of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called a public meeting + and have not dared to name it a Republican meeting. He instances Monroe + County as another, where Judge Trumbull and Jehu Baker addressed the + persons whom the Judge assumes to be the friends of Lincoln calling them + the "Free Democracy." I have the honor to inform Judge Douglas that he + spoke in that very county of Tazewell last Saturday, and I was there on + Tuesday last; and when he spoke there, he spoke under a call not venturing + to use the word "Democrat." [Turning to Judge Douglas.] what think you of + this? + </p> + <p> + So, again, there is another thing to which I would ask the Judge's + attention upon this subject. In the contest of 1856 his party delighted to + call themselves together as the "National Democracy"; but now, if there + should be a notice put up anywhere for a meeting of the "National + Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not come. They would not + suppose themselves invited. They would understand that it was a call for + those hateful postmasters whom he talks about. + </p> + <p> + Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine which + Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in very great + contrast to each other. Those speeches have been before the public for a + considerable time, and if they have any inconsistency in them, if there is + any conflict in them, the public have been able to detect it. When the + Judge says, in speaking on this subject, that I make speeches of one sort + for the people of the northern end of the State, and of a different sort + for the southern people, he assumes that I do not understand that my + speeches will be put in print and read north and south. I knew all the + while that the speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at + Jonesboro and the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all + the reading and intelligent men in the community would see them and know + all about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, + that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will have + it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality between + the white and black races which justifies us in making them slaves, we + must then insist that there is a degree of equality that requires us to + make them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken a broad distinction + in regard to that matter; and that is all there is in these different + speeches which he arrays here; and the entire reading of either of the + speeches will show that that distinction was made. Perhaps by taking two + parts of the same speech he could have got up as much of a conflict as the + one he has found. I have all the while maintained that in so far as it + should be insisted that there was an equality between the white and black + races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it was + an impossibility. This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I + have said that in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of + happiness," as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are + our equals. And these declarations I have constantly made in reference to + the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we are + legislating about any new country which is not already cursed with the + actual presence of the evil,—slavery. I have never manifested any + impatience with the necessities that spring from the actual presence of + black people amongst us, and the actual existence of slavery amongst us + where it does already exist; but I have insisted that, in legislating for + new countries where it does not exist there is no just rule other than + that of moral and abstract right! With reference to those new countries, + those maxims as to the right of a people to "life, liberty, and the + pursuit of happiness" were the just rules to be constantly referred to. + There is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested to + misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an intelligent and + reading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge + whether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I advanced + hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions of + the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, + though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free from all error + in the opinions I advance. + </p> + <p> + The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction between + his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national party, ours a + sectional one. He does this in asking the question whether this country + has any interest in the maintenance of the Republican party. He assumes + that our party is altogether sectional, that the party to which he adheres + is national; and the argument is, that no party can be a rightful party—and + be based upon rightful principles—unless it can announce its + principles everywhere. I presume that Judge Douglas could not go into + Russia and announce the doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not + denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Russia; and + it may be true of this country that in some places we may not be able to + proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of democracy, because + there is a section so directly opposed to it that they will not tolerate + us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of a doctrine that in + some places people won't let you proclaim it? Is that the way to test the + truth of any doctrine? Why, I understood that at one time the people of + Chicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a certain favorite doctrine of + his. I commend to his consideration the question whether he takes that as + a test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. + </p> + <p> + There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little while + on this occasion. What has always been the evidence brought forward to + prove that the Republican party is a sectional party? The main one was + that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did not let the + Republicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That has been the main + evidence brought forward,—that they had no supporters, or + substantially none, in the Slave States. The South have not taken hold of + our principles as we announce them; nor does Judge Douglas now grapple + with those principles. We have a Republican State Platform, laid down in + Springfield in June last stating our position all the way through the + questions before the country. We are now far advanced in this canvass. + Judge Douglas and I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have + now for the fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I + have not found either Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of + the Republican platform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is + wrong. I ask you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away from the + platform of principles to the fact that he can find people somewhere who + will not allow us to announce those principles. If he had great confidence + that our principles were wrong, he would take hold of them and demonstrate + them to be wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he has of their + being wrong is in the fact that there are people who won't allow us to + preach them. I ask again, is that the way to test the soundness of a + doctrine? + </p> + <p> + I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality he is + himself fast becoming sectional. I ask his attention to the fact that his + speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio River as they have + formerly gone there I ask his attention to the fact that he felicitates + himself to-day that all the Democrats of the free States are agreeing with + him, while he omits to tell us that the Democrats of any slave State agree + with him. If he has not thought of this, I commend to his consideration + the evidence in his own declaration, on this day, of his becoming + sectional too. I see it rapidly approaching. Whatever may be the result of + this ephemeral contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day + rapidly approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has been + thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be crowded + down his own throat. + </p> + <p> + Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his speech) + about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principles of the Nebraska + Bill, although I have often presented my views upon that subject, yet as I + have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you please, detain you a + little with them. I have always maintained, so far as I was able, that + there was nothing of the principle of the Nebraska Bill in the Compromise + of 1850 at all,—nothing whatever. Where can you find the principle + of the Nebraska Bill in that Compromise? If anywhere, in the two pieces of + the Compromise organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was + expressly provided in these two acts that when they came to be admitted + into the Union they should be admitted with or without slavery, as they + should choose, by their own constitutions. Nothing was said in either of + those acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery during the + Territorial existence of those Territories, while Henry Clay constantly + made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him as a leader) that, in + his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control that question during the + Territorial existence, and that these old Mexican laws excluded slavery. + How can that be used as a principle for declaring that during the + Territorial existence as well as at the time of framing the constitution + the people, if you please, might have slaves if they wanted them? I am not + discussing the question whether it is right or wrong; but how are the New + Mexican and Utah laws patterns for the Nebraska Bill? I maintain that the + organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general principle + at all. It had no feature of establishing a general principle. The acts to + which I have referred were a part of a general system of Compromises. They + did not lay down what was proposed as a regular policy for the + Territories, only an agreement in this particular case to do in that way, + because other things were done that were to be a compensation for it. They + were allowed to come in in that shape, because in another way it was paid + for, considering that as a part of that system of measures called the + Compromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen acts. It included + the admission of California as a free State, which was kept out of the + Union for half a year because it had formed a free constitution. It + included the settlement of the boundary of Texas, which had been undefined + before, which was in itself a slavery question; for if you pushed the line + farther west, you made Texas larger, and made more slave territory; while, + if you drew the line toward the east, you narrowed the boundary and + diminished the domain of slavery, and by so much increased free territory. + It included the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. + It included the passage of a new Fugitive Slave law. All these things were + put together, and, though passed in separate acts, were nevertheless, in + legislation (as the speeches at the time will show), made to depend upon + each other. Each got votes with the understanding that the other measures + were to pass, and by this system of compromise, in that series of + measures, those two bills—the New Mexico and Utah bills—were + passed: and I say for that reason they could not be taken as models, + framed upon their own intrinsic principle, for all future Territories. And + I have the evidence of this in the fact that Judge Douglas, a year + afterward, or more than a year afterward, perhaps, when he first + introduced bills for the purpose of framing new Territories, did not + attempt to follow these bills of New Mexico and Utah; and even when he + introduced this Nebraska Bill, I think you will discover that he did not + exactly follow them. But I do not wish to dwell at great length upon this + branch of the discussion. My own opinion is, that a thorough investigation + will show most plainly that the New Mexico and Utah bills were part of a + system of compromise, and not designed as patterns for future Territorial + legislation; and that this Nebraska Bill did not follow them as a pattern + at all. + </p> + <p> + The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any odious + distinctions between free and slave States. I am altogether unaware that + the Republicans are in favor of making any odious distinctions between the + free and slave States. But there is still a difference, I think, between + Judge Douglas and the Republicans in this. I suppose that the real + difference between Judge Douglas and his friends, and the Republicans on + the contrary, is, that the Judge is not in favor of making any difference + between slavery and liberty; that he is in favor of eradicating, of + pressing out of view, the questions of preference in this country for free + or slave institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards + the idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Everything that emanates from + him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully excludes the + thought that there is anything wrong in slavery. All their arguments, if + you will consider them, will be seen to exclude the thought that there is + anything whatever wrong in slavery. If you will take the Judge's speeches, + and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him,—as his + declaration that he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or down,"—you + will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that + slavery is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot + logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. + Judge Douglas declares that if any community wants slavery they have a + right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no + wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot + logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. He insists that upon + the score of equality the owners of slaves and owners of property—of + horses and every other sort of property—should be alike, and hold + them alike in a new Territory. That is perfectly logical if the two + species of property are alike and are equally founded in right. But if you + admit that one of them is wrong, you cannot institute any equality between + right and wrong. And from this difference of sentiment,—the belief + on the part of one that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing + from that belief which looks to the arrest of the enlargement of that + wrong, and this other sentiment, that it is no wrong, and a policy sprung + from that sentiment, which will tolerate no idea of preventing the wrong + from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end to it through + all the existence of things,—arises the real difference between + Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand and the Republicans on the + other. Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who + contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political evil, having due + regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting + rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional + obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a + policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully + to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, if not the + seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or + combination between the National Democrats and Republicans. What evidence + Judge Douglas has upon this subject I know not, inasmuch as he never + favors us with any. I have said upon a former occasion, and I do not + choose to suppress it now, that I have no objection to the division in the + Judge's party. He got it up himself. It was all his and their work. He + had, I think, a great deal more to do with the steps that led to the + Lecompton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had; though at last, when they + reached it, they quarreled over it, and their friends divided upon it. I + am very free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have no objection to the + division; but I defy the Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way + promoted that division, unless he insists on being a witness himself in + merely saying so. I can give all fair friends of Judge Douglas here to + understand exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to that + division. Don't you remember how two years ago the opponents of the + Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess you + do. Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also that he + was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to see all there + is between the National Democrats and the Republicans. What we now think + of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fremont and + Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. + </p> + <p> + But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there is an + unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the National + Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving him as an + entirely competent witness upon that subject. I want to call to the + Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first one of these + debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order to fix extreme + Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which he + declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in October, + 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken part in that + Convention. It turned out that although a few men calling themselves an + anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at Springfield about that time, yet + neither did I take any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or any + such resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So apparent had it become that the + resolutions which he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor + by a State Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days + afterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by + Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L. Harris, + member of Congress in that district, and he promised in that speech that + when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter. Since then + Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made the + investigation; but a month has passed since he has been there, and, so far + as I know, he has made no report of the result of his investigation. I + have waited as I think sufficient time for the report of that + investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A fraud, an + absolute forgery was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced to + the three,—Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed + in any way so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's + report would probably show. + </p> + <p> + It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were + published in the Illinois State Register on the 16th of October, 1854, as + being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention which had sat in that + same month of October, at Springfield. But it is also true that the + publication in the Register was a forgery then, and the question is still + behind, which of the three, if not all of them, committed that forgery. + The idea that it was done by mistake is absurd. The article in the + Illinois State Register contains part of the real proceedings of that + Springfield Convention, showing that the writer of the article had the + real proceedings before him, and purposely threw out the genuine + resolutions passed by the Convention and fraudulently substituted the + others. Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of the Register, so that + there seems to be but little room for his escape. But then it is to be + borne in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of that + forgery than either of the other two. The main object of that forgery at + that time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to Congress, and that object + was known to be exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and + Douglas were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, and + although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register, + subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon that + Convention. + </p> + <p> + The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both Harris + and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put it to + new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband was brought home + with his body full of eels, said when she was asked what was to be done + with him, "Take the eels out and set him again," so Harris and Douglas + have shown a disposition to take the eels out of that stale fraud by which + they gained Harris's election, and set the fraud again more than once. On + the 9th of July, 1856, Douglas attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull + on the floor of the Senate of the United States, as will appear from the + appendix of the Congressional Globe of that date. + </p> + <p> + On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton in the House + of Representatives, as will appear by the same documents,—the + appendix to the Congressional Globe of that date. On the 21st of August + last, all three—Lanphier, Douglas, and Harris—reattempted it + upon me at Ottawa. It has been clung to and played out again and again as + an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio. And now that it has been + discovered publicly to be a fraud we find that Judge Douglas manifests no + surprise at it at all. He makes no complaint of Lanphier, who must have + known it to be a fraud from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and Harris are + just as cozy now and just as active in the concoction of new schemes as + they were before the general discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is + very natural if they are all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very + unnatural if any one of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists that + the rule of honor among thieves does not quite require him to take all + upon himself, and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult + to make a satisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the + three are agreed that each is "a most honorable man." + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a + re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports against + me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which we know to be + utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to think that this one + unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate, will be the least + drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He asks a re-election to + the lower House of Congress without seeming to remember at all that he is + involved in this dishonorable fraud! The Illinois State Register, edited + by Lanphier, then, as now, the central organ of both Harris and Douglas, + continues to din the public ear with this assertion, without seeming to + suspect that these assertions are at all lacking in title to belief. + </p> + <p> + After all, the question still recurs upon us, How did that fraud + originally get into the State Register? Lanphier then, as now, was the + editor of that paper. Lanphier knows. Lanphier cannot be ignorant of how + and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he be induced to tell, or, if + he has told, can Judge Douglas be induced to tell how it originally was + concocted? It may be true that Lanphier insists that the two men for whose + benefit it was originally devised shall at least bear their share of it! + How that is, I do not know, and while it remains unexplained I hope to be + pardoned if I insist that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making charges + against Trumbull and myself is not quite sufficient evidence to establish + them! + </p> + <p> + While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I answered + certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded to me, and then + in turn propounded some to him, which he in a sort of way answered. The + third one of these interrogatories I have with me, and wish now to make + some comments upon it. It was in these words: "If the Supreme Court of + States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of + acquiescing in, adhering to, and following such decision as a rule of + political action?" + </p> + <p> + To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense of + the word. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that it was + possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. He sneered at + me for propounding the interrogatory. I had not propounded it without some + reflection, and I wish now to address to this audience some remarks upon + it. + </p> + <p> + In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe it is, of the + Constitution of the United States, we find the following language: + </p> + <p> + "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made + in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under + the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; + and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the + Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." + </p> + <p> + The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence which I + will now read: + </p> + <p> + "Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a + different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and + expressly affirmed in the Constitution." + </p> + <p> + I repeat it, "The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly + affirmed in the Constitution"! What is it to be "affirmed" in the + Constitution? Made firm in the Constitution, so made that it cannot be + separated from the Constitution without breaking the Constitution; durable + as the Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now, remembering the + provision of the Constitution which I have read—affirming that that + instrument is the supreme law of the land; that the judges of every State + shall be bound by it, any law or constitution of any State to the contrary + notwithstanding; that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that + Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be separated from it + without breaking it; durable as the instrument; part of the instrument;—what + follows as a short and even syllogistic argument from it? I think it + follows, and I submit to the consideration of men capable of arguing + whether, as I state it, in syllogistic form, the argument has any fault in + it: + </p> + <p> + Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right + distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United + States. + </p> + <p> + The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in + the Constitution of the United States. + </p> + <p> + Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy + the right of property in a slave. + </p> + <p> + I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming the + truth of the premises, the conclusion, so far as I have capacity at all to + understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault in it as I think, but + the fault is not in the reasoning; but the falsehood in fact is a fault of + the premises. I believe that the right of property in a slave is not + distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge Douglas + thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates of that + decision may search in vain for the place in the Constitution where the + right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed I say, + therefore, that I think one of the premises is not true in fact. But it is + true with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced + it. They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying it, + the conclusion follows that, the Constitution of the United States being + the supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere with it. It being + affirmed in the decision that the right of property in a slave is + distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion + inevitably follows that no State law or constitution can destroy that + right. I then say to Judge Douglas and to all others that I think it will + take a better answer than a sneer to show that those who have said that + the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in + the Constitution, are not prepared to show that no constitution or law can + destroy that right. I say I believe it will take a far better argument + than a mere sneer to show to the minds of intelligent men that whoever has + so said is not prepared, whenever public sentiment is so far advanced as + to justify it, to say the other. This is but an opinion, and the opinion + of one very humble man; but it is my opinion that the Dred Scott decision, + as it is, never would have been made in its present form if the party that + made it had not been sustained previously by the elections. My own opinion + is, that the new Dred Scott decision, deciding against the right of the + people of the States to exclude slavery, will never be made if that party + is not sustained by the elections. I believe, further, that it is just as + sure to be made as to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained. + I have said, upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course + of arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge + not his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new Dred + Scott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the reasons for + his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. I have turned his + attention to the fact that General Jackson differed with him in regard to + the political obligation of a Supreme Court decision. I have asked his + attention to the fact that Jefferson differed with him in regard to the + political obligation of a Supreme Court decision. Jefferson said that + "Judges are as honest as other men, and not more so." And he said, + substantially, that whenever a free people should give up in absolute + submission to any department of government, retaining for themselves no + appeal from it, their liberties were gone. I have asked his attention to + the fact that the Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, + disregards a time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the + power of Congress to establish a National Bank. I have asked his attention + to the fact that he himself was one of the most active instruments at one + time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois because + it had made a decision distasteful to him,—a struggle ending in the + remarkable circumstance of his sitting down as one of the new Judges who + were to overslaugh that decision; getting his title of Judge in that very + way. + </p> + <p> + So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from Judge Douglas + upon these subjects. Not one can I get from him, except that he swells + himself up and says, "All of us who stand by the decision of the Supreme + Court are the friends of the Constitution; all you fellows that dare + question it in any way are the enemies of the Constitution." Now, in this + very devoted adherence to this decision, in opposition to all the great + political leaders whom he has recognized as leaders, in opposition to his + former self and history, there is something very marked. And the manner in + which he adheres to it,—not as being right upon the merits, as he + conceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being + absolutely obligatory upon every one simply because of the source from + whence it comes, as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be,—this + is another marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it + in this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it + comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not investigate + it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong. So he takes + the next one without inquiring whether it is right or wrong. He teaches + men this doctrine, and in so doing prepares the public mind to take the + next decision when it comes, without any inquiry. In this I think I argue + fairly (without questioning motives at all) that Judge Douglas is most + ingeniously and powerfully preparing the public mind to take that decision + when it comes; and not only so, but he is doing it in various other ways. + In these general maxims about liberty, in his assertions that he "don't + care whether slavery is voted up or voted down,"; that "whoever wants + slavery has a right to have it"; that "upon principles of equality it + should be allowed to go everywhere"; that "there is no inconsistency + between free and slave institutions"—in this he is also preparing + (whether purposely or not) the way for making the institution of slavery + national! I repeat again, for I wish no misunderstanding, that I do not + charge that he means it so; but I call upon your minds to inquire, if you + were going to get the best instrument you could, and then set it to work + in the most ingenious way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, + operating in the free States, where there is now an abhorrence of the + institution of slavery, could you find an instrument so capable of doing + it as Judge Douglas, or one employed in so apt a way to do it? + </p> + <p> + I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, when he + was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, that it had a + tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, said that: + </p> + <p> + "Those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate + emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the + Colonization Society: they must go back to the era of our liberty and + independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous + return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate + the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love of + liberty!" + </p> + <p> + And I do think—I repeat, though I said it on a former occasion—that + Judge Douglas and whoever, like him, teaches that the negro has no share, + humble though it may be, in the Declaration of Independence, is going back + to the era of our liberty and independence, and, so far as in him lies, + muzzling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return; that he is + blowing out the moral lights around us, when he contends that whoever + wants slaves has a right to hold them; that he is penetrating, so far as + lies in his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of reason and + the love of liberty, when he is in every possible way preparing the public + mind, by his vast influence, for making the institution of slavery + perpetual and national. + </p> + <p> + There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your + attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I shall + not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may not take me + clear through it. + </p> + <p> + Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at Freeport, + there was one in about this language: + </p> + <p> + "Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the United + States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?" + </p> + <p> + I answered, as I thought, in this way: that I am not generally opposed to + the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would support a + proposition for the acquisition of additional territory according as my + supporting it was or was not calculated to aggravate this slavery question + amongst us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another interrogatory, which + was correlative to that: "Are you in favor of acquiring additional + territory, in disregard of how it may affect us upon the slavery + question?" Judge Douglas answered,—that is, in his own way he + answered it. I believe that, although he took a good many words to answer + it, it was a little more fully answered than any other. The substance of + his answer was that this country would continue to expand; that it would + need additional territory; that it was as absurd to suppose that we could + continue upon our present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as + it would be to hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow to + man's size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was something like + that. Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of further + territory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might affect + the slavery question. I do not say this as giving his exact language, but + he said so substantially; and he would leave the question of slavery, + where the territory was acquired, to be settled by the people of the + acquired territory. ["That's the doctrine."] May be it is; let us consider + that for a while. This will probably, in the run of things, become one of + the concrete manifestations of this slavery question. If Judge Douglas's + policy upon this question succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until + all opposition is crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the + territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, + then the adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promises + additional slave-fields. And this question is to be left to the people of + those countries for settlement. When we get Mexico, I don't know whether + the Judge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it + settling that question for themselves and all others; because we know the + Judge has a great horror for mongrels, and I understand that the people of + Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is + not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white, and I + suppose from the Judge's previous declaration that when we get Mexico, or + any considerable portion of it, that he will be in favor of these mongrels + settling the question, which would bring him somewhat into collision with + his horror of an inferior race. + </p> + <p> + It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring additional + territory is a power confided to the President and the Senate of the + United States. It is a power not under the control of the representatives + of the people any further than they, the President and the Senate, can be + considered the representatives of the people. Let me illustrate that by a + case we have in our history. When we acquired the territory from Mexico in + the Mexican War, the House of Representatives, composed of the immediate + representatives of the people, all the time insisted that the territory + thus to be acquired should be brought in upon condition that slavery + should be forever prohibited therein, upon the terms and in the language + that slavery had been prohibited from coming into this country. That was + insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an assurance that + any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it, so far as + the House of Representatives was concerned. But at last the President and + Senate acquired the territory without asking the House of Representatives + anything about it, and took it without that prohibition. They have the + power of acquiring territory without the immediate representatives of the + people being called upon to say anything about it, and thus furnishing a + very apt and powerful means of bringing new territory into the Union, and, + when it is once brought into the country, involving us anew in this + slavery agitation. It is therefore, as I think, a very important question + for due consideration of the American people, whether the policy of + bringing in additional territory, without considering at all how it will + operate upon the safety of the Union in reference to this one great + disturbing element in our national politics, shall be adopted as the + policy of the country. You will bear in mind that it is to be acquired, + according to the Judge's view, as fast as it is needed, and the indefinite + part of this proposition is that we have only Judge Douglas and his class + of men to decide how fast it is needed. We have no clear and certain way + of determining or demonstrating how fast territory is needed by the + necessities of the country. Whoever wants to go out filibustering, then, + thinks that more territory is needed. Whoever wants wider slave-fields + feels sure that some additional territory is needed as slave territory. + Then it is as easy to show the necessity of additional slave-territory as + it is to assert anything that is incapable of absolute demonstration. + Whatever motive a man or a set of men may have for making annexation of + property or territory, it is very easy to assert, but much less easy to + disprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country. + </p> + <p> + And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very grave + question for the people of this Union to consider, whether, in view of the + fact that this slavery question has been the only one that has ever + endangered our Republican institutions, the only one that has ever + threatened or menaced a dissolution of the Union, that has ever disturbed + us in such a way as to make us fear for the perpetuity of our liberty,—in + view of these facts, I think it is an exceedingly interesting and + important question for this people to consider whether we shall engage in + the policy of acquiring additional territory, discarding altogether from + our consideration, while obtaining new territory, the question how it may + affect us in regard to this, the only endangering element to our liberties + and national greatness. The Judge's view has been expressed. I, in my + answer to his question, have expressed mine. I think it will become an + important and practical question. Our views are before the public. I am + willing and anxious that they should consider them fully; that they should + turn it about and consider the importance of the question, and arrive at a + just conclusion as to whether it is or is not wise in the people of this + Union, in the acquisition of new territory, to consider whether it will + add to the disturbance that is existing amongst us—whether it will + add to the one only danger that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the + Union or our own liberties. I think it is extremely important that they + shall decide, and rightly decide, that question before entering upon that + policy. + </p> + <p> + And now, my friends, having said the little I wish to say upon this head, + whether I have occupied the whole of the remnant of my time or not, I + believe I could not enter upon any new topic so as to treat it fully, + without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment think of + doing. I give way to Judge Douglas. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0006" id="link2H_4_0006"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, 1858. + </h2> + <p> + LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have had no immediate conference with Judge + Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree that + your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will be most + agreeable to us. + </p> + <p> + In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois which + have since been consolidated into the Republican party assembled together + in a State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted at that time what, in + political language, is called a platform. In June of the same year the + elements of the Republican party in the nation assembled together in a + National Convention at Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the + National Platform. In June, 1858,—the present year,—the + Republicans of Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, + and adopted again their platform, as I suppose not differing in any + essential particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding + something in relation to the new developments of political progress in the + country. + </p> + <p> + The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be one, + and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the United + States Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this canvass, I + stood generally upon these platforms. We are now met together on the 13th + of October of the same year, only four months from the adoption of the + last platform, and I am unaware that in this canvass, from the beginning + until to-day, any one of our adversaries has taken hold of our platforms, + or laid his finger upon anything that he calls wrong in them. + </p> + <p> + In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator Douglas + and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these platforms, + or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to hold me + responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the meeting of + either one of these conventions of which I have spoken. And as a ground + for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he assumed that they had + been passed at a State Convention of the Republican party, and that I took + part in that Convention. It was discovered afterward that this was + erroneous, that the resolutions which he endeavored to hold me responsible + for had not been passed by any State Convention anywhere, had not been + passed at Springfield, where he supposed they had, or assumed that they + had, and that they had been passed in no convention in which I had taken + part. The Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the point that + he was endeavoring to make upon me, and he therefore thought to still hold + me to the point that he was endeavoring to make, by showing that the + resolutions that he read had been passed at a local convention in the + northern part of the State, although it was not a local convention that + embraced my residence at all, nor one that reached, as I suppose, nearer + than one hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of where I was when it + met, nor one in which I took any part at all. He also introduced other + resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by combining the whole, + although they were all antecedent to the two State Conventions and the one + National Convention I have mentioned, still he insisted, and now insists, + as I understand, that I am in some way responsible for them. + </p> + <p> + At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I was in + no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this local + meeting or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in which I was in + no way embraced; but I insisted to him that if he thought I was + responsible for every man or every set of men everywhere, who happen to be + my friends, the rule ought to work both ways, and he ought to be + responsible for the acts and resolutions of all men or sets of men who + were or are now his supporters and friends, and gave him a pretty long + string of resolutions, passed by men who are now his friends, and + announcing doctrines for which he does not desire to be held responsible. + </p> + <p> + This still does not satisfy Judge Douglas. He still adheres to his + proposition, that I am responsible for what some of my friends in + different parts of the State have done, but that he is not responsible for + what his have done. At least, so I understand him. But in addition to + that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, last week, undertakes to + establish that I am guilty of a species of double dealing with the public; + that I make speeches of a certain sort in the north, among the + Abolitionists, which I would not make in the south, and that I make + speeches of a certain sort in the south which I would not make in the + north. I apprehend, in the course I have marked out for myself, that I + shall not have to dwell at very great length upon this subject. + </p> + <p> + As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had an + opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something in + answer to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech of mine + delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he brought forward an + extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted that I + was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that his conclusion followed, that + I was playing a double part, and speaking in one region one way, and in + another region another way. I have not time now to dwell on this as long + as I would like, and wish only now to requote that portion of my speech at + Charleston which the Judge quoted, and then make some comments upon it. + This he quotes from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I believe + correctly: + </p> + <p> + "I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing + about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black + races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or + jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to + intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that + there is a physical difference between the white and black races which + will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and + political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do + remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am + as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned + to the white race." + </p> + <p> + This, I believe, is the entire quotation from Charleston speech, as Judge + Douglas made it his comments are as follows: + </p> + <p> + "Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right when + he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that he + discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and + inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for Mr. + Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in the + Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared equal, + and endowed by divine law with equality. And down South, with the old-line + Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians and the Tennesseeans, he tells + you that there is a physical difference between the races, making the one + superior, the other inferior, and he is in favor of maintaining the + superiority of the white race over the negro." + </p> + <p> + Those are the Judges comments. Now, I wish to show you that a month, or + only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech at + Charleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say + substantially the same thing It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa—and + I will say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was in, after + a while—but at our first meeting, at Ottawa, I read an extract from + an old speech of mine, made nearly four years ago, not merely to show my + sentiments, but to show that my sentiments were long entertained and + openly expressed; in which extract I expressly declared that my own + feelings would not admit a social and political equality between the white + and black races, and that even if my own feelings would admit of it, I + still knew that the public sentiment of the country would not, and that + such a thing was an utter impossibility, or substantially that. That + extract from my old speech the reporters by some sort of accident passed + over, and it was not reported. I lay no blame upon anybody. I suppose they + thought that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while I + was giving it, but afterward went away without getting it from me. At the + end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at Ottawa, I made + the comments which were reported at that time, and which I will now read, + and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the same as Judge Douglas + says were delivered by me down in Egypt. After reading, I added these + words: + </p> + <p> + "Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length; but this is the + true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of + slavery or the black race, and this is the whole of it: anything that + argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the + negro, is but a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which a + man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, + while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, + to interfere with the institution in the States where it exists. I believe + I have no right to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no + purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and + black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my + judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the + footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that + there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of + the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said + anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there + is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights + enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,—the right of life, + liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled + to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my + equal in many respects, certainly not in color, perhaps not in + intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread, + without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my + equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." + </p> + <p> + I have chiefly introduced this for the purpose of meeting the Judge's + charge that the quotation he took from my Charleston speech was what I + would say down South among the Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc., but + would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of the + Abolition element. I now make this comment: That speech from which I have + now read the quotation, and which is there given correctly—perhaps + too much so for good taste—was made away up North in the Abolition + District of this State par excellence, in the Lovejoy District, in the + personal presence of Lovejoy, for he was on the stand with us when I made + it. It had been made and put in print in that region only three days less + than a month before the speech made at Charleston, the like of which Judge + Douglas thinks I would not make where there was any Abolition element. I + only refer to this matter to say that I am altogether unconscious of + having attempted any double-dealing anywhere; that upon one occasion I may + say one thing, and leave other things unsaid, and vice versa, but that I + have said anything on one occasion that is inconsistent with what I have + said elsewhere, I deny, at least I deny it so far as the intention is + concerned. I find that I have devoted to this topic a larger portion of my + time than I had intended. I wished to show, but I will pass it upon this + occasion, that in the sentiment I have occasionally advanced upon the + Declaration of Independence I am entirely borne out by the sentiments + advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I have the book here to + show it from but because I have already occupied more time than I intended + to do on that topic, I pass over it. + </p> + <p> + At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, pushed to + its legitimate consequences, slavery would be established in all the + States as well as in the Territories. I did this because, upon a former + occasion, I had asked Judge Douglas whether, if the Supreme Court should + make a decision declaring that the States had not the power to exclude + slavery from their limits, he would adopt and follow that decision as a + rule of political action; and because he had not directly answered that + question, but had merely contented himself with sneering at it, I again + introduced it, and tried to show that the conclusion that I stated + followed inevitably and logically from the proposition already decided by + the court. Judge Douglas had the privilege of replying to me at + Galesburgh, and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether he would + or would not sustain such a decision if made. I give him his third chance + to say yes or no. He is not obliged to do either, probably he will not do + either; but I give him the third chance. I tried to show then that this + result, this conclusion, inevitably followed from the point already + decided by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thought + of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his remarks + upon this subject uses the language which I will now read. Speaking of me, + the Judge says: + </p> + <p> + "He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry slavery + into the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself says the + contrary." And he adds: + </p> + <p> + "Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that holds + that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their opinions held the + reverse." + </p> + <p> + I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying that I + have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge Douglas to lay + his finger upon the place in the entire opinions of the court where any + one of them "says the contrary." It is very hard to affirm a negative with + entire confidence. I say, however, that I have examined that decision with + a good deal of care, as a lawyer examines a decision and, so far as I have + been able to do so, the court has nowhere in its opinions said that the + States have the power to exclude slavery, nor have they used other + language substantially that, I also say, so far as I can find, not one of + the concurring judges has said that the States can exclude slavery, nor + said anything that was substantially that. The nearest approach that any + one of them has made to it, so far as I can find, was by Judge Nelson, and + the approach he made to it was exactly, in substance, the Nebraska Bill,—that + the States had the exclusive power over the question of slavery, so far as + they are not limited by the Constitution of the United States. I asked the + question, therefore, if the non-concurring judges, McLean or Curtis, had + asked to get an express declaration that the States could absolutely + exclude slavery from their limits, what reason have we to believe that it + would not have been voted down by the majority of the judges, just as + Chase's amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it + was offered to the Nebraska Bill. + </p> + <p> + Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield + resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at Ottawa, and + commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as presented, not + genuine. Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to be somewhat + exasperated. He said he would never have believed that Abraham Lincoln, as + he kindly called me, would have attempted such a thing as I had attempted + upon that occasion; and among other expressions which he used toward me, + was that I dared to say forgery, that I had dared to say forgery [turning + to Judge Douglas]. Yes, Judge, I did dare to say forgery. But in this + political canvass the Judge ought to remember that I was not the first who + dared to say forgery. At Jacksonville, Judge Douglas made a speech in + answer to something said by Judge Trumbull, and at the close of what he + said upon that subject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged his + evidence. He said, too, that he should not concern himself with Trumbull + any more, but thereafter he should hold Lincoln responsible for the + slanders upon him. When I met him at Charleston after that, although I + think that I should not have noticed the subject if he had not said he + would hold me responsible for it, I spread out before him the statements + of the evidence that Judge Trumbull had used, and I asked Judge Douglas, + piece by piece, to put his finger upon one piece of all that evidence that + he would say was a forgery! When I went through with each and every piece, + Judge Douglas did not dare then to say that any piece of it was a forgery. + So it seems that there are some things that Judge Douglas dares to do, and + some that he dares not to do. + </p> + <p> + [A voice: It is the same thing with you.] + </p> + <p> + Yes, sir, it is the same thing with me. I do dare to say forgery when it + is true, and don't dare to say forgery when it is false. Now I will say + here to this audience and to Judge Douglas I have not dared to say he + committed a forgery, and I never shall until I know it; but I did dare to + say—just to suggest to the Judge—that a forgery had been + committed, which by his own showing had been traced to him and two of his + friends. I dared to suggest to him that he had expressly promised in one + of his public speeches to investigate that matter, and I dared to suggest + to him that there was an implied promise that when he investigated it he + would make known the result. I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could + not expect to be quite clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the + time that promise was made he had been with those friends, and had not + kept his promise in regard to the investigation and the report upon it. I + am not a very daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much + scared about it yet. When the Judge says he would n't have believed of + Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that he reminds + me of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the purpose to treat + me courteously; that touched me somewhat. It sets me to thinking. I was + aware, when it was first agreed that Judge Douglas and I were to have + these seven joint discussions, that they were the successive acts of a + drama, perhaps I should say, to be enacted, not merely in the face of + audiences like this, but in the face of the nation, and to some extent, by + my relation to him, and not from anything in myself, in the face of the + world; and I am anxious that they should be conducted with dignity and in + the good temper which would be befitting the vast audiences before which + it was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and made + his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some sort of a + reply to it. His second speech was made at Bloomington, in which he + commented upon my speech at Chicago and said that I had used language + ingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions, or words to that effect. + Now, I understand that this is an imputation upon my veracity and my + candor. I do not know what the Judge understood by it, but in our first + discussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a bargain, somewhat corrupt + in its character, upon Trumbull and myself,—that we had entered into + a bargain, one of the terms of which was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize + the old Democratic party, and I (Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig + party; I pretending to be as good an old-line Whig as ever. Judge Douglas + may not understand that he implicated my truthfulness and my honor when he + said I was doing one thing and pretending another; and I misunderstood him + if he thought he was treating me in a dignified way, as a man of honor and + truth, as he now claims he was disposed to treat me. Even after that time, + at Galesburgh, when he brings forward an extract from a speech made at + Chicago and an extract from a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I + was trying to play a double part, that I was trying to cheat the public, + and get votes upon one set of principles at one place, and upon another + set of principles at another place,—I do not understand but what he + impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does this, + I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground for it, to + keep my hands off of him. As soon as I learned that Judge Douglas was + disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of my speeches that I + should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble resources I might have,—to + adopt a new course with him. I was not entirely sure that I should be able + to hold my own with him, but I at least had the purpose made to do as well + as I could upon him; and now I say that I will not be the first to cry + "Hold." I think it originated with the Judge, and when he quits, I + probably will. But I shall not ask any favors at all. He asks me, or he + asks the audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of personal + difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make a mistake, in one of his early + speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though perhaps he did when + he called me an "intelligent" man. It really hurts me very much to suppose + that I have wronged anybody on earth. I again tell him, no! I very much + prefer, when this canvass shall be over, however it may result, that we at + least part without any bitter recollections of personal difficulties. + </p> + <p> + The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was pushing + this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the responsibility for the + enormity of my principles. I say to the Judge and this audience, now, that + I will again state our principles, as well as I hastily can, in all their + enormity, and if the Judge hereafter chooses to confine himself to a war + upon these principles, he will probably not find me departing from the + same course. + </p> + <p> + We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery. It is a matter of + absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. It is the opinion of + all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it is a + dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in regard to it. That + controversy necessarily springs from difference of opinion; and if we can + learn exactly—can reduce to the lowest elements—what that + difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for + discussing the different systems of policy that we would propose in regard + to that disturbing element. I suggest that the difference of opinion, + reduced to its lowest of terms, is no other than the difference between + the men who think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The + Republican party think it wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a + political wrong. We think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the + persons or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its + tendency, to say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the + whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy + that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other + wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal + with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it. + We have a due regard to the actual presence of it amongst us, and the + difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the + constitutional obligations thrown about it. I suppose that in reference + both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional + obligations, we have no right at all to disturb it in the States where it + exists, and we profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than + we have the right to do it. We go further than that: we don't propose to + disturb it where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit + us. We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the + District of Columbia. Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it + should be in terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely soon to + agree to,—the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and + compensating the unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the + constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the actual + existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about it. We also + oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. We insist on the + policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. We don't suppose that + in doing this we violate anything due to the actual presence of the + institution, or anything due to the constitutional guaranties thrown + around it. + </p> + <p> + We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I ought + perhaps to address you a few words. We do not propose that when Dred Scott + has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will decide him + to be free. We do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, + shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way + disturb the rights of property thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose + that decision as a political rule which shall be binding on the voter to + vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members + of Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually + concur with the principles of that decision. We do not propose to be bound + by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays the + foundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we consider an + evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil into the States + themselves. We propose so resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, + and a new judicial rule established upon this subject. + </p> + <p> + I will add this: that if there be any man who does not believe that + slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in any + one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while on the + other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is impatient + over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and is impatient of + the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and would act in disregard + of these, he too is misplaced, standing with us. He will find his place + somewhere else; for we have a due regard, so far as we are capable of + understanding them, for all these things. This, gentlemen, as well as I + can give it, is a plain statement of our principles in all their enormity. + I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to me,—a + sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore it goes for + the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a wrong. That policy + is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is the Democratic sentiment. + If there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this vast audience that this + is really the central idea of the Democratic party in relation to this + subject, I ask him to bear with me while I state a few things tending, as + I think, to prove that proposition. In the first place, the leading man—I + think I may do my friend Judge Douglas the honor of calling him such + advocating the present Democratic policy never himself says it is wrong. + He has the high distinction, so far as I know, of never having said + slavery is either right or wrong. Almost everybody else says one or the + other, but the Judge never does. If there be a man in the Democratic party + who thinks it is wrong, and yet clings to that party, I suggest to him, in + the first place, that his leader don't talk as he does, for he never says + that it is wrong. In the second place, I suggest to him that if he will + examine the policy proposed to be carried forward, he will find that he + carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. If you + will examine the arguments that are made on it, you will find that every + one carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in slavery. + Perhaps that Democrat who says he is as much opposed to slavery as I am + will tell me that I am wrong about this. I wish him to examine his own + course in regard to this matter a moment, and then see if his opinion will + not be changed a little. You say it is wrong; but don't you constantly + object to anybody else saying so? Do you not constantly argue that this is + not the right place to oppose it? You say it must not be opposed in the + free States, because slavery is not here; it must not be opposed in the + slave States, because it is there; it must not be opposed in politics, + because that will make a fuss; it must not be opposed in the pulpit, + because it is not religion. Then where is the place to oppose it? There is + no suitable place to oppose it. There is no place in the country to oppose + this evil overspreading the continent, which you say yourself is coming. + Frank Blair and Gratz Brown tried to get up a system of gradual + emancipation in Missouri, had an election in August, and got beat, and + you, Mr. Democrat, threw up your hat, and hallooed "Hurrah for Democracy!" + So I say, again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge + Douglas Says he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," + whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as + a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to + say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything wrong in it; + but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He + cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When + Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they + have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing + wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot + logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. When he says that + slave property and horse and hog property are alike to be allowed to go + into the Territories, upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning + truly, if there is no difference between them as property; but if the one + is property held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no + equality between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in anyway you can, + in all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that policy + itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is + anything wrong in slavery. Let us understand this. I am not, just here, + trying to prove that we are right, and they are wrong. I have been stating + where we and they stand, and trying to show what is the real difference + between us; and I now say that whenever we can get the question distinctly + stated, can get all these men who believe that slavery is in some of these + respects wrong to stand and act with us in treating it as a wrong,—then, + and not till then, I think we will in some way come to an end of this + slavery agitation. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0007" id="link2H_4_0007"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. + </h2> + <p> + MY FRIENDS:—Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion + that he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said in an + hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in half an + hour all that he said in an hour and a half. + </p> + <p> + I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public + annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of policy + in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it shall last + forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of this + controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. Judge + Douglas asks you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why + cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made + it, forever? In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make + this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I + insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did + not make it so but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid + of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter + of choice, the fathers of the government made this nation part slave and + part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: + when the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the + abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from + the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed + it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the + course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it + cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends + could not let it remain as our fathers made it? + </p> + <p> + It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of + slavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers placed it + upon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly said, that when + this government was established, no one expected the institution of + slavery to last until this day, and that the men who formed this + government were wiser and better than the men of these days; but the men + of these days had experience which the fathers had not, and that + experience had taught them the invention of the cotton-gin, and this had + made the perpetuation of the institution of slavery a necessity in this + country. Judge Douglas could not let it stand upon the basis which our + fathers placed it, but removed it, and put it upon the cotton-gin basis. + It is a question, therefore, for him and his friends to answer, why they + could not let it remain where the fathers of the government originally + placed it. I hope nobody has understood me as trying to sustain the + doctrine that we have a right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or + any of the slave States, about the institution of slavery,—thus + giving the Judge an opportunity to be eloquent and valiant against us in + fighting for their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech that + I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence + of, the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in + doing as they pleased with slavery Or any other existing institution. Then + what becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the rights of States, which + are assailed by no living man? + </p> + <p> + But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge has informed + me, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is laboring for + my election to the United States Senate. This is news to me,—not + very ungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. W. H. Carlin, who was on the + stand]—I hope that Carlin will be elected to the State Senate, and + will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] Carlin don't fall in, I + perceive, and I suppose he will not do much for me; but I am glad of all + the support I can get, anywhere, if I can get it without practicing any + deception to obtain it. In respect to this large portion of Judge + Douglas's speech in which he tries to show that in the controversy between + himself and the Administration party he is in the right, I do not feel + myself at all competent or inclined to answer him. I say to him, "Give it + to them,—give it to them just all you can!" and, on the other hand, + I say to Carlin, and Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in + Hancock, "Give it to Douglas, just pour it into him!" + </p> + <p> + Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to say a + word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a decision is + made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude slavery, he will + support it or not. He obstinately refuses to say what he will do in that + case. The judges of the Supreme Court as obstinately refused to say what + they would do on this subject. Before this I reminded him that at + Galesburgh he said the judges had expressly declared the contrary, and you + remember that in my Opening speech I told him I had the book containing + that decision here, and I would thank him to lay his finger on the place + where any such thing was said. He has occupied his hour and a half, and he + has not ventured to try to sustain his assertion. He never will. But he is + desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred Scott decision. + Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his political friends find + a way to reverse the decision of that same court in favor of the + constitutionality of the National Bank? Didn't they find a way to do it so + effectually that they have reversed it as completely as any decision ever + was reversed, so far as its practical operation is concerned? + </p> + <p> + And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the + decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father—old + Governor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a Secretary of + State? Did he not appeal to the "MOBS," as he calls them? Did he not make + speeches in the lobby to show how villainous that decision was, and how it + ought to be overthrown? Did he not succeed, too, in getting an act passed + by the Legislature to have it overthrown? And did n't he himself sit down + on that bench as one of the five added judges, who were to overslaugh the + four old ones, getting his name of "judge" in that way, and no other? If + there is a villainy in using disrespect or making opposition to Supreme + Court decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration. I + know of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know so well about + how much villainy it takes to oppose a decision of the Supreme Court as + our honorable friend Stephen A. Douglas. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are + bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not. In the + sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you what I have + said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day. I have said that as the + Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and that the extension of + slavery is affirmed in the National Constitution, they are bound to + support it as such; and I will tell you here that General Jackson once + said each man was bound to support the Constitution "as he understood it." + Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred + Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I + understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the + way in which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas believes that decision + to be correct, I will remake that argument if I have time to do so. Let me + talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in the face. We + will say you are a member of the Territorial Legislature, and, like Judge + Douglas, you believe that the right to take and hold slaves there is a + constitutional right The first thing you do is to swear you will support + the Constitution, and all rights guaranteed therein; that you will, + whenever your neighbor needs your legislation to support his + constitutional rights, not withhold that legislation. If you withhold that + necessary legislation for the support of the Constitution and + constitutional rights, do you not commit perjury? I ask every sensible man + if that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so, say what you please. Now, + that is precisely what Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutional + right. Does the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in + legislating may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly + laws, nullify that constitutional right? Does he mean to say that? Does he + mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in law, that + what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? Does he mean that? + The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas has sung paeans to his + "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his Supreme Court, co-operating with + him, has squatted his Squatter Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this + species of humbuggery about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented + this sort of do-nothing sovereignty,—that the people may exclude + slavery by a sort of "sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at + all. Is not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not + got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the + shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death? But at last, when it is + brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even that thin + decoction of it left. It is a presumption impossible in the domain of + thought. It is precisely no other than the putting of that most + unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same space at + the same time. The Dred Scott decision covers the whole ground, and while + it occupies it, there is no room even for the shadow of a starved pigeon + to occupy the same ground. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a previous + occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an extract from at + Charleston, says it only shows that I practiced the deception twice. Now, + my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to swallow that? Judge Douglas + had said I had made a speech at Charleston that I would not make up north, + and I turned around and answered him by showing I had made that same + speech up north,—had made it at Ottawa; made it in his hearing; made + it in the Abolition District,—in Lovejoy's District,—in the + personal presence of Lovejoy himself,—in the same atmosphere exactly + in which I had made my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much. + </p> + <p> + Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation from + the Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me to handle. + Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the Chicago speech I + delivered two years ago in "Egypt," as he calls it. It was down at + Springfield. That speech is here in this book, and I could turn to it and + read it to you but for the lack of time. I have not now the time to read + it. ["Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I am obliged to use discretion in + disposing most advantageously of my brief time. The Judge has taken great + exception to my adopting the heretical statement in the Declaration of + Independence, that "all men are created equal," and he has a great deal to + say about negro equality. I want to say that in sometimes alluding to the + Declaration of Independence, I have only uttered the sentiments that Henry + Clay used to hold. Allow me to occupy your time a moment with what he + said. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indiana, and in a way that I + suppose was very insulting, to liberate his slaves; and he made a written + reply to that application, and one portion of it is in these words: + </p> + <p> + "What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate the + slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the act + announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American + colonies, that men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, there + is no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it is desirable in the + original construction of society, and in organized societies, to keep it + in view as a great fundamental principle." + </p> + <p> + When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in new + countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we should keep + that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I want a negro + wife. He never can be brought to understand that there is any middle + ground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth year, and have + never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, and I think I can + live fifty centuries, for that matter, without having had one for either. + I maintain that you may take Judge Douglas's quotations from my Chicago + speech, and from my Charleston speech, and the Galesburgh speech,—in + his speech of to-day,—and compare them over, and I am willing to + trust them with you upon his proposition that they show rascality or + double-dealing. I deny that they do. + </p> + <p> + The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he is + disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath would + not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. + Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It is certainly not + for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these gentlemen, but I will tell + Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I "dared" to say they proved a + forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh that the publication of these + resolutions in the Illinois State Register could not have been the result + of accident, as the proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable evidence + of being done by a man who knew it was a forgery; that it was a + publication partly taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and + partly from the proceedings of a convention at another place, which showed + that he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part of the + resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and + fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also that + his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time and now + is, must have known how it was done. Now, whether he did it, or got some + friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he certainly knew all about + it. I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in his Freeport speech he had + promised to investigate that matter. Does he now say that he did not make + that promise? I have a right to ask why he did not keep it. I call upon + him to tell here to-day why he did not keep that promise? That fraud has + been traced up so that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier. There is + little room for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge good + service, and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. He + desires Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his + newspaper. He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; and + when this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where the + guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate it, + and implied that he would tell us the result of his investigation, I + demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, if he did not; and if + he did, why he won't tell the result. I call upon him for that. + </p> + <p> + This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned + about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against Norton + on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public records of the + country show that he himself attempted it upon Trumbull a month before + Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had the opportunity of learning + it from him, rather than he from Harris. I now ask his attention to that + part of the record on the case. My friends, I am not disposed to detain + you longer in regard to that matter. + </p> + <p> + I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another matter I + wish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered there was a mistake + in that case, he came forward magnanimously, without my calling his + attention to it, and explained it. I will tell you how he became so + magnanimous. When the newspapers of our side had discovered and published + it, and put it beyond his power to deny it, then he came forward and made + a virtue of necessity by acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the + point there was in those resolutions, although never passed at + Springfield, is retained by their being passed at other localities. Is + that true? He said I had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech, + that I was in the convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutions + touch me at all? It strikes me there is some difference between holding a + man responsible for an act which he has not done and holding him + responsible for an act that he has done. You will judge whether there is + any difference in the "spots." And he has taken credit for great + magnanimity in coming forward and acknowledging what is proved on him + beyond even the capacity of Judge Douglas to deny; and he has more + capacity in that way than any other living man. + </p> + <p> + Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a + conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he made. + May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is proven false on + me as that was proven false on him. I will add a little more than that, I + will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man shall be brought to believe + that the charge is not true. I have asked Judge Douglas's attention to + certain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy to + nationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue + because Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the Dred + Scott case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say + the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say that + I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never uttered it. + [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated affirmatively at Mr. + Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say I did, I tell you myself + that I never said the "Democratic" owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I + have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were Democrats, + or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers or Border Ruffians. I have said that + there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a made-up + case, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that that + evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to + be a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the + case tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that + decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his by + that decision. But my time is out, and I can say no more. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0008" id="link2H_4_0008"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + LAST DEBATE, AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858 + </h2> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0009" id="link2H_4_0009"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY + </h2> + <p> + LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—I have been somewhat, in my own mind, + complimented by a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech,—I mean + that portion which he devotes to the controversy between himself and the + present Administration. This is the seventh time Judge Douglas and myself + have met in these joint discussions, and he has been gradually improving + in regard to his war with the Administration. At Quincy, day before + yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the Administration than I had + heard him upon any occasion, and I took pains to compliment him for it. I + then told him to give it to them with all the power he had; and as some of + them were present, I told them I would be very much obliged if they would + give it to him in about the same way. I take it he has now vastly improved + upon the attack he made then upon the Administration. I flatter myself he + has really taken my advice on this subject. All I can say now is to + re-commend to him and to them what I then commended,—to prosecute + the war against one another in the most vigorous manner. I say to them + again: "Go it, husband!—Go it, bear!" + </p> + <p> + There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this branch of the + discussion,—although I do not consider it much of my business, + anyway. I refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where he undertakes to + involve Mr. Buchanan in an inconsistency. He reads something from Mr. + Buchanan, from which he undertakes to involve him in an inconsistency; and + he gets something of a cheer for having done so. I would only remind the + Judge that while he is very valiantly fighting for the Nebraska Bill and + the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, it has been but a little while + since he was the valiant advocate of the Missouri Compromise. I want to + know if Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? + Has Douglas the exclusive right, in this country, of being on all sides of + all questions? Is nobody allowed that high privilege but himself? Is he to + have an entire monopoly on that subject? + </p> + <p> + So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it was + about me, it is my business to pay some attention to it. I have heard the + Judge state two or three times what he has stated to-day, that in a speech + which I made at Springfield, Illinois, I had in a very especial manner + complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had decided that + a negro could never be a citizen of the United States. I have omitted by + some accident heretofore to analyze this statement, and it is required of + me to notice it now. In point of fact it is untrue. I never have + complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it held that a + negro could not be a citizen, and the Judge is always wrong when he says I + ever did so complain of it. I have the speech here, and I will thank him + or any of his friends to show where I said that a negro should be a + citizen, and complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it + declared he could not be one. I have done no such thing; and Judge + Douglas, so persistently insisting that I have done so, has strongly + impressed me with the belief of a predetermination on his part to + misrepresent me. He could not get his foundation for insisting that I was + in favor of this negro equality anywhere else as well as he could by + assuming that untrue proposition. Let me tell this audience what is true + in regard to that matter; and the means by which they may correct me if I + do not tell them truly is by a recurrence to the speech itself. I spoke of + the Dred Scott decision in my Springfield speech, and I was then + endeavoring to prove that the Dred Scott decision was a portion of a + system or scheme to make slavery national in this country. I pointed out + what things had been decided by the court. I mentioned as a fact that they + had decided that a negro could not be a citizen; that they had done so, as + I supposed, to deprive the negro, under all circumstances, of the remotest + possibility of ever becoming a citizen and claiming the rights of a + citizen of the United States under a certain clause of the Constitution. I + stated that, without making any complaint of it at all. I then went on and + stated the other points decided in the case; namely, that the bringing of + a negro into the State of Illinois and holding him in slavery for two + years here was a matter in regard to which they would not decide whether + it would make him free or not; that they decided the further point that + taking him into a United States Territory where slavery was prohibited by + Act of Congress did not make him free, because that Act of Congress, as + they held, was unconstitutional. I mentioned these three things as making + up the points decided in that case. I mentioned them in a lump, taken in + connection with the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, and the amendment + of Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of the right of the people of + the Territories to exclude slavery, which was voted down by the friends of + the bill. I mentioned all these things together, as evidence tending to + prove a combination and conspiracy to make the institution of slavery + national. In that connection and in that way I mentioned the decision on + the point that a negro could not be a citizen, and in no other connection. + </p> + <p> + Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of my + purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between the + white and black races. His assertion that I made an "especial objection" + (that is his exact language) to the decision on this account is untrue in + point of fact. + </p> + <p> + Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry Clay has been alluded to, + I desire to place myself, in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly right + before this people as may be. I am quite aware what the Judge's object is + here by all these allusions. He knows that we are before an audience + having strong sympathies southward, by relationship, place of birth, and + so on. He desires to place me in an extremely Abolition attitude. He read + upon a former occasion, and alludes, without reading, to-day to a portion + of a speech which I delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that + speech, as he has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken + in such a way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of what is + called garbling,—taking portions of a speech which, when taken by + themselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as expressed at + the time. I propose, therefore, out of that same speech, to show how one + portion of it which he skipped over (taking an extract before and an + extract after) will give a different idea, and the true idea I intended to + convey. It will take me some little time to read it, but I believe I will + occupy the time that way. + </p> + <p> + You have heard him frequently allude to my controversy with him in regard + to the Declaration of Independence. I confess that I have had a struggle + with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try briefly to place myself + right in regard to it on this occasion. I said—and it is between the + extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put in his + published speeches: + </p> + <p> + "It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities + and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposed + upon a man he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which + we found ourselves when we established this government. We had slaves + among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them to + remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we + grasped for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does + not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let the + charter remain as our standard." + </p> + <p> + Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas + against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of + slavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from which he takes + garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a disposition to + interfere with the institution of slavery, and establish a perfect social + and political equality between negroes and white people. + </p> + <p> + Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other extract from + a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at Springfield, in discussing this + very same question, soon after Judge Douglas took his ground that negroes + were, not included in the Declaration of Independence: + </p> + <p> + "I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all + men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They + did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral + development, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness + in what they did consider all men created equal,—equal in certain + inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of + happiness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to + assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that + equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. + In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to + declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as + circumstances should permit. + </p> + <p> + "They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be + familiar to all,—constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and + even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and + thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting + the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere." + </p> + <p> + There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard to the + Declaration of Independence upon a former occasion,—sentiments which + have been put in print and read wherever anybody cared to know what so + humble an individual as myself chose to say in regard to it. + </p> + <p> + At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, that + three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or believed, + in the whole world, who had said that the Declaration of Independence did + not include negroes in the term "all men." I reassert it to-day. I assert + that Judge Douglas and all his friends may search the whole records of the + country, and it will be a matter of great astonishment to me if they shall + be able to find that one human being three years ago had ever uttered the + astounding sentiment that the term "all men" in the Declaration did not + include the negro. Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more than + three years ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly in + the way of their schemes to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation of + slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr. Calhoun and all the + politicians of his school denied the truth of the Declaration. I know that + it ran along in the mouth of some Southern men for a period of years, + ending at last in that shameful, though rather forcible, declaration of + Pettit of Indiana, upon the floor of the United States Senate, that the + Declaration of Independence was in that respect "a self-evident lie," + rather than a self-evident truth. But I say, with a perfect knowledge of + all this hawking at the Declaration without directly attacking it, that + three years ago there never had lived a man who had ventured to assail it + in the sneaking way of pretending to believe it, and then asserting it did + not include the negro. I believe the first man who ever said it was Chief + Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friend + Stephen A. Douglas. And now it has become the catchword of the entire + party. I would like to call upon his friends everywhere to consider how + they have come in so short a time to view this matter in a way so entirely + different from their former belief; to ask whether they are not being + borne along by an irresistible current,—whither, they know not. + </p> + <p> + In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last week, I see that some man + in Chicago has got up a letter, addressed to the Chicago Times, to show, + as he professes, that somebody had said so before; and he signs himself + "An Old-Line Whig," if I remember correctly. In the first place, I would + say he was not an old-line Whig. I am somewhat acquainted with old-line + Whigs from the origin to the end of that party; I became pretty well + acquainted with them, and I know they always had some sense, whatever else + you could ascribe to them. I know there never was one who had not more + sense than to try to show by the evidence he produces that some men had, + prior to the time I named, said that negroes were not included in the term + "all men" in the Declaration of Independence. What is the evidence he + produces? I will bring forward his evidence, and let you see what he + offers by way of showing that somebody more than three years ago had said + negroes were not included in the Declaration. He brings forward part of a + speech from Henry Clay,—the part of the speech of Henry Clay which I + used to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary. I guess we are + surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of Mr. Clay, and they + will be glad to hear anything from that authority. While he was in Indiana + a man presented a petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made + a speech in answer to it, which I suppose he carefully wrote out himself + and caused to be published. I have before me an extract from that speech + which constitutes the evidence this pretended "Old-Line Whig" at Chicago + brought forward to show that Mr. Clay did n't suppose the negro was + included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay said: + </p> + <p> + "And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate + the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the + act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American + colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, + there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration; and it is desirable, + in the original construction of society and in organized societies, to + keep it in view as a great fundamental principle. But, then, I apprehend + that in no society that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, was or + can the equality asserted among the members of the human race be + practically enforced and carried out. There are portions, large portions, + women, minors, insane, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always + probably remain subject to the government of another portion of the + community. + </p> + <p> + "That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made by + the delegations of the thirteen States. In most of them slavery existed, + and had long existed, and was established by law. It was introduced and + forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of England. Do you believe + that in making that declaration the States that concurred in it intended + that it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the slaves + within their respective limits? Would Virginia and other Southern States + have ever united in a declaration which was to be interpreted into an + abolition of slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen colonies + entertain such a design or expectation? To impute such a secret and + unavowed purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest + band of patriots that ever assembled in council,—a fraud upon the + Confederacy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of those States + whose Constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but + permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808." + </p> + <p> + This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that somebody + previous to three years ago had said the negro was not included in the + term "all men" in the Declaration. How does it do so? In what way has it a + tendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an abstract principle + that all men are created equal, but that we cannot practically apply it in + all eases. He illustrates this by bringing forward the cases of females, + minors, and insane persons, with whom it cannot be enforced; but he says + it is true as an abstract principle in the organization of society as well + as in organized society and it should be kept in view as a fundamental + principle. Let me read a few words more before I add some comments of my + own. Mr. Clay says, a little further on: + </p> + <p> + "I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of + slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have + derived it from the parental government and from our ancestors. I wish + every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. But + here they are, and the question is, How can they be best dealt with? If a + state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of + society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be to + incorporate the institution of slavery amongst its elements." + </p> + <p> + Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, in this same extract, + brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held that the negro was not + included in the Declaration of Independence, is no such statement on his + part, but the declaration that it is a great fundamental truth which + should be constantly kept in view in the organization of society and in + societies already organized. But if I say a word about it; if I attempt, + as Mr. Clay said all good men ought to do, to keep it in view; if, in this + "organized society," I ask to have the public eye turned upon it; if I + ask, in relation to the organization of new Territories, that the public + eye should be turned upon it, forthwith I am vilified as you hear me + to-day. What have I done that I have not the license of Henry Clay's + illustrious example here in doing? Have I done aught that I have not his + authority for, while maintaining that in organizing new Territories and + societies this fundamental principle should be regarded, and in organized + society holding it up to the public view and recognizing what he + recognized as the great principle of free government? + </p> + <p> + And when this new principle—this new proposition that no human being + ever thought of three years ago—is brought forward, I combat it as + having an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as having a + tendency to dehumanize the negro, to take away from him the right of ever + striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things + constantly done in these days to prepare the public mind to make property, + and nothing but property, of the negro in all the States of this Union. + </p> + <p> + But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of the + discussion, to ask attention to. I have read and I repeat the words of + Henry Clay: + </p> + <p> + "I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of + slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have + derived it from the parental government and from our ancestors. I wish + every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. But + here they are, and the question is, How can they be best dealt with? If a + state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of + society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be to + incorporate the institution of slavery amongst its elements." + </p> + <p> + The principle upon which I have insisted in this canvass is in relation to + laying the foundations of new societies. I have never sought to apply + these principles to the old States for the purpose of abolishing slavery + in those States. It is nothing but a miserable perversion of what I have + said, to assume that I have declared Missouri, or any other slave State, + shall emancipate her slaves; I have proposed no such thing. But when Mr. + Clay says that in laying the foundations of society in our Territories + where it does not exist, he would be opposed to the introduction of + slavery as an element, I insist that we have his warrant—his license—for + insisting upon the exclusion of that element which he declared in such + strong and emphatic language was most hurtful to him. + </p> + <p> + Judge Douglas has again referred to a Springfield speech in which I said + "a house divided against itself cannot stand." The Judge has so often made + the entire quotation from that speech that I can make it from memory. I + used this language: + </p> + <p> + "We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the + avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the slavery + agitation. Under the operation of this policy, that agitation has not only + not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease + until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house divided + against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure + permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, + but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, + or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further + spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief + that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will + push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old + as well as new, North as well as South." + </p> + <p> + That extract and the sentiments expressed in it have been extremely + offensive to Judge Douglas. He has warred upon them as Satan wars upon the + Bible. His perversions upon it are endless. Here now are my views upon it + in brief: + </p> + <p> + I said we were now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated + with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the + slavery agitation. Is it not so? When that Nebraska Bill was brought + forward four years ago last January, was it not for the "avowed object" of + putting an end to the slavery agitation? We were to have no more agitation + in Congress; it was all to be banished to the Territories. By the way, I + will remark here that, as Judge Douglas is very fond of complimenting Mr. + Crittenden in these days, Mr. Crittenden has said there was a falsehood in + that whole business, for there was no slavery agitation at that time to + allay. We were for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and that + very allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again. But was it + not understood or intimated with the "confident promise" of putting an end + to the slavery agitation? Surely it was. In every speech you heard Judge + Douglas make, until he got into this "imbroglio," as they call it, with + the Administration about the Lecompton Constitution, every speech on that + Nebraska Bill was full of his felicitations that we were just at the end + of the slavery agitation. The last tip of the last joint of the old + serpent's tail was just drawing out of view. But has it proved so? I have + asserted that under that policy that agitation "has not only not ceased, + but has constantly augmented." When was there ever a greater agitation in + Congress than last winter? When was it as great in the country as to-day? + </p> + <p> + There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska policy, + which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a superior degree + of self-government, beyond what they had ever had before. The first object + and the main one of conferring upon the people a higher degree of + "self-government" is a question of fact to be determined by you in answer + to a single question. Have you ever heard or known of a people anywhere on + earth who had as little to do as, in the first instance of its use, the + people of Kansas had with this same right of "self-government "? In its + main policy and in its collateral object, it has been nothing but a + living, creeping lie from the time of its introduction till to-day. + </p> + <p> + I have intimated that I thought the agitation would not cease until a + crisis should have been reached and passed. I have stated in what way I + thought it would be reached and passed. I have said that it might go one + way or the other. We might, by arresting the further spread of it, and + placing it where the fathers originally placed it, put it where the public + mind should rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate + extinction. Thus the agitation may cease. It may be pushed forward until + it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North + as well as South. I have said, and I repeat, my wish is that the further + spread of it may be arrested, and that it may be where the public mind + shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction—I + have expressed that as my wish I entertain the opinion, upon evidence + sufficient to my mind, that the fathers of this government placed that + institution where the public mind did rest in the belief that it was in + the course of ultimate extinction. Let me ask why they made provision that + the source of slavery—the African slave-trade—should be cut + off at the end of twenty years? Why did they make provision that in all + the new territory we owned at that time slavery should be forever + inhibited? Why stop its spread in one direction, and cut off its source in + another, if they did not look to its being placed in the course of its + ultimate extinction? + </p> + <p> + Again: the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the Constitution of + the United States two or three times, and in neither of these cases does + the word "slavery" or "negro race" occur; but covert language is used each + time, and for a purpose full of significance. What is the language in + regard to the prohibition of the African slave-trade? It runs in about + this way: + </p> + <p> + "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now + existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the + Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight." + </p> + <p> + The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of slavery and the + black race is on the subject of the basis of representation, and there the + language used is: + </p> + <p> + "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several + States which may be included within this Union, according to their + respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole + number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of + years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other + persons." + </p> + <p> + It says "persons," not slaves, not negroes; but this "three-fifths" can be + applied to no other class among us than the negroes. + </p> + <p> + Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it is + said: + </p> + <p> + "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, + escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation + therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered + up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." + </p> + <p> + There again there is no mention of the word "negro" or of slavery. In all + three of these places, being the only allusions to slavery in the + instrument, covert language is used. Language is used not suggesting that + slavery existed or that the black race were among us. And I understand the + contemporaneous history of those times to be that covert language was used + with a purpose, and that purpose was that in our Constitution, which it + was hoped and is still hoped will endure forever,—when it should be + read by intelligent and patriotic men, after the institution of slavery + had passed from among us,—there should be nothing on the face of the + great charter of liberty suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had + ever existed among us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of + the government expected and intended the institution of slavery to come to + an end. They expected and intended that it should be in the course of + ultimate extinction. And when I say that I desire to see the further + spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the + fathers have first done. When I say I desire to see it placed where the + public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate + extinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they placed it. It + is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes, made this + government part slave and part free. Understand the sense in which he puts + it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within itself,—was + introduced by the framers of the Constitution. The exact truth is, that + they found the institution existing among us, and they left it as they + found it. But in making the government they left this institution with + many clear marks of disapprobation upon it. They found slavery among them, + and they left it among them because of the difficulty—the absolute + impossibility—of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks + me why we cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of + the government made it, he asks a question based upon an assumption which + is itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him and ask him the question, when + the policy that the fathers of the government had adopted in relation to + this element among us was the best policy in the world, the only wise + policy, the only policy that we can ever safely continue upon that will + ever give us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all and + becomes a national institution,—I turn upon him and ask him why he + could not leave it alone. I turn and ask him why he was driven to the + necessity of introducing a new policy in regard to it. He has himself said + he introduced a new policy. He said so in his speech on the 22d of March + of the present year, 1858. I ask him why he could not let it remain where + our fathers placed it. I ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why we + shall not again place this institution upon the basis on which the fathers + left it. I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free + and slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude + by those who made the Constitution, did they make any war? If we had no + war out of it when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief that we + shall have war out of it if we return to that policy? Have we had any + peace upon this matter springing from any other basis? I maintain that we + have not. I have proposed nothing more than a return to the policy of the + fathers. + </p> + <p> + I confess, when I propose a certain measure of policy, it is not enough + for me that I do not intend anything evil in the result, but it is + incumbent on me to show that it has not a tendency to that result. I have + met Judge Douglas in that point of view. I have not only made the + declaration that I do not mean to produce a conflict between the States, + but I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I think I have shown to + the minds of fair men, that I propose nothing but what has a most peaceful + tendency. The quotation that I happened to make in that Springfield + Speech, that "a house divided against itself cannot stand," and which has + proved so offensive to the judge, was part and parcel of the same thing. + He tries to show that variety in the democratic institutions of the + different States is necessary and indispensable. I do not dispute it. I + have no controversy with Judge Douglas about that. I shall very readily + agree with him that it would be foolish for us to insist upon having a + cranberry law here in Illinois, where we have no cranberries, because they + have a cranberry law in Indiana, where they have cranberries. I should + insist that it would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia the + right to enact oyster laws, where they have oysters, because we want no + such laws here. I understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge Douglas or + anybody else, that the variety in the soil and climate and face of the + country, and consequent variety in the industrial pursuits and productions + of a country, require systems of law conforming to this variety in the + natural features of the country. I understand quite as well as Judge + Douglas that if we here raise a barrel of flour more than we want, and the + Louisianians raise a barrel of sugar more than they want, it is of mutual + advantage to exchange. That produces commerce, brings us together, and + makes us better friends. We like one another the more for it. And I + understand as well as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, that these mutual + accommodations are the cements which bind together the different parts of + this Union; that instead of being a thing to "divide the house,"—figuratively + expressing the Union,—they tend to sustain it; they are the props of + the house, tending always to hold it up. + </p> + <p> + But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is any parallel between + these things and this institution of slavery? I do not see that there is + any parallel at all between them. Consider it. When have we had any + difficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the cranberry laws of + Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine-lumber laws of Maine, + or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar, and Illinois flour? When have + we had any quarrels over these things? When have we had perfect peace in + regard to this thing which I say is an element of discord in this Union? + We have sometimes had peace, but when was it? It was when the institution + of slavery remained quiet where it was. We have had difficulty and turmoil + whenever it has made a struggle to spread itself where it was not. I ask, + then, if experience does not speak in thunder-tones telling us that the + policy which has given peace to the country heretofore, being returned to, + gives the greatest promise of peace again. You may say, and Judge Douglas + has intimated the same thing, that all this difficulty in regard to the + institution of slavery is the mere agitation of office-seekers and + ambitious Northern politicians. He thinks we want to get "his place," I + suppose. I agree that there are office-seekers amongst us. The Bible says + somewhere that we are desperately selfish. I think we would have + discovered that fact without the Bible. I do not claim that I am any less + so than the average of men, but I do claim that I am not more selfish than + Judge Douglas. + </p> + <p> + But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in regard to + this institution of slavery spring from office-seeking, from the mere + ambition of politicians? Is that the truth? How many times have we had + danger from this question? Go back to the day of the Missouri Compromise. + Go back to the nullification question, at the bottom of which lay this + same slavery question. Go back to the time of the annexation of Texas. Go + back to the troubles that led to the Compromise of 1850. You will find + that every time, with the single exception of the Nullification question, + they sprung from an endeavor to spread this institution. There never was a + party in the history of this country, and there probably never will be, of + sufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country. Parties + themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet it extends + not beyond the parties themselves. But does not this question make a + disturbance outside of political circles? Does it not enter into the + churches and rend them asunder? What divided the great Methodist Church + into two parts, North and South? What has raised this constant disturbance + in every Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What disturbed the + Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has jarred and + shaken the great American Tract Society recently, not yet splitting it, + but sure to divide it in the end? Is it not this same mighty, deep-seated + power that somehow operates on the minds of men, exciting and stirring + them up in every avenue of society,—in politics, in religion, in + literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life? Is this the + work of politicians? Is that irresistible power, which for fifty years has + shaken the government and agitated the people, to be stifled and subdued + by pretending that it is an exceedingly simple thing, and we ought not to + talk about it? If you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, I + assure you I will quit before they have half done so. But where is the + philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that + disturbing element in our society which has disturbed us for more than + half a century, which has been the only serious danger that has threatened + our institutions,—I say, where is the philosophy or the + statesmanship based on the assumption that we are to quit talking about + it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being agitated by it? + Yet this is the policy here in the North that Douglas is advocating, that + we are to care nothing about it! I ask you if it is not a false + philosophy. Is it not a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a + system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing + that everybody does care the most about—a thing which all experience + has shown we care a very great deal about? + </p> + <p> + The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the exclusive + right which the States have to decide the whole thing for themselves. I + agree with him very readily that the different States have that right. He + is but fighting a man of straw when he assumes that I am contending + against the right of the States to do as they please about it. Our + controversy with him is in regard to the new Territories. We agree that + when the States come in as States they have the right and the power to do + as they please. We have no power as citizens of the free-States, or in our + Federal capacity as members of the Federal Union through the General + Government, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We profess + constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the power of + the government to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend + ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the + Sates. What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free + from it while in the Territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes that we + have no interest in them,—that we have no right whatever to + interfere. I think we have some interest. I think that as white men we + have. Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may so + express myself? Do we not feel an interest in getting to that outlet with + such institutions as we would like to have prevail there? If you go to the + Territory opposed to slavery, and another man comes upon the same ground + with his slave, upon the assumption that the things are equal, it turns + out that he has the equal right all his way, and you have no part of it + your way. If he goes in and makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence + a slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have it a free + State were on equal ground? Let me suggest it in a different way. How many + Democrats are there about here ["A thousand"] who have left slave States + and come into the free State of Illinois to get rid of the institution of + slavery? [Another voice: "A thousand and one."] I reckon there are a + thousand and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are now advocating had + prevailed when this country was in a Territorial condition, where would + you have gone to get rid of it? Where would you have found your free State + or Territory to go to? And when hereafter, for any cause, the people in + this place shall desire to find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the + institution, where will they find the place to go to? + </p> + <p> + Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there + is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new + Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home,—may + find some spot where they can better their condition; where they can + settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of + this, not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own + people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people + everywhere the world over—in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, + and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their + conditions in life. + </p> + <p> + I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what I + understand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge Douglas + and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the free and + the slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when he + assumes that I am in favor of producing a perfect social and political + equality between the white and black races. These are false issues, upon + which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy. There is no + foundation in truth for the charge that I maintain either of these + propositions. The real issue in this controversy—the one pressing + upon every mind—is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks + upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does + not look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the + institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the + Republican party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all + their arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They + look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while they + contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual + existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any + satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about + it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in regard to + it that looks to its not creating any more danger. They insist that it + should, as far as may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the methods of + treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. + They also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some + time. These are the views they entertain in regard to it as I understand + them; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are + brought within this range. I have said, and I repeat it here, that if + there be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of + slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he is + misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man amongst us + who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence + among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a + satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown + about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We disclaim + sympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly with us. + </p> + <p> + On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let me + say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union save + and except this very institution of slavery? What is it that we hold most + dear amongst us? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threatened + our liberty and prosperity, save and except this institution of slavery? + If this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition of things by + enlarging slavery, by spreading it out and making it bigger? You may have + a wen or cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out, lest you + bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and + spread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of treating what you + regard a wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing with it as a wrong, + restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to go into new countries + where it has not already existed. That is the peaceful way, the + old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us the + example. + </p> + <p> + On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it as not + being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean + to say that every man who stands within that range positively asserts that + it is right. That class will include all who positively assert that it is + right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as indifferent and do not + say it is either right or wrong. These two classes of men fall within the + general class of those who do not look upon it as a wrong. And if there be + among you anybody who supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider + himself "as much opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason + with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you + consider as a wrong do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you + say it is wrong—but your leader never does, and you quarrel with + anybody who says it is wrong. Although you pretend to say so yourself, you + can find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You must not say + anything about it in the free States, because it is not here. You must not + say anything about it in the slave States, because it is there. You must + not say anything about it in the pulpit, because that is religion, and has + nothing to do with it. You must not say anything about it in politics, + because that will disturb the security of "my place." There is no place to + talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. + But, finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the people + of the slave States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the + slavery question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor of + it. You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad + to see it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself. You all know that Frank + Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook to introduce + that system in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as they could for the + system of gradual emancipation which you pretend you would be glad to see + succeed. Now, I will bring you to the test. After a hard fight they were + beaten, and when the news came over here, you threw up your hats and + hurrahed for Democracy. More than that, take all the argument made in + favor of the system you have proposed, and it carefully excludes the idea + that there is anything wrong in the institution of slavery. The arguments + to sustain that policy carefully exclude it. Even here to-day you heard + Judge Douglas quarrel with me because I uttered a wish that it might + sometime come to an end. Although Henry Clay could say he wished every + slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors, I am + denounced by those pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish + that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. The + Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the + merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. + Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he "don't care + whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories. I do not care + myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be + expressive of his individual sentiments on the subject, or only of the + national policy he desires to have established. It is alike valuable for + my purpose. Any man can say that who does not see anything wrong in + slavery; but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it, + because no man can logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up + or voted down. He may say he don't care whether an indifferent thing is + voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right + thing and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves + has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is + a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon + the score of equality slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, + like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no difference + between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, this + argument is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the + other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and + wrong. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from + beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in + the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in + conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,—it + everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. + </p> + <p> + That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this + country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be + silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles—right + and wrong—throughout the world. They are the two principles that + have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue + to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the + divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it + develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and + earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether + from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own + nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an + apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I + was glad to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, to + Judge Douglas,—that he looks to no end of the institution of + slavery. That will help the people to see where the struggle really is. It + will hereafter place with us all men who really do wish the wrong may have + an end. And whenever we can get rid of the fog which obscures the real + question, when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to avow a policy + looking to its perpetuation,—we can get out from among that class of + men and bring them to the side of those who treat it as a wrong. Then + there will soon be an end of it, and that end will be its "ultimate + extinction." Whenever the issue can be distinctly made, and all extraneous + matter thrown out so that men can fairly see the real difference between + the parties, this controversy will soon be settled, and it will be done + peaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. It will be placed again + where the wisest and best men of the world placed it. Brooks of South + Carolina once declared that when this Constitution was framed its framers + did not look to the institution existing until this day. When he said + this, I think he stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history of + the times. But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men of + these days, yet the men of these days had experience which they had not, + and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this + country that slavery should be perpetual. I now say that, willingly or + unwillingly—purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been the + most prominent instrument in changing the position of the institution of + slavery,—which the fathers of the government expected to come to an + end ere this, and putting it upon Brooks's cotton-gin basis; placing it + where he openly confesses he has no desire there shall ever be an end of + it. + </p> + <p> + I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying something + about this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains the Dred Scott + decision, that the people of the Territories can still somehow exclude + slavery. The first thing I ask attention to is the fact that Judge Douglas + constantly said, before the decision, that whether they could or not, was + a question for the Supreme Court. But after the court had made the + decision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme Court, but + for the people. And how is it he tells us they can exclude it? He says it + needs "police regulations," and that admits of "unfriendly legislation." + Although it is a right established by the Constitution of the United + States to take a slave into a Territory of the United States and hold him + as property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly + legislation, and more especially if they adopt unfriendly legislation, + they can practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition as + a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional obligation. + Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face before me, and let us + suppose that he is a member of the Territorial Legislature. The first + thing he will do will be to swear that he will support the Constitution of + the United States. His neighbor by his side in the Territory has slaves + and needs Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy that + constitutional right. Can he withhold the legislation which his neighbor + needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the + Constitution of the United States which he has sworn to support? Can he + withhold it without violating his oath? And, more especially, can he pass + unfriendly legislation to violate his oath? Why, this is a monstrous sort + of talk about the Constitution of the United States! There has never been + as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable man + on earth. I do not believe it is a constitutional right to hold slaves in + a Territory of the United States. I believe the decision was improperly + made and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is furious against those who + go for reversing a decision. But he is for legislating it out of all force + while the law itself stands. I repeat that there has never been so + monstrous a doctrine uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. + </p> + <p> + I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of the + Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law,—that + is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to + them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a + "barren right," which needs legislation before it can become efficient and + valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is + constitutional, I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it, and + that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no + taste for running and catching niggers, at least, I profess no taste for + that job at all. Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law? + Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that + right, can be supported without it. And if I believed that the right to + hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution with the + right to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to give it the legislation + necessary to support it. I say that no man can deny his obligation to give + the necessary legislation to support slavery in a Territory, who believes + it is a constitutional right to have it there. No man can, who does not + give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation enjoined by the + Constitution to enact a Fugitive State law. Try it now. It is the + strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision + is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a + constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway + returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The one is + express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in the + Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believes + in the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in + spite of that constitutional right, slavery may be driven from the + Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument by which Abolitionists + may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to pass + laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I + do not know how such an arguement may strike a popular assembly like this, + but I defy anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to + estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of + difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive and the + constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred + Scott decision is correct, I defy any man to make an argument that will + justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to + hold his slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, + breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for nullifying the Fugitive + Slave law. Why, there is not such an Abolitionist in the nation as + Douglas, after all! + </p> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Papers And Writings Of Abraham +Lincoln, Volume Four, by Abraham Lincoln + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LINCOLN'S PAPERS *** + +***** This file should be named 2656-h.htm or 2656-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/2/6/5/2656/ + +Produced by David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + </body> +</html> |