diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/4linc10.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/4linc10.txt | 3707 |
1 files changed, 3707 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/4linc10.txt b/old/4linc10.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aa176c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/4linc10.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3707 @@ +Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 4 + +Volume 4 of 7 + +Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check +the copyright laws for your country before posting these files!! + +Please take a look at the important information in this header. +We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an +electronic path open for the next readers. Do not remove this. + +*It must legally be the first thing seen when opening the book.* +In fact, our legal advisors said we can't even change margins. + +**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts** + +**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971** + +*These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Donations* + +Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and +further information is included below. We need your donations. + + +Title: The Writings of Abraham Lincoln + +Author: Abraham Lincoln + +June, 2001 [Etext #2656] + + +Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 4 +*******This file should be named 4linc10.txt or 4linc10.zip****** + +Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, 4linc11.txt +VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, 4linc10a.txt + + +Etext prepared for Gutenberg by David Widger, widger@cecomet.net + +Project Gutenberg Etexts are usually created from multiple editions, +all of which are in the Public Domain in the United States, unless a +copyright notice is included. Therefore, we usually do NOT keep any +of these books in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +We are now trying to release all our books one month in advance +of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing. + +Please note: neither this list nor its contents are final till +midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement. +The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at +Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A +preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment +and editing by those who wish to do so. To be sure you have an +up to date first edition [xxxxx10x.xxx] please check file sizes +in the first week of the next month. Since our ftp program has +a bug in it that scrambles the date [tried to fix and failed] a +look at the file size will have to do, but we will try to see a +new copy has at least one byte more or less. + + +Information about Project Gutenberg (one page) + +We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The +time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours +to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright +searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. This +projected audience is one hundred million readers. If our value +per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2 +million dollars per hour this year as we release thirty-six text +files per month, or 432 more Etexts in 1999 for a total of 2000+ +If these reach just 10% of the computerized population, then the +total should reach over 200 billion Etexts given away this year. + +The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext +Files by December 31, 2001. [10,000 x 100,000,000 = 1 Trillion] +This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers, +which is only ~5% of the present number of computer users. + +At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third +of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 3,333 Etexts unless we +manage to get some real funding; currently our funding is mostly +from Michael Hart's salary at Carnegie-Mellon University, and an +assortment of sporadic gifts; this salary is only good for a few +more years, so we are looking for something to replace it, as we +don't want Project Gutenberg to be so dependent on one person. + +We need your donations more than ever! + + +All donations should be made to "Project Gutenberg/CMU": and are +tax deductible to the extent allowable by law. (CMU = Carnegie- +Mellon University). + +For these and other matters, please mail to: + +Project Gutenberg +P. O. Box 2782 +Champaign, IL 61825 + +When all other email fails. . .try our Executive Director: +Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com> +hart@pobox.com forwards to hart@prairienet.org and archive.org +if your mail bounces from archive.org, I will still see it, if +it bounces from prairienet.org, better resend later on. . . . + +We would prefer to send you this information by email. + +****** + +To access Project Gutenberg etexts, use any Web browser +to view http://promo.net/pg. This site lists Etexts by +author and by title, and includes information about how +to get involved with Project Gutenberg. You could also +download our past Newsletters, or subscribe here. This +is one of our major sites, please email hart@pobox.com, +for a more complete list of our various sites. + +To go directly to the etext collections, use FTP or any +Web browser to visit a Project Gutenberg mirror (mirror +sites are available on 7 continents; mirrors are listed +at http://promo.net/pg). + +Mac users, do NOT point and click, typing works better. + +Example FTP session: + +ftp metalab.unc.edu +login: anonymous +password: your@login +cd pub/docs/books/gutenberg +cd etext90 through etext99 or etext00 through etext01, etc. +dir [to see files] +get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files] +GET GUTINDEX.?? [to get a year's listing of books, e.g., GUTINDEX.99] +GET GUTINDEX.ALL [to get a listing of ALL books] + +*** + +**Information prepared by the Project Gutenberg legal advisor** + +(Three Pages) + + +***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START*** +Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers. +They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with +your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from +someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our +fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement +disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how +you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to. + +*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT +By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept +this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive +a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by +sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person +you got it from. If you received this etext on a physical +medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request. + +ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS +This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG- +tm etexts, is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor +Michael S. Hart through the Project Gutenberg Association at +Carnegie-Mellon University (the "Project"). Among other +things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright +on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and +distribute it in the United States without permission and +without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth +below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext +under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark. + +To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable +efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain +works. Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any +medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other +things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged +disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer +codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. + +LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES +But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below, +[1] the Project (and any other party you may receive this +etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including +legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR +UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT, +INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE +OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE +POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. + +If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of +receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) +you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that +time to the person you received it from. If you received it +on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and +such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement +copy. If you received it electronically, such person may +choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to +receive it electronically. + +THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS +TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A +PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or +the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the +above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you +may have other legal rights. + +INDEMNITY +You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors, +officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost +and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or +indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause: +[1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification, +or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect. + +DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm" +You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by +disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this +"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg, +or: + +[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this + requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the + etext or this "small print!" statement. You may however, + if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable + binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, + including any form resulting from conversion by word pro- + cessing or hypertext software, but only so long as + *EITHER*: + + [*] The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and + does *not* contain characters other than those + intended by the author of the work, although tilde + (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may + be used to convey punctuation intended by the + author, and additional characters may be used to + indicate hypertext links; OR + + [*] The etext may be readily converted by the reader at + no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent + form by the program that displays the etext (as is + the case, for instance, with most word processors); + OR + + [*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at + no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the + etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC + or other equivalent proprietary form). + +[2] Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this + "Small Print!" statement. + +[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the + net profits you derive calculated using the method you + already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you + don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are + payable to "Project Gutenberg Association/Carnegie-Mellon + University" within the 60 days following each + date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare) + your annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return. + +WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO? +The Project gratefully accepts contributions in money, time, +scanning machines, OCR software, public domain etexts, royalty +free copyright licenses, and every other sort of contribution +you can think of. Money should be paid to "Project Gutenberg +Association / Carnegie-Mellon University". + +We are planning on making some changes in our donation structure +in 2000, so you might want to email me, hart@pobox.com beforehand. + + + + +*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.04.29.93*END* + + + + + +Etext prepared for Gutenberg by David Widger, widger@cecomet.net + + + + + +VOLUME IV + +THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II + + + + +LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH JOINT DEBATE, + +AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--It will be very difficult for an audience so +large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and +consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as +possible. + +While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me +to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality +between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to +myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the +question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes +in saying something in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am +not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the +social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am +not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of +negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry +with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is +a physical difference between the white and black races which I +believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of +social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so +live, while they do remain together there must be the position of +superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of +having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon +this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have +the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do +not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I +must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can +just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly +never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it +seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either +slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never +seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of +producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes +and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I +ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its +correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend +Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have +made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I +have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would +marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it; but as Judge +Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they +might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most +solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this +State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I +will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand +that there is any place where an alteration of the social and +political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, +except in the State Legislature,--not in the Congress of the United +States; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such +thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror +that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best +means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the +State Legislature to fight the measure. I do not propose dwelling +longer at this time on this subject. + +When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to +Illinois in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in +which he made what may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, +which I understand proved to be very offensive to him. The Judge was +at that time out upon one of his speaking tours through the country, +and when the news of it reached him, as I am informed, he denounced +Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for having said what he did in +regard to that matter. I was traveling at that time, and speaking at +the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent days, and when I +heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and what Douglas +had said back again, I felt that I was in a position where I could +not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter. Consequently, +upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no +other wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by +Trumbull against Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to +say nothing about it; that I did personally know Judge Trumbull; that +I believed him to be a man of veracity; that I believed him to be a +man of capacity sufficient to know very well whether an assertion he +was making, as a conclusion drawn from a set of facts, was true or +false; and as a conclusion of my own from that, I stated it as my +belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove +everything he had said. I said this upon two or three occasions. +Upon a subsequent occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before an +audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his +charge against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to +substantiate it. This speech was published at length; and +subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In +the course of his speech, and near the close of it, he stated in +regard to myself what I will now read: + +"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter +occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, +Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he +should hold him (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders." + +I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this +invitation to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not +originally been my purpose to discuss that matter at all But in-as- +much as it seems to be the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me +responsible for it, then for once in my life I will play General +Jackson, and to the just extent I take the responsibility. + +I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that +portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this +matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at +Jacksonville in answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of +this debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and +Douglas. I cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take +half of my first hour to do so. I can only make some comments upon +them. Trumbull's charge is in the following words: + +"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a +constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the +people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in +the plot." + +I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an +opportunity of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings +forward what he regards as sufficient evidence to substantiate this +charge. + +It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon +the floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference +among the senators, in which conference it was determined to have an +enabling act passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution +under, and in this conference it was agreed among them that it was +best not to have a provision for submitting the constitution to a +vote of the people after it should be formed. He then brings forward +to show, and showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the +bill back to the Senate with that clause stricken out. He then shows +that there was a new clause inserted into the bill, which would in +its nature prevent a reference of the constitution back for a vote of +the people,--if, indeed, upon a mere silence in the law, it could be +assumed that they had the right to vote upon it. These are the +general statements that he has made. + +I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he +attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to +examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he +makes is: + +"Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and +that I struck it out,--is that a proof of a plot to force a +constitution upon them against their will?" + +His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the +bill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken +out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would +say, in the first place, that that would be a most manifest reason +for it. It is true, as Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial +bills have passed without having such a provision in them. I believe +it is true, though I am not certain, that in some instances +constitutions framed under such bills have been submitted to a vote +of the people with the law silent upon the subject; but it does not +appear that they once had their enabling acts framed with an express +provision for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of +the people, then that they were stricken out when Congress did not +mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have been bills +which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when was +that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does +the evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, +when we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill +almost simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a +conference among certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a +bill should be passed leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering +Trumbull, omits to attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was +a meeting in which it was agreed they should so frame the bill that +there should be no submission of the constitution to a vote of the +people. The Judge does not notice this part of it. If you take this +as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that simultaneously +Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to be +submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty +fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter +into a plot to put in force a constitution for Kansas, without giving +the people any opportunity of voting upon it. + +But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is +this: + +"But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did +contain a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted." + +This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. +I only want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that +these words were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill +from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out,--a bill +which goes by the name of Toomb's, because he originally brought it +forward? I ask why, if the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with +Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition Trumbull made in his +speech, and say it was not stricken out? Trumbull has given the +exact words that he says were in the Toomb's bill, and he alleges +that when the bill came back, they were stricken out. Judge Douglas +does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken out +were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision in the +Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We +see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the +words. He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about +these words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to +it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, +if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be +upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken +out, I have before me what I suppose to be a genuine copy of the +Toomb's bill, in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says +were in it were, in fact, originally there. If there be any dispute +upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show they were there. +If there be any controversy upon the sense of the words,--whether +these words which were stricken out really constituted a provision +for submitting the matter to a vote of the people,--as that is a +matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull's own +argument. He says that the proposition is in these words: + +"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered +to the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their +free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention +and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the +constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said +State of Kansas." + +Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the +bill when it came back, and he says this was a provision for +submitting the constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument +is this: + +"Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the +election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an +election was to be held?" + +This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the +charge at all, but he stands up and says there was no such +proposition in that bill for submitting the constitution to be framed +to a vote of the people. Trumbull admits that the language is not a +direct provision for submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily +implied from another provision. He asks you how it is possible to +ratify the land proposition at the election for the adoption of the +constitution, if there was no election to be held for the adoption of +the constitution. And he goes on to show that it is not any less a +law because the provision is put in that indirect shape than it would +be if it were put directly. But I presume I have said enough to draw +attention to this point, and I pass it by also. + +Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and +at very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, +said in a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to +be made would have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if +Trumbull thought so then, what ground is there for anybody thinking +otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, this much may be said in reply: That +bill had been in the hands of a party to which Trumbull did not +belong. It had been in the hands of the committee at the head of +which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had a printed copy of +the original Toomb's bill. I have not the evidence on that point +except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of business +there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of altering, +were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, until +the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterwards, when it was +reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull +in reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the +bearings of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, +and it does not follow that because there was something in it +Trumbull did not perceive, that something did not exist. More than +this, is it true that what Trumbull did can have any effect on what +Douglas did? Suppose Trumbull had been in the plot with these other +men, would that let Douglas out of it? Would it exonerate Douglas +that Trumbull did n't then perceive he was in the plot? He also asks +the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose to amend the bill, if he +thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe that everything +Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection with this +question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of +the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his +friends. He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to +anything on this subject would receive the slightest consideration. +Judge Trumbull did bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the +fact that there was no provision for submitting the constitution +about to be made for the people of Kansas to a vote of the people. I +believe I may venture to say that Judge Douglas made some reply to +this speech of Judge Trumbull's, but he never noticed that part of it +at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, then, the fact that +Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not throw much blame upon +him; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact as to what +Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself been +in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it +from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial +it should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, +but that the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at +all touch the question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck +that they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to +be guilty too. + +Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is, +that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the +fact that the bill had the provision in it for submitting the +constitution to a vote of the people when it went into his Judge +Douglas's) hands, that it was missing when he reported it to the +Senate, and that in a public speech he had subsequently said the +alterations in the bill were made while it was in committee, and that +they were made in consultation between him (Judge Douglas) and +Toomb's. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of +Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill +not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with +another clause and another provision in it, saying that "until the +complete execution of this Act there shall be no election in said +Territory,"--which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the +provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but +was adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from +exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the +question. Now, in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the +issue, that he shifts his ground,--and I believe he uses the term +that, "it being proven false, he has changed ground," I call upon all +of you, when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's speech +(for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trumbull has +shifted his ground or not. I say he did not shift his ground, but +that he brought forward his original charge and the evidence to +sustain it yet more fully, +but precisely as he originally made it. Then, in addition thereto, +he brought in a new piece of evidence. He shifted no ground. He +brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with his former +testimony; but he brought a new piece, tending, as he thought, and as +I think, to prove his proposition. To illustrate: A man brings an +accusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge +introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a second trial he +introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and +a third witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives +further testimony corroborative of the charge. So with Trumbull. +There was no shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony +between the new piece of evidence and what he originally introduced. + +But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last +provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and +a substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is +true that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. +Trumbull has not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it +was so stricken out. He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as +Judge Douglas reported it back. It was amended somewhat in the +Senate before it passed, but I am speaking of it as he brought it +back." Now, when Judge Douglas parades the fact that the provision +was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he asserts nothing +contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only said that he +originally put it in, not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull +says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. When it +came back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made +by him in consultation with Toomb's. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as +his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants +to contradict Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not +put it in, and not that he did n't take it out again. It is said +that a bear is sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I +presume it was in this case. I presume the truth is that Douglas put +it in, and afterward took it out. That, I take it, is the truth +about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing, Douglas says another thing, +and the two don't contradict one another at all. The question is, +what did he put it in for? In the first place, what did he take the +other provision out of the bill for,--the provision which Trumbull +argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of the +people? What did he take that out for; and, having taken it out, +what did he put this in for? I say that in the run of things it is +not unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge +Douglas to take that latter clause out again. The question that +Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in; and he don't meet +Trumbull at all unless he denies that. + +In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses +this language toward Judge Trumbull. He says: + +"He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the +record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge." + +Well, that is a pretty serious statement--Trumbull forges his +evidence from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say +that it is not true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that +Trumbull has brought forward. When you come to read the speech, as +you will be able to, examine whether the evidence is a forgery from +beginning to end. He had the bill or document in his hand like that +[holding up a paper]. He says that is a copy of the Toomb's bill,-- +the amendment offered by Toomb's. He says that is a copy of the bill +as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas's hands. Now, does +Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? That is one thing Trumbull +brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning to +end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does Douglas say that is +a forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent +examination upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another +document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it +came back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does +Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? Does he say it in his general +sweeping charge? Does he say so now? If he does not, then take this +Toomb's bill and the bill in the amended form, and it only needs to +compare them to see that the provision is in the one and not in the +other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken out. + +But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what +Trumbull's other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will +read. Trumbull says there are in this original Toomb's bill these +words: + +"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered +to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for +their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the +Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the +adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United +States and the said State of Kansas." + +Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper +here and see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes +along, that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in +the Senate, December 9, 1857: + +"I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the +bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, +whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote +of the people. It was held by those most intelligent on the subject +that, in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the +danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be +better there should be no such provision in the Toomb's bill; and it +was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the +Convention would make a constitution, and send it here, without +submitting it to the popular vote." + +Then Trumbull follows on: + +"In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 +[Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said: + +"'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or +confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. +Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. +My recollection was clear that I left the conference under the +impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit +Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and +that for delegates to this Convention. This impression was stronger +because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine +of non-intervention, to which I had great aversion; but with the hope +of accomplishing a great good, and as no movement had been made in +that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and +concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of testimony as +to the correctness of these impressions, and with their submission I +shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the senator +from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission +of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows: + +"That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered +to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for +their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the +Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the +adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United +States and the said State of Kansas." + +The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of +June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the +same section word for word. Both these bills were under +consideration at the conference referred to; but, sir, when the +senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate with +amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the +third section which indicated to the Convention that the constitution +should be approved by the people. The words "and ratified by the +people at the election for the adoption of the constitution" had been +stricken out.'" + +Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor +of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the +Congressional Globe on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is +a forgery? Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional +Globe? What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his +evidence from beginning to end? So again he says in another place +that Judge Douglas, in his speech, December 9, 1857 (Congressional +Globe, part I., page 15), stated: + +"That during the last session of Congress, I (Mr. Douglas] reported a +bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of +Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. +Subsequently the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a +substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and +myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate." + +Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and +is recorded in the Congressional Globe. Is it a forgery? Is it +there or not? It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take +these pieces of evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he +dare do it. + +[A voice:"He will."] + +Well, sir, you had better not commit him. He gives other +quotations,--another from Judge Douglas. He says: + +"I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member +of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the +Union, from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be +submitted to the people. I will venture to say that on all sides of +the chamber it was so understood at the time. If the opponents of +the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on +it; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it, +and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President +found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would +be done, which ought in fairness to have been done." + +Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. +Does Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true? Trumbull +says somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any +one who will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the +notice of those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that +provision; and then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge +Douglas, where Judge Trumbull uses this language: + +"Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, +probably recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had +objected to the Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for +a submission of the constitution to the people, made another +statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the Globe, page +22, in which he says: +'That the bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention +was called to that about the time it was passed; and I took the fair +construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that +of course the constitution would be submitted to the people.' + +"Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before +made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or +that it was a new discovery, you will determine." + +So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and +yet maintain his position that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from +beginning to end." I will remark that I have not got these +Congressional Globes with me. They are large books, and difficult to +carry about, and if Judge Douglas shall say that on these points +where Trumbull has quoted from them there are no such passages there, +I shall not be able to prove they are there upon this occasion, but I +will have another chance. Whenever he points out the forgery and +says, "I declare that this particular thing which Trumbull has +uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then my attention +will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest, stating +now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find +every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the question +is, How can Douglas call that a forgery? How can he make out that it +is a forgery? What is a forgery? It is the bringing forward +something in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect +when it is altogether untrue. If you come forward with my note for +one hundred dollars when I have never given such a note, there is a +forgery. If you come forward with a letter purporting to be written +by me which I never wrote, there is another forgery. If you produce +anything in writing or in print saying it is so and so, the document +not being genuine, a forgery has been committed. How do you make +this forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine? If Judge +Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false and forged, +he has a full right to do so; but until he does it specifically, we +don't know how to get at him. If he does say they are false and +forged, I will then look further into it, and presume I can procure +the certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies. +I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where +Trumbull says it is. Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in +making his sweeping charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged +from beginning to end, at all meets the case,--if that is the way to +get at the facts. I repeat again, if he will point out which one is +a forgery, I will carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one +of them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it +any longer. I have always wanted to deal with everyone I meet +candidly and honestly. If I have made any assertion not warranted by +facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully. +But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and the +evidence he has brought forward branded in general terms "a forgery +from beginning to end." This is not the legal way of meeting a +charge, and I submit it to all intelligent persons, both friends of +Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is. + +The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill that went into his +hands had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to +the people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision +for a submission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was +known that the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge +Douglas, it was not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the +declaration, when you got it, for a submission of the constitution to +the people. And now, my direct question to Judge Douglas is, to +answer why, if he deemed the bill silent on this point, he found it +necessary to strike out those particular harmless words. If he had +found the bill silent and without this provision, he might say what +he does now. If he supposes it was implied that the constitution +would be submitted to a vote of the people, how could these two lines +so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to strike them out? +How could he infer that a submission was still implied, after its +express provision had been stricken from the bill? I find the bill +vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it out, and +although he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a +vote of the people, I ask, Why did you first put it in? I ask him +whether he took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges +was in the bill. If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he +did it for. It looks to us as if he had altered the bill. If it +looks differently to him,--if he has a different reason for his +action from the one we assign him--he can tell it. I insist upon +knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point when it was vocal +before he put his hands upon it. + +I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three +minutes of being out. I presume it is expired now; I therefore +close. + + + + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. + +FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour +answer to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried +one. I shall only be able to touch upon a few of the points +suggested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I +shall have to totally omit others for the want of time. + +Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from +me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro +citizenship. So far as I know the Judge never asked me the question +before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell +him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. This +furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I +mentioned in a certain speech of mine, which has been printed, that +the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made +a citizen; and without saying what was my ground of complaint in +regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge +Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he +ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the +negroes and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he +will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course +of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I +had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was +when I did not tell them myself. Now, my opinion is that the +different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the +Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott +decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of +Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it. +That is all I have to say about it. + +Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my +speeches south; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the +north and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very +different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different +points. I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully +misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take these +speeches and read them, and I dare him to point out any difference +between my speeches north and south. While I am here perhaps I ought +to say a word, if I have the time, in regard to the latter portion of +the Judge's speech, which was a sort of declamation in reference to +my having said I entertained the belief that this government would +not endure half slave and half free. I have said so, and I did not +say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhaps +would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in +detail; but let me ask you a few questions. Have we ever had any +peace on this slavery question? When are we to have peace upon it, +if it is kept in the position it now occupies? How are we ever to +have peace upon it? That is an important question. To be sure, if +we will all stop, and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march on +in their present career until they plant the institution all over the +nation, here and wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in +it, there will be peace. But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is +going to get the people to do that? They have been wrangling over +this question for at least forty years. This was the cause of the +agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise; this produced the +troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the +territory acquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was the trouble +which was quieted by the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled +"forever " as both the great political parties declared in their +National Conventions. That "forever" turned out to be just four +years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. When is it likely to +come to an end? He introduced the Nebraska Bill in 1854 to put +another end to the slavery agitation. He promised that it would +finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since, +until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton +Constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the +end of the slavery agitation. But in one speech, I think last +winter, he did say that he did n't quite see when the end of the +slavery agitation would come. Now he tells us again that it is all +over and the people of Kansas have voted down the Lecompton +Constitution. How is it over? That was only one of the attempts at +putting an end to the slavery agitation--one of these "final +settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formed a constitution +that she is likely to come in under? Is not the slavery agitation +still an open question in that Territory? Has the voting down of +that constitution put an end to all the trouble? Is that more likely +to settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the +slavery agitation? Now, at this day in the history of the world we +can no more foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be +than we can see the end of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas +Bill was introduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation +is ever to come to an end we may say we are four years and a half +nearer the end. So, too, we can say we are four years and a half +nearer the end of the world, and we can just as clearly see the end +of the world as we can see the end of this agitation. The Kansas +settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should sink to-day, and +leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed +question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of +putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back +upon the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out +of our new Territories,--to restrict it forever to the old States +where it now exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief +that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of +putting an end to the slavery agitation. + +The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his +friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease +speaking of it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the +common matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our +horses and cattle. But while it drives on in its state of progress +as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I +have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end +to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other. I do +not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will +be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that +in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than +a hundred years at least; but that it will occur in the best way for +both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt. But, my +friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this +point. + +Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a +bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854: +Judge Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, +except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he +told a cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral +principles that Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the +simple truth. I do not care greatly for the story, but this is the +truth of it: and I have twice told Judge Douglas to his face that +from beginning to end there is not one word of truth in it. I have +called upon him for the proof, and he does not at all meet me as +Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just talking, by +producing the record. He did n't bring the record because there was +no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready to indorse +Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply +that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would not be likely +to indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity +because neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years +that I have known Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his +word or tell a falsehood large or small. It is for that reason that +I indorse Lyman Trumbull. + +[Mr. JAMES BROWN (Douglas postmaster): "What does Ford's History say +about him?"] + +Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My own +recollection is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful +terms in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal +worse of Judge Douglas. I refer you, sir, to the History for +examination. + +Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on +the part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to +attend to that suggestion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly +accused of dealing illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either +in court or in a political canvass or anywhere else. I would despise +myself if I supposed myself ready to deal less liberally with an +adversary than I was willing to be treated myself. Judge Douglas in +a general way, without putting it in a direct shape, revives the old +charge against me in reference to the Mexican War. He does not take +the responsibility of putting it in a very definite form, but makes a +general reference to it. That charge is more than ten years old. He +complains of Trumbull and myself because he says we bring charges +against him one or two years old. He knows, too, that in regard to +the Mexican War story the more respectable papers of his own party +throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and +acknowledge that it was a lie. + +[Here Mr. LINCOLN turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting +HON. ORLANDO B. FICKLIN, led him forward and said:] + +I do not mean to do anything with Mr. FICKLIN except to present his +face and tell you that he personal1y knows it to be a lie! He was a +member of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [FICKLIN] +knows that whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine +which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to +give such indorsement and voted against it; but I never voted against +the supplies for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, +that whenever a dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise +for the benefit of the soldiers I gave all the votes that FICKLIN or +Douglas did, and perhaps more. + +[Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the +matter: Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as +Judge Douglas and myself. In reference to this Mexican War, my +recollection is that when Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered +by Mr. Ashmun of Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican +War was unnecessary and unconstitutionally commenced by the President +-my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.] + +That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution +censuring the President for the manner in which the war was begun. +You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by +which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of +their country. I say that FICKLIN knows it is false. When that +charge was brought forward by the Chicago Times, the Springfield +Register [Douglas's organ] reminded the Times that the charge really +applied to John Henry; and I do know that John Henry is now making +speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. If the Judge now +says that he offers this as a sort of setoff to what I said to-day in +reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that he made this +charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He brought this +forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the +opening speech that Judge Douglas made he attacked me in regard to a +matter ten years old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about +people making charges against him only two years old! + +The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon +this charge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in +my opening speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said +that when Judge Douglas was speaking at place--where I spoke on the +succeeding day he used very harsh language about this charge. Two or +three times afterward I said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull's +veracity and intelligence; and my own opinion was, from what I knew +of the character of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his +position and prove whatever he had stated to be true. This I +repeated two or three times; and then I dropped it, without saying +anything more on the subject for weeks--perhaps a month. I passed it +by without noticing it at all till I found, at Jacksonville, Judge +Douglas in the plenitude of his power is not willing to answer +Trumbull and let me alone, but he comes out there and uses this +language: "He should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such +charges made by Trumbull but that, Lincoln having indorsed the +character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln] +responsible for the slanders." What was Lincoln to do? Did he not +do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas +here, to tell him he was ready for the responsibility? I ask a +candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the +assailant rather than I? Here I meet him face to face, and say I am +ready to take the responsibility, so far as it rests on me. + +Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the question +whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge +Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it? You all heard me call +upon him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery. +Does he say that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs +bill is a forgery? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the +bill reported by himself is a forgery, or what is presented as a +transcript from the Globe of the quotations from Bigler's speech is a +forgery? Does he say the quotations from his own speech are +forgeries? Does he say this transcript from Trumbull's speech is a +forgery? + +["He didn't deny one of them."] + +I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of +a story is true the whole story turns out false. I take it these +people have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is +playing cuttle-fish, a small species of fish that has no mode of +defending itself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid, +which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it +escapes. Ain't the Judge playing the cuttle-fish? + +Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge +Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech +of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces +of testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown +to be such. Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery. Then I +ask the original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is +true, how is it possible that the whole is a falsehood? + +In regard to Trumbull's charge that he Douglas] inserted a provision +into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the +people, what was his answer? He comes here and reads from the +Congressional Globe to show that on his motion that provision was +struck out of the bill. Why, Trumbull has not said it was not +stricken out, but Trumbull says he [Douglas] put it in; and it is no +answer to the charge to say he afterwards took it out. Both are +perhaps true. It was in regard to that thing precisely that I told +him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows you that by his +introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to that +assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially +say that Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case, does it +answer Trumbull? I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are +here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you +were in Mattoon yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your +head, and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head. That is +the whole force of Douglas's argument. + +Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that +Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a +constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does +Judge Douglas deny that fact? Does be deny that the provision which +Trumbull reads was put in that bill? Then Trumbull says he struck it +out. Does he dare to deny that? He does not, and I have the right +to repeat the question ,--Why Judge Douglas took it out? Bigler has +said there was a combination of certain senators, among whom he did +not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas +Bill should have a clause in it not to have the constitution formed +under it submitted to a vote of the people. He did not say that +Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the +same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken +out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in +concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and +done with a mutual understanding after the conference; and while we +do not know that it was absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that +we have a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it +was done to tell what the true reason was. When he will not tell +what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude of an accused +thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to +account refuses to tell where he got them. Not only is this the +evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision +stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then but since, that these +alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, in +consultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells us +the same to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in +the bill in committee that he did not vote for. I ask you to +remember, while certain amendments were made which he disapproved of, +but which a majority of the committee voted in, he has himself told +us that in this particular the alterations and modifications were +made by him, upon consultation with Toombs. We have his own word +that these alterations were made by him, and not by the committee. +Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about coming +to the exact question? What is the reason he will not tell you +anything about How it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that he +remembers it being made at all? Why does he stand playing upon the +meaning of words and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? If +he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have the right +to infer that Judge Douglas understood it was the purpose of his +party, in engineering that bill through, to make a constitution, and +have Kansas come into the Union with that constitution, without its +being submitted to a vote of the people. If he will explain his +action on this question, by giving a better reason for the facts that +happened than he has done, it will be satisfactory. But until he +does that--until he gives a better or more plausible reason than he +has offered against the evidence in the case--I suggest to him it +will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, takes on +dignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word in +Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has +only arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of +reasoning. There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends +on Trumbull's word. If you have ever studied geometry, you remember +that by a course of reasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a +triangle are equal to two right angles. Euclid has shown you how to +work it out. Now, if you undertake to disprove that proposition, and +to show that it is erroneous, would you prove it to be false by +calling Euclid a liar? They tell me that my time is out, and +therefore I close. + + + + +FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, + +OCTOBER 7, 1858 + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY. + +MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge +Douglas has addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in +print. I do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all.--- If I +had not been interrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I +was able to make to a very large portion of it had already been more +than once made and published. There has been an opportunity afforded +to the public to see our respective views upon the topics discussed +in a large portion of the speech which he has just delivered. I make +these remarks for the purpose of excusing myself for not passing over +the entire ground that the Judge has traversed. I however desire to +take up some of the points that he has attended to, and ask your +attention to them, and I shall follow him backwards upon some notes +which I have taken, reversing the order, by beginning where he +concluded. + +The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and +insisted that negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that +it is a slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that +negroes were meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possible to +believe that Mr. Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have +supposed himself applying the language of that instrument to the +negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery? Would he +not at once have freed them? I only have to remark upon this part of +the Judge's speech (and that, too, very briefly, for I shall not +detain myself, or you, upon that point for any great length of time), +that I believe the entire records of the world, from the date of the +Declaration of Independence up to within three years ago, may be +searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single man, +that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence; I +think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that +Washington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any +member of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the +whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present policy +of the Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to invent that +affirmation. And I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience that +while Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, +in speaking upon this very subject he used the strong language that +"he trembled for his country when he remembered that God was just"; +and I will offer the highest premium in my power to Judge Douglas if +he will show that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at +all akin to that of Jefferson. + +The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's +comments upon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call +our public meetings as Republican meetings; and he instances Tazewell +County as one of the places where the friends of Lincoln have called +a public meeting and have not dared to name it a Republican meeting. +He instances Monroe County as another, where Judge Trumbull and Jehu +Baker addressed the persons whom the Judge assumes to be the friends +of Lincoln calling them the "Free Democracy." I have the honor to +inform Judge Douglas that he spoke in that very county of Tazewell +last Saturday, and I was there on Tuesday last; and when he spoke +there, he spoke under a call not venturing to use the word +"Democrat." [Turning to Judge Douglas.] what think you of this? + +So, again, there is another thing to which I would ask the Judge's +attention upon this subject. In the contest of 1856 his party +delighted to call themselves together as the "National Democracy"; +but now, if there should be a notice put up anywhere for a meeting of +the "National Democracy," Judge Douglas and his friends would not +come. They would not suppose themselves invited. They would +understand that it was a call for those hateful postmasters whom he +talks about. + +Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine +which Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in +very great contrast to each other. Those speeches have been before +the public for a considerable time, and if they have any +inconsistency in them, if there is any conflict in them, the public +have been able to detect it. When the Judge says, in speaking on +this subject, that I make speeches of one sort for the people of the +northern end of the State, and of a different sort for the southern +people, he assumes that I do not understand that my speeches will be +put in print and read north and south. I knew all the while that the +speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at Jonesboro and +the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all the reading +and intelligent men in the community would see them and know all +about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, +that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will +have it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality +between the white and black races which justifies us in making them +slaves, we must then insist that there is a degree of equality that +requires us to make them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken +a broad distinction in regard to that matter; and that is all there +is in these different speeches which he arrays here; and the entire +reading of either of the speeches will show that that distinction was +made. Perhaps by taking two parts of the same speech he could have +got up as much of a conflict as the one he has found. I have all the +while maintained that in so far as it should be insisted that there +was an equality between the white and black races that should produce +a perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility. +This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have said +that in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," +as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our +equals. And these declarations I have constantly made in reference +to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we +are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed +with the actual presence of the evil,--slavery. I have never +manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the +actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence +of slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have +insisted that, in legislating for new countries where it does not +exist there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract +right! With reference to those new countries, those maxims as to the +right of a people to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" +were the just rules to be constantly referred to. There is no +misunderstanding this, except by men interested to misunderstand it. +I take it that I have to address an intelligent and reading +community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge +whether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I advanced +hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions +of the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as +the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free +from all error in the opinions I advance. + +The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction +between his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national +party, ours a sectional one. He does this in asking the question +whether this country has any interest in the maintenance of the +Republican party. He assumes that our party is altogether sectional, +that the party to which he adheres is national; and the argument is, +that no party can be a rightful party--and be based upon rightful +principles--unless it can announce its principles everywhere. I +presume that Judge Douglas could not go into Russia and announce the +doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not denounce the +doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Russia; and it may +be true of this country that in some places we may not be able to +proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of democracy, +because there is a section so directly opposed to it that they will +not tolerate us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of +a doctrine that in some places people won't let you proclaim it? Is +that the way to test the truth of any doctrine? Why, I understood +that at one time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas +preach a certain favorite doctrine of his. I commend to his +consideration the question whether he takes that as a test of the +unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. + +There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little +while on this occasion. What has always been the evidence brought +forward to prove that the Republican party is a sectional party? The +main one was that in the Southern portion of the Union the people did +not let the Republicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That +has been the main evidence brought forward,--that they had no +supporters, or substantially none, in the Slave States. The South +have not taken hold of our principles as we announce them; nor does +Judge Douglas now grapple with those principles. We have a +Republican State Platform, laid down in Springfield in June last +stating our position all the way through the questions before the +country. We are now far advanced in this canvass. Judge Douglas and +I have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have now for the +fifth time met face to face in debate, and up to this day I have not +found either Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of the +Republican platform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is +wrong. I ask you all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away +from the platform of principles to the fact that he can find people +somewhere who will not allow us to announce those principles. If he +had great confidence that our principles were wrong, he would take +hold of them and demonstrate them to be wrong. But he does not do +so. The only evidence he has of their being wrong is in the fact +that there are people who won't allow us to preach them. I ask +again, is that the way to test the soundness of a doctrine? + +I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality +he is himself fast becoming sectional. I ask his attention to the +fact that his speeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio +River as they have formerly gone there I ask his attention to the +fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all the Democrats of the +free States are agreeing with him, while he omits to tell us that the +Democrats of any slave State agree with him. If he has not thought +of this, I commend to his consideration the evidence in his own +declaration, on this day, of his becoming sectional too. I see it +rapidly approaching. Whatever may be the result of this ephemeral +contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day rapidly +approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has been +thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be +crowded down his own throat. + +Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his +speech) about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principles of the +Nebraska Bill, although I have often presented my views upon that +subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you +please, detain you a little with them. I have always maintained, so +far as I was able, that there was nothing of the principle of the +Nebraska Bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all,--nothing whatever. +Where can you find the principle of the Nebraska Bill in that +Compromise? If anywhere, in the two pieces of the Compromise +organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was expressly +provided in these two acts that when they came to be admitted into +the Union they should be admitted with or without slavery, as they +should choose, by their own constitutions. Nothing was said in +either of those acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery +during the Territorial existence of those Territories, while Henry +Clay constantly made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him +as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control +that question during the Territorial existence, and that these old +Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can that be used as a principle +for declaring that during the Territorial existence as well as at the +time of framing the constitution the people, if you please, might +have slaves if they wanted them? I am not discussing the question +whether it is right or wrong; but how are the New Mexican and Utah +laws patterns for the Nebraska Bill? I maintain that the +organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general +principle at all. It had no feature of establishing a general +principle. The acts to which I have referred were a part of a +general system of Compromises. They did not lay down what was +proposed as a regular policy for the Territories, only an agreement +in this particular case to do in that way, because other things were +done that were to be a compensation for it. They were allowed to +come in in that shape, because in another way it was paid for, +considering that as a part of that system of measures called the +Compromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen acts. It +included the admission of California as a free State, which was kept +out of the Union for half a year because it had formed a free +constitution. It included the settlement of the boundary of Texas, +which had been undefined before, which was in itself a slavery +question; for if you pushed the line farther west, you made Texas +larger, and made more slave territory; while, if you drew the line +toward the east, you narrowed the boundary and diminished the domain +of slavery, and by so much increased free territory. It included the +abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. It +included the passage of a new Fugitive Slave law. All these things +were put together, and, though passed in separate acts, were +nevertheless, in legislation (as the speeches at the time will show), +made to depend upon each other. Each got votes with the +understanding that the other measures were to pass, and by this +system of compromise, in that series of measures, those two bills-- +the New Mexico and Utah bills--were passed: and I say for that reason +they could not be taken as models, framed upon their own intrinsic +principle, for all future Territories. And I have the evidence of +this in the fact that Judge Douglas, a year afterward, or more than a +year afterward, perhaps, when he first introduced bills for the +purpose of framing new Territories, did not attempt to follow these +bills of New Mexico and Utah; and even when he introduced this +Nebraska Bill, I think you will discover that he did not exactly +follow them. But I do not wish to dwell at great length upon this +branch of the discussion. My own opinion is, that a thorough +investigation will show most plainly that the New Mexico and Utah +bills were part of a system of compromise, and not designed as +patterns for future Territorial legislation; and that this Nebraska +Bill did not follow them as a pattern at all. + +The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any +odious distinctions between free and slave States. I am altogether +unaware that the Republicans are in favor of making any odious +distinctions between the free and slave States. But there is still a +difference, I think, between Judge Douglas and the Republicans in +this. I suppose that the real difference between Judge Douglas and +his friends, and the Republicans on the contrary, is, that the Judge +is not in favor of making any difference between slavery and liberty; +that he is in favor of eradicating, of pressing out of view, the +questions of preference in this country for free or slave +institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the +idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Everything that emanates +from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully +excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery. All +their arguments, if you will consider them, will be seen to exclude +the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in slavery. If you +will take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed +sentences expressed by him,--as his declaration that he "don't care +whether slavery is voted up or down,"--you will see at once that this +is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong. If +you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he +don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas +declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to +have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no +wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he +cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. He +insists that upon the score of equality the owners of slaves and +owners of property--of horses and every other sort of property-- +should be alike, and hold them alike in a new Territory. That is +perfectly logical if the two species of property are alike and are +equally founded in right. But if you admit that one of them is +wrong, you cannot institute any equality between right and wrong. +And from this difference of sentiment,--the belief on the part of one +that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that +belief which looks to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong, +and this other sentiment, that it is no wrong, and a policy sprung +from that sentiment, which will tolerate no idea of preventing the +wrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end to +it through all the existence of things,--arises the real difference +between Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand and the +Republicans on the other. Now, I confess myself as belonging to that +class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and +political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us +and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, +and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown +about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the +prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as +a wrong it may come to an end. + +Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, if not the +seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or +combination between the National Democrats and Republicans. What +evidence Judge Douglas has upon this subject I know not, inasmuch as +he never favors us with any. I have said upon a former occasion, and +I do not choose to suppress it now, that I have no objection to the +division in the Judge's party. He got it up himself. It was all his +and their work. He had, I think, a great deal more to do with the +steps that led to the Lecompton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had; +though at last, when they reached it, they quarreled over it, and +their friends divided upon it. I am very free to confess to Judge +Douglas that I have no objection to the division; but I defy the +Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way promoted that +division, unless he insists on being a witness himself in merely +saying so. I can give all fair friends of Judge Douglas here to +understand exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to that +division. Don't you remember how two years ago the opponents of the +Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess +you do. Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also +that he was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to +see all there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans. +What we now think of the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought +of the Fremont and Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. + +But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there +is an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the +National Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving +him as an entirely competent witness upon that subject. I want to +call to the Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first +one of these +debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order to fix extreme +Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which +he declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in +October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken +part in that Convention. It turned out that although a few men +calling themselves an anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at +Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take any part in it, +nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as Judge +Douglas read. So apparent had it become that the resolutions which +he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by a State +Convention in which I had taken part, that seven days afterward, at +Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by Charles +H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L. Harris, +member of Congress in that district, and he promised in that speech +that when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter. +Since then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has +made the investigation; but a month has passed since he has been +there, and, so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of +his investigation. I have waited as I think sufficient time for the +report of that investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and +hear it. A fraud, an absolute forgery was committed, and the +perpetration of it was traced to the three,--Lanphier, Harris, and +Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed in any way so as to exonerate +any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's report would probably show. + +It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were +published in the Illinois State Register on the 16th of October, +1854, as being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention which +had sat in that same month of October, at Springfield. But it is +also true that the publication in the Register was a forgery then, +and the question is still behind, which of the three, if not all of +them, committed that forgery. The idea that it was done by mistake +is absurd. The article in the Illinois State Register contains part +of the real proceedings of that Springfield Convention, showing that +the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him, and +purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the Convention +and fraudulently substituted the others. Lanphier then, as now, was +the editor of the Register, so that there seems to be but little room +for his escape. But then it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had +less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the other +two. The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat Yates +and elect Harris to Congress, and that object was known to be +exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and Douglas +were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, and +although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register, +subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon +that Convention. + +The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both +Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to +put it to new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband +was brought home with his body full of eels, said when she was asked +what was to be done with him, "Take the eels out and set him again," +so Harris and Douglas have shown a disposition to take the eels out +of that stale fraud by which they gained Harris's election, and set +the fraud again more than once. On the 9th of July, 1856, Douglas +attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the Senate +of the United States, as will appear from the appendix of the +Congressional Globe of that date. + +On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton in the +House of Representatives, as will appear by the same documents,--the +appendix to the Congressional Globe of that date. On the 21st of +August last, all three--Lanphier, Douglas, and Harris--reattempted it +upon me at Ottawa. It has been clung to and played out again and +again as an exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio. And now +that it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud we find that Judge +Douglas manifests no surprise at it at all. He makes no complaint of +Lanphier, who must have known it to be a fraud from the beginning. +He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as cozy now and just as active in +the concoction of new schemes as they were before the general +discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is very natural if they are +all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any one +of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honor +among thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself, +and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a +satisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the three +are agreed that each is "a most honorable man." + +Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by a +re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports +against me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which +we know to be utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to think +that this one unexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate, +will be the least drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He +asks a re-election to the lower House of Congress without seeming to +remember at all that he is involved in this dishonorable fraud! The +Illinois State Register, edited by Lanphier, then, as now, the +central organ of both Harris and Douglas, continues to din the public +ear with this assertion, without seeming to suspect that these +assertions are at all lacking in title to belief. + +After all, the question still recurs upon us, How did that fraud +originally get into the State Register.? Lanphier then, as now, was +the editor of that paper. Lanphier knows. Lanphier cannot be +ignorant of how and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he be +induced to tell, or, if he has told, can Judge Douglas be induced to +tell how it originally was concocted? It may be true that Lanphier +insists that the two men for whose benefit it was originally devised +shall at least bear their share of it! How that is, I do not know, +and while it remains unexplained I hope to be pardoned if I insist +that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making charges against Trumbull +and myself is not quite sufficient evidence to establish them! + +While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I +answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded +to me, and then in turn propounded some to him, which he in a sort of +way answered. The third one of these interrogatories I have with me, +and wish now to make some comments upon it. It was in these words: + "If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that the +States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of +acquiescing in, adhering to, and following such decision as a rule of +political action?" + +To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense +of the word. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that +it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. +He sneered at me for propounding the interrogatory. I had not +propounded it without some reflection, and I wish now to address to +this audience some remarks upon it. + +In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe it is, of the +Constitution of the United States, we find the following language: + +"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be +made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be +made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme +law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound +thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the +contrary notwithstanding." + +The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence +which I will now read: + +"Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, +upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is +distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution." + +I repeat it, "The right of property in a slave is distinctly and +expressly affirmed in the Constitution"! What is it to be "affirmed" +in the Constitution? Made firm in the Constitution, so made that it +cannot be separated from the Constitution without breaking the +Constitution; durable as the Constitution, and part of the +Constitution. Now, remembering the provision of the Constitution +which I have read--affirming that that instrument is the supreme law +of the land; that the judges of every State shall be bound by it, any +law or constitution of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; +that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that +Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be separated from it +without breaking it; durable as the instrument; part of the +instrument;--what follows as a short and even syllogistic argument +from it? I think it follows, and I submit to the consideration of +men capable of arguing whether, as I state it, in syllogistic form, +the argument has any fault in it: + +Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right +distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United +States. + +The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed +in the Constitution of the United States. + +Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can +destroy the right of property in a slave. + +I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming +the truth of the premises, the conclusion, so far as I have capacity +at all to understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault in it +as I think, but the fault is not in the reasoning; but the falsehood +in fact is a fault of the premises. I believe that the right of +property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the +Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the +Supreme Court and the advocates of that decision may search in vain +for the place in the Constitution where the right of property in a +slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed I say, therefore, that I +think one of the premises is not true in fact. But it is true with +Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced it. +They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying +it, the conclusion follows that, the Constitution of the United +States being the supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere +with it. It being affirmed in the decision that the right of +property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the +Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law or +constitution can destroy that right. I then say to Judge Douglas and +to all others that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer +to show that those who have said that the right of property in a +slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, are +not prepared to show that no constitution or law can destroy that +right. I say I believe it will take a far better argument than a +mere sneer to show to the minds of intelligent men that whoever has +so said is not prepared, whenever public sentiment is so far advanced +as to justify it, to say the other. This is but an opinion, and the +opinion of one very humble man; but it is my opinion that the Dred +Scott decision, as it is, never would have been made in its present +form if the party that made it had not been sustained previously by +the elections. My own opinion is, that the new Dred Scott decision, +deciding against the right of the people of the States to exclude +slavery, will never be made if that party is not sustained by the +elections. I believe, further, that it is just as sure to be made as +to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained. I have said, +upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course of +arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I charge +not his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new +Dred Scott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the +reasons for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. +I have turned his attention to the fact that General Jackson differed +with him in regard to the political obligation of a Supreme Court +decision. I have asked his attention to the fact that Jefferson +differed with him in regard to the political obligation of a Supreme +Court decision. Jefferson said that "Judges are as honest as other +men, and not more so." And he said, substantially, that whenever a +free people should give up in absolute submission to any department +of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their +liberties were gone. I have asked his attention to the fact that the +Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, disregards a +time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in denying the power of +Congress to establish a National Bank. I have asked his attention to +the fact that he himself was one of the most active instruments at +one time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois +because it had made a decision distasteful to him,--a struggle ending +in the remarkable circumstance of his sitting down as one of the new +Judges who were to overslaugh that decision; getting his title of +Judge in that very way. + +So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from Judge +Douglas upon these subjects. Not one can I get from him, except that +he swells himself up and says, "All of us who stand by the decision +of the Supreme Court are the friends of the Constitution; all you +fellows that dare question it in any way are the enemies of the +Constitution." Now, in this very devoted adherence to this decision, +in opposition to all the great political leaders whom he has +recognized as leaders, in opposition to his former self and history, +there is something very marked. And the manner in which he adheres +to it,--not as being right upon the merits, as he conceives (because +he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory +upon every one simply because of the source from whence it comes, as +that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be,--this is another +marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it in +this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it +comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not +investigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or +wrong. So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is +right or wrong. He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing +prepares the public mind to take the next decision when it comes, +without any inquiry. In this I think I argue fairly (without +questioning motives at all) that Judge Douglas is most ingeniously +and powerfully preparing the public mind to take that decision when +it comes; and not only so, but he is doing it in various other ways. +In these general maxims about liberty, in his assertions that he +"don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down,"; that +"whoever wants slavery has a right to have it"; that "upon principles +of equality it should be allowed to go everywhere"; that "there is no +inconsistency between free and slave institutions "- in this he is +also preparing (whether purposely or not) the way for making the +institution of slavery national! I repeat again, for I wish no +misunderstanding, that I do not charge that he means it so; but I +call upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best +instrument you could, and then set it to work in the most ingenious +way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, operating in the +free States, where there is now an abhorrence of the institution of +slavery, could you find an instrument so capable of doing it as Judge +Douglas, or one employed in so apt a way to do it? + +I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, +when he was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, +that it had a tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, +said that: + +"those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate +emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the +Colonization Society: they must go back to the era of our liberty and +independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous +return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must +penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the +love of liberty!" + +And I do think--I repeat, though I said it on a former occasion--that +Judge Douglas and whoever, like him, teaches that the negro has no +share, humble though it may be, in the Declaration of Independence, +is going back to the era of our liberty and independence, and, so far +as in him lies, muzzling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous +return; that he is blowing out the moral lights around us, when he +contends that whoever wants slaves has a right to hold them; that he +is penetrating, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and +eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty, when he is +in every possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast +influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual and +national. + +There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your +attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I +shall not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may +not take me clear through it. + +Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at +Freeport, there was one in about this language: + +"Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the +United States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?" + +I answered, as I thought, in this way: that I am not generally +opposed to the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would +support a proposition for the acquisition of additional territory +according as my supporting it was or was not calculated to aggravate +this slavery question amongst us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas +another interrogatory, which was correlative to that: "Are you in +favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how it may +affect us upon the slavery question?" Judge Douglas answered,--that +is, in his own way he answered it. I believe that, although he took +a good many words to answer it, it was a little more fully answered +than any other. The substance of his answer was that this country +would continue to expand; that it would need additional territory; +that it was as absurd to suppose that we could continue upon our +present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as it would be +to hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow to man's +size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was something like +that. Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of further +territory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might +affect the slavery question. I do not say this as giving his exact +language, but he said so substantially; and he would leave the +question of slavery, where the territory was acquired, to be settled +by the people of the acquired territory. ["That's the doctrine."] +May be it is; let us consider that for a while. This will probably, +in the run of things, become one of the concrete manifestations of +this slavery question. If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question +succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until all opposition is +crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor +Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the +adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promises additional +slave-fields. And this question is to be left to the people of those +countries for settlement. When we get Mexico, I don't know whether +the Judge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it +settling that question for themselves and all others; because we know +the Judge has a great horror for mongrels, and I understand that the +people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand +that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure +white, and I suppose from the Judge's previous declaration that when +we get Mexico, or any considerable portion of it, that he will be in +favor of these mongrels settling the question, which would bring him +somewhat into collision with his horror of an inferior race. + +It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring +additional territory is a power confided to the President and the +Senate of the United States. It is a power not under the control of +the representatives of the people any further than they, the +President and the Senate, can be considered the representatives of +the people. Let me illustrate that by a case we have in our history. +When we acquired the territory from Mexico in the Mexican War, the +House of Representatives, composed of the immediate representatives +of the people, all the time insisted that the territory thus to be +acquired should be brought in upon condition that slavery should be +forever prohibited therein, upon the terms and in the language that +slavery had been prohibited from coming into this country. That was +insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an assurance +that any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it, +so far as the House of Representatives was concerned. But at last +the President and Senate acquired the territory without asking the +House of Representatives anything about it, and took it without that +prohibition. They have the power of acquiring territory without the +immediate representatives of the people being called upon to say +anything about it, and thus furnishing a very apt and powerful means +of bringing new territory into the Union, and, when it is once +brought into the country, involving us anew in this slavery +agitation. It is therefore, as I think, a very important question +for due consideration of the American people, whether the policy of +bringing in additional territory, without considering at all how it +will operate upon the safety of the Union in reference to this one +great disturbing element in our national politics, shall be adopted +as the policy of the country. You will bear in mind that it is to be +acquired, according to the Judge's view, as fast as it is needed, and +the indefinite part of this proposition is that we have only Judge +Douglas and his class of men to decide how fast it is needed. We +have no clear and certain way of determining or demonstrating how +fast territory is needed by the necessities of the country. Whoever +wants to go out filibustering, then, thinks that more territory is +needed. Whoever wants wider slave-fields feels sure that some +additional territory is needed as slave territory. Then it is as +easy to show the necessity of additional slave-territory as it is to +assert anything that is incapable of absolute demonstration. +Whatever motive a man or a set of men may have for making annexation +of property or territory, it is very easy to assert, but much less +easy to disprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country. + +And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very grave +question for the people of this Union to consider, whether, in view +of the fact that this slavery question has been the only one that has +ever endangered our Republican institutions, the only one that has +ever threatened or menaced a dissolution of the Union, that has ever +disturbed us in such a way as to make us fear for the perpetuity of +our liberty,--in view of these facts, I think it is an exceedingly +interesting and important question for this people to consider +whether we shall engage in the policy of acquiring additional +territory, discarding altogether from our consideration, while +obtaining new territory, the question how it may affect us in regard +to this, the only endangering element to our liberties and national +greatness. The Judge's view has been expressed. I, in my answer to +his question, have expressed mine. I think it will become an +important and practical question. Our views are before the public. +I am willing and anxious that they should consider them fully; that +they should turn it about and consider the importance of the +question, and arrive at a just conclusion as to whether it is or is +not wise in the people of this Union, in the acquisition of new +territory, to consider whether it will add to the disturbance that is +existing amongst us--whether it will add to the one only danger that +has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union or our own liberties. +I think it is extremely important that they shall decide, and rightly +decide, that question before entering upon that policy. + +And now, my friends, having said the little I wish to say upon this +head, whether I have occupied the whole of the remnant of my time or +not, I believe I could not enter upon any new topic so as to treat it +fully, without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment +think of doing. I give way to Judge Douglas. + + + + +SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, + +AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, 1858. + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have had no immediate conference with Judge +Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree +that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will +be most agreeable to us. + +In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois +which have since been consolidated into the Republican party +assembled together in a State Convention at Bloomington. They +adopted at that time what, in political language, is called a +platform. In June of the same year the elements of the Republican +party in the nation assembled together in a National Convention at +Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the National Platform. In +June, 1858,--the present year,--the Republicans of Illinois +reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again +their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essential +particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding +something in relation to the new developments of political progress +in the country. + +The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be +one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the +United States Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this +canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms. We are now met +together on the 13th of October of the same year, only four months +from the adoption of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this +canvass, from the beginning until to-day, any one of our adversaries +has taken hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon anything +that he calls wrong in them. + +In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator +Douglas and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these +platforms, or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to +hold me responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the +meeting of either one of these conventions of which I have spoken. +And as a ground for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he +assumed that they had been passed at a State Convention of the +Republican party, and that I took part in that Convention. It was +discovered afterward that this was erroneous, that the resolutions +which he endeavored to hold me responsible for had not been passed by +any State Convention anywhere, had not been passed at Springfield, +where he supposed they had, or assumed that they had, and that they +had been passed in no convention in which I had taken part. The +Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the point that he was +endeavoring to make upon me, and he therefore thought to still hold +me to the point that he was endeavoring to make, by showing that the +resolutions that he read had been passed at a local convention in the +northern part of the State, although it was not a local convention +that embraced my residence at all, nor one that reached, as I +suppose, nearer than one hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of +where I was when it met, nor one in which I took any part at all. He +also introduced other resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by +combining the whole, although they were all antecedent to the two +State Conventions and the one National Convention I have mentioned, +still he insisted, and now insists, as I understand, that I am in +some way responsible for them. + +At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I +was in no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this +local meeting or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in +which I was in no way embraced; but I insisted to him that if he +thought I was responsible for every man or every set of men +everywhere, who happen to be my friends, the rule ought to work both +ways, and he ought to be responsible for the acts and resolutions of +all men or sets of men who were or are now his supporters and +friends, and gave him a pretty long string of resolutions, passed by +men who are now his friends, and announcing doctrines for which he +does not desire to be held responsible. + +This still does not satisfy Judge Douglas. He still adheres to his +proposition, that I am responsible for what some of my friends in +different parts of the State have done, but that he is not +responsible for what his have done. At least, so I understand him. +But in addition to that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, +last week, undertakes to establish that I am guilty of a species of +double dealing with the public; that I make speeches of a certain +sort in the north, among the Abolitionists, which I would not make in +the south, and that I make speeches of a certain sort in the south +which I would not make in the north. I apprehend, in the course I +have marked out for myself, that I shall not have to dwell at very +great length upon this subject. + +As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had +an opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something +in answer to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech +of mine delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he +brought forward an extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in +which he insisted that I was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that +his conclusion followed, that I was playing a double part, and +speaking in one region one way, and in another region another way. I +have not time now to dwell on this as long as I would like, and wish +only now to requote that portion of my speech at Charleston which the +Judge quoted, and then make some comments upon it. This he quotes +from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I believe correctly: + +"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of +bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the +white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of +making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold +office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in +addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the +white and black races which will forever forbid the two races living +together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as +they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the +position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in +favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." + +This, I believe, is the entire quotation from Charleston speech, as +Judge Douglas made it his comments are as follows: + +"Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right +when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares +that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a +superior and inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and +expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of +races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man +and negro were declared equal, and endowed by divine law with +equality. And down South, with the old-line Whigs, with the +Kentuckians, the Virginians and the Tennesseeans, he tells you that +there is a physical difference between the races, making the one +superior, the other inferior, and he is in favor of maintaining the +superiority of the white race over the negro." + +Those are the Judges comments. Now, I wish to show you that a month, +or only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech at +Charleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say +substantially the same thing It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa- +-and I will say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was +in, after a while--but at our first meeting, at Ottawa, I read an +extract from an old speech of mine, made nearly four years ago, not +merely to show my sentiments, but to show that my sentiments were +long entertained and openly expressed; in which extract I expressly +declared that my own feelings would not admit a social and political +equality between the white and black races, and that even if my own +feelings would admit of it, I still knew that the public sentiment of +the country would not, and that such a thing was an utter +impossibility, or substantially that. That extract from my old +speech the reporters by some sort of accident passed over, and it was +not reported. I lay no blame upon anybody. I suppose they thought +that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while I was +giving it, but afterward went away without getting it from me. At +the end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at Ottawa, +I made the comments which were reported at that time, and which I +will now read, and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the +same as Judge Douglas says were delivered by me down in Egypt. After +reading, I added these words: + +"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length; but this +is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the +institution of slavery or the black race, and this is the whole of +it: anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and +political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastical +arrangement of words by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be +a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I +have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the +institution in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right +to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to +introduce political and social equality between the white and black +races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my +judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the +footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity +that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in +favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I +have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, +notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the +negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration +of Independence,--the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of +happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white +man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many +respects, certainly not in color, perhaps not in intellectual and +moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread, without the +leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and +the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." + +I have chiefly introduced this for the purpose of meeting the Judge's +charge that the quotation he took from my Charleston speech was what +I would say down South among the Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc., +but would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of +the Abolition element. I now make this comment: That speech from +which I have now read the quotation, and which is there given +correctly--perhaps too much so for good taste--was made away up North +in the Abolition District of this State par excellence, in the +Lovejoy District, in the personal presence of Lovejoy, for he was on +the stand with us when I made it. It had been made and put in print +in that region only three days less than a month before the speech +made at Charleston, the like of which Judge Douglas thinks I would +not make where there was any Abolition element. I only refer to this +matter to say that I am altogether unconscious of having attempted +any double-dealing anywhere; that upon one occasion I may say one +thing, and leave other things unsaid, and vice versa, but that I have +said anything on one occasion that is inconsistent with what I have +said elsewhere, I deny, at least I deny it so far as the intention is +concerned. I find that I have devoted to this topic a larger portion +of my time than I had intended. I wished to show, but I will pass it +upon this occasion, that in the sentiment I have occasionally +advanced upon the Declaration of Independence I am entirely borne out +by the sentiments advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I +have the book here to show it from but because I have already +occupied more time than I intended to do on that topic, I pass over +it. + +At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, +pushed to its legitimate consequences, slavery would be established +in all the States as well as in the Territories. I did this because, +upon a former occasion, I had asked Judge Douglas whether, if the +Supreme Court should make a decision declaring that the States had +not the power to exclude slavery from their limits, he would adopt +and follow that decision as a rule of political action; and because +he had not directly answered that question, but had merely contented +himself with sneering at it, I again introduced it, and tried to show +that the conclusion that I stated followed inevitably and logically +from the proposition already decided by the court. Judge Douglas had +the privilege of replying to me at Galesburgh, and again he gave me +no direct answer as to whether he would or would not sustain such a +decision if made. I give him his third chance to say yes or no. He +is not obliged to do either, probably he will not do either; but I +give him the third chance. I tried to show then that this result, +this conclusion, inevitably followed from the point already decided +by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thought +of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his +remarks upon this subject uses the language which I will now read. +Speaking of me, the Judge says: + +"He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry +slavery into the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself +says the contrary." And he adds: + +"Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that +holds that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their +opinions held the reverse. + +I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying +that I have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge +Douglas to lay his finger upon the place in the entire opinions of +the court where any one of them "says the contrary." It is very hard +to affirm a negative with entire confidence. I say, however, that I +have examined that decision with a good deal of care, as a lawyer +examines a decision and, so far as I have been able to do so, the +court has nowhere in its opinions said that the States have the power +to exclude slavery, nor have they used other language substantially +that, I also say, so far as I can find, not one of the concurring +judges has said that the States can exclude slavery, nor said +anything that was substantially that. The nearest approach that any +one of them has made to it, so far as I can find, was by Judge +Nelson, and the approach he made to it was exactly, in substance, the +Nebraska Bill,--that the States had the exclusive power over the +question of slavery, so far as they are not limited by the +Constitution of the United States. I asked the question, therefore, +if the non-concurring judges, McLean or Curtis, had asked to get an +express declaration that the States could absolutely exclude slavery +from their limits, what reason have we to believe that it would not +have been voted down by the majority of the judges, just as Chase's +amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it +was offered to the Nebraska Bill. + +Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield +resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at +Ottawa, and commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as +presented, not genuine. Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to +be somewhat exasperated. He said he would never have believed that +Abraham Lincoln, as he kindly called me, would have attempted such a +thing as I had attempted upon that occasion; and among other +expressions which he used toward me, was that I dared to say forgery, +that I had dared to say forgery [turning to Judge Douglas]. Yes, +Judge, I did dare to say forgery. But in this political canvass the +Judge ought to remember that I was not the first who dared to say +forgery. At Jacksonville, Judge Douglas made a speech in answer to +something said by Judge Trumbull, and at the close of what he said +upon that subject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged his +evidence. He said, too, that he should not concern himself with +Trumbull any more, but thereafter he should hold Lincoln responsible +for the slanders upon him. When I met him at Charleston after that, +although I think that I should not have noticed the subject if he had +not said he would hold me responsible for it, I spread out before him +the statements of the evidence that Judge Trumbull had used, and I +asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger upon one piece +of all that evidence that he would say was a forgery! When I went +through with each and every piece, Judge Douglas did not dare then to +say that any piece of it was a forgery. So it seems that there are +some things that Judge Douglas dares to do, and some that he dares +not to do. + +[A voice: It is the same thing with you.] + +Yes, sir, it is the same thing with me. I do dare to say forgery +when it is true, and don't dare to say forgery when it is false. Now +I will say here to this audience and to Judge Douglas I have not +dared to say he committed a forgery, and I never shall until I know +it; but I did dare to say--just to suggest to the Judge--that a +forgery had been committed, which by his own showing had been traced +to him and two of his friends. I dared to suggest to him that he had +expressly promised in one of his public speeches to investigate that +matter, and I dared to suggest to him that there was an implied +promise that when he investigated it he would make known the result. +I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could not expect to be quite +clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the time that promise was +made he had been with those friends, and had not kept his promise in +regard to the investigation and the report upon it. I am not a very +daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much scared +about it yet. When the Judge says he would n't have believed of +Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that he +reminds me of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the +purpose to treat me courteously; that touched me somewhat. It sets +me to thinking. I was aware, when it was first agreed that Judge +Douglas and I were to have these seven joint discussions, that they +were the successive acts of a drama, perhaps I should say, to be +enacted, not merely in the face of audiences like this, but in the +face of the nation, and to some extent, by my relation to him, and +not from anything in myself, in the face of the world; and I am +anxious that they should be conducted with dignity and in the good +temper which would be befitting the vast audiences before which it +was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and +made his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some +sort of a reply to it. His second speech was made at Bloomington, in +which he commented upon my speech at Chicago and said that I had used +language ingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions, or words to +that effect. Now, I understand that this is an imputation upon my +veracity and my candor. I do not know what the Judge understood by +it, but in our first discussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a +bargain, somewhat corrupt in its character, upon Trumbull and +myself,--that we had entered into a bargain, one of the terms of +which was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize the old Democratic party, +and I (Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig party; I pretending +to be as good an old-line Whig as ever. Judge Douglas may not +understand that he implicated my truthfulness and my honor when he +said I was doing one thing and pretending another; and I +misunderstood him if he thought he was treating me in a dignified +way, as a man of honor and truth, as he now claims he was disposed to +treat me. Even after that time, at Galesburgh, when he brings +forward an extract from a speech made at Chicago and an extract from +a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I was trying to play a +double part, that I was trying to cheat the public, and get votes +upon one set of principles at one place, and upon another set of +principles at another place,--I do not understand but what he +impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does +this, I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground +for it, to keep my hands off of him. As soon as I learned that Judge +Douglas was disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of +my speeches that I should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble +resources I might have,--to adopt a new course with him. I was not +entirely sure that I should be able to hold my own with him, but I at +least had the purpose made to do as well as I could upon him; and now +I say that I will not be the first to cry "Hold." I think it +originated with the Judge, and when he quits, I probably will. But I +shall not ask any favors at all. He asks me, or he asks the +audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of personal +difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make a mistake, in one of +his early speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though +perhaps he did when he called me an "intelligent" man. It really +hurts me very much to suppose that I have wronged anybody on earth. +I again tell him, no! I very much prefer, when this canvass shall be +over, however it may result, that we at least part without any bitter +recollections of personal difficulties. + +The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was +pushing this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the +responsibility for the enormity of my principles. I say to the Judge +and this audience, now, that I will again state our principles, as +well as I hastily can, in all their enormity, and if the Judge +hereafter chooses to confine himself to a war upon these principles, +he will probably not find me departing from the same course. + +We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery. It is a +matter of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. It is +the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon +it, that it is a dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in +regard to it. That controversy necessarily springs from difference +of opinion; and if we can learn exactly--can reduce to the lowest +elements--what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be +better prepared for discussing the different systems of policy that +we would propose in regard to that disturbing element. I suggest +that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest of terms, is no +other than the difference between the men who think slavery a wrong +and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican party think it +wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. We +think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the +States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to +say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole +nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy +that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any +other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and +so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of +an end to it. We have a due regard to the actual presence of it +amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any +satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about +it. I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the +nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at +all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that +we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to +do it. We go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it +where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us. +We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the +District of Columbia. Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it +should be in terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely +soon to agree to,--the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and +compensating the unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the +constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the +actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about +it. We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread +itself. We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its +present limits. We don't suppose that in doing this we violate +anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything +due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it. + +We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I +ought perhaps to address you a few words. We do not propose that +when Dred Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a +mob, will decide him to be free. We do not propose that, when any +other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be +slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property +thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a +political rule which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody +who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members of +Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually +concur with the principles of that decision. We do not propose to be +bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays +the foundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we +consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil +into the States themselves. We propose so resisting it as to have it +reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established upon this +subject. + +I will add this: that if there be any man who does not believe that +slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in +any one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while +on the other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is +impatient over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and +is impatient of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and +would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with +us. He will find his place somewhere else; for we have a due regard, +so far as we are capable of understanding them, for all these things. +This, gentlemen, as well as I can give it, is a plain statement of +our principles in all their enormity. +I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to +me,--a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore +it goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a +wrong. That policy is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is +the Democratic sentiment. If there be a doubt in the mind of any one +of this vast audience that this is really the central idea of the +Democratic party in relation to this subject, I ask him to bear with +me while I state a few things tending, as I think, to prove that +proposition. In the first place, the leading man--I think I may do +my friend Judge Douglas the honor of calling him such advocating the +present Democratic policy never himself says it is wrong. He has the +high distinction, so far as I know, of never having said slavery is +either right or wrong. Almost everybody else says one or the other, +but the Judge never does. If there be a man in the Democratic party +who thinks it is wrong, and yet clings to that party, I suggest to +him, in the first place, that his leader don't talk as he does, for +he never says that it is wrong. In the second place, I suggest to +him that if he will examine the policy proposed to be carried +forward, he will find that he carefully excludes the idea that there +is anything wrong in it. If you will examine the arguments that are +made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea +that there is anything wrong in slavery. Perhaps that Democrat who +says he is as much opposed to slavery as I am will tell me that I am +wrong about this. I wish him to examine his own course in regard to +this matter a moment, and then see if his opinion will not be changed +a little. You say it is wrong; but don't you constantly object to +anybody else saying so? Do you not constantly argue that this is not +the right place to oppose it? You say it must not be opposed in the +free States, because slavery is not here; it must not be opposed in +the slave States, because it is there; it must not be opposed in +politics, because that will make a fuss; it must not be opposed in +the pulpit, because it is not religion. Then where is the place to +oppose it? There is no suitable place to oppose it. There is no +place in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent, +which you say yourself is coming. Frank Blair and Gratz Brown tried +to get up a system of gradual emancipation in Missouri, had an +election in August, and got beat, and you, Mr. Democrat, threw up +your hat, and hallooed "Hurrah for Democracy!" So I say, again, that +in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas Says he +"don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he +means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a +sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true +to say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything +wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery +is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up +as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever +community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is +perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but +if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody +has a right to do wrong. When he says that slave property and horse +and hog property are alike to be allowed to go into the Territories, +upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if there is +no difference between them as property; but if the one is property +held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no equality +between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in anyway you can, in +all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that +policy itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that +there is anything wrong in slavery. Let us understand this. I am +not, just here, trying to prove that we are right, and they are +wrong. I have been stating where we and they stand, and trying to +show what is the real difference between us; and I now say that +whenever we can get the question distinctly stated, can get all these +men who believe that slavery is in some of these respects wrong to +stand and act with us in treating it as a wrong,--then, and not till +then, I think we will in some way come to an end of this slavery +agitation. + + + + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. + +MY FRIENDS:--Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion +that he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said +in an hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in +half an hour all that he said in an hour and a half. + +I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public +annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of +policy in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it +shall last forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of +this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. +Judge Douglas asks you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or +rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as +our fathers made it, forever? In the first place, I insist that our +fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part +slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of +slavery existing here. They did not make it so but they left it so +because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When +Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the +fathers of the government made this nation part slave and part free, +he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: when +the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the +abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it +from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that +they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men +understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when +Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, +I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our +fathers made it? + +It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of +slavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers +placed it upon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly +said, that when this government was established, no one expected the +institution of slavery to last until this day, and that the men who +formed this government were wiser and better than the men of these +days; but the men of these days had experience which the fathers had +not, and that experience had taught them the invention of the +cotton-gin, and this had made the perpetuation of the institution of +slavery a necessity in this country. Judge Douglas could not let it +stand upon the basis which our fathers placed it, but removed it, and +put it upon the cotton-gin basis. It is a question, therefore, for +him and his friends to answer, why they could not let it remain where +the fathers of the government originally placed it. I hope nobody +has understood me as trying to sustain the doctrine that we have a +right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or any of the slave +States, about the institution of slavery,--thus giving the Judge an +opportunity to be eloquent and valiant against us in fighting for +their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech that I had +neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence +of, the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in +doing as they pleased with slavery Or any other existing institution. +Then what becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the rights of +States, which are assailed by no living man? + +But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge has +informed me, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is +laboring for my election to the United States Senate. This is news +to me,--not very ungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. W. H. +Carlin, who was on the stand]--I hope that Carlin will be elected to +the State Senate, and will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] +Carlin don't fall in, I perceive, and I suppose he will not do much +for me; but I am glad of all the support I can get, anywhere, if I +can get it without practicing any deception to obtain it. In respect +to this large portion of Judge Douglas's speech in which he tries to +show that in the controversy between himself and the Administration +party he is in the right, I do not feel myself at all competent or +inclined to answer him. I say to him, "Give it to them,--give it to +them just all you can!" and, on the other hand, I say to Carlin, and +Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in Hancock, "Give it to +Douglas, just pour it into him! + +Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to +say a word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a +decision is made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude +slavery, he will support it or not. He obstinately refuses to say +what he will do in that case. The judges of the Supreme Court as +obstinately refused to say what they would do on this subject. +Before this I reminded him that at Galesburgh he said the judges had +expressly declared the contrary, and you remember that in my Opening +speech I told him I had the book containing that decision here, and I +would thank him to lay his finger on the place where any such thing +was said. He has occupied his hour and a half, and he has not +ventured to try to sustain his assertion. He never will. But he is +desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred Scott +decision. Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his +political friends find a way to reverse the decision of that same +court in favor of the constitutionality of the National Bank? Didn't +they find a way to do it so effectually that they have reversed it as +completely as any decision ever was reversed, so far as its practical +operation is concerned? + +And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the +decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father-- +old Governor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a +Secretary of State? Did he not appeal to the "MOBS," as he calls +them? Did he not make speeches in the lobby to show how villainous +that decision was, and how it ought to be overthrown? Did he not +succeed, too, in getting an act passed by the Legislature to have it +overthrown? And did n't he himself sit down on that bench as one of +the five added judges, who were to overslaugh the four old ones, +getting his name of "judge" in that way, and no other? If there is a +villainy in using disrespect or making opposition to Supreme Court +decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration. I +know of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know so well +about how much villainy it takes to oppose a decision of the Supreme +Court as our honorable friend Stephen A. Douglas. + +Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are +bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not. In +the sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you +what I have said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day. I have +said that as the Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and +that the extension of slavery is affirmed in the National +Constitution, they are bound to support it as such; and I will tell +you here that General Jackson once said each man was bound to support +the Constitution "as he understood it." Now, Judge Douglas +understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, +and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it +another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in +which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas believes that decision +to be correct, I will remake that argument if I have time to do so. +Let me talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in +the face. We will say you are a member of the Territorial +Legislature, and, like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to +take and hold slaves there is a constitutional right The first thing +you do is to swear you will support the Constitution1, and all rights +guaranteed therein; that you will, whenever your neighbor needs your +legislation to support his constitutional rights, not withhold that +legislation. If you withhold that necessary legislation for the +support of the Constitution and constitutional rights, do you not +commit perjury? I ask every sensible man if that is not so? That is +undoubtedly just so, say what you please. Now, that is precisely +what Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutional right. Does +the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in legislating +may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly laws, +nullify that constitutional right? Does he mean to say that? Does +he mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in +law, that what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? +Does he mean that? The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas +has sung paeans to his "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his +Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter +Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery +about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented this sort of +do-nothing sovereignty,--that the people may exclude slavery by a +sort of "sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is +not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not +got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the +shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death? But at last, when it +is brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even that +thin decoction of it left. It is a presumption impossible in the +domain of thought. It is precisely no other than the putting of that +most unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same +space at the same time. The Dred Scott decision covers the whole +ground, and while it occupies it, there is no room even for the +shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground. + +Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a +previous occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an +extract from at Charleston, says it only shows that I practiced the +deception twice. Now, my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to +swallow that? Judge Douglas had said I had made a speech at +Charleston that I would not make up north, and I turned around and +answered him by showing I had made that same speech up north,--had +made it at Ottawa; made it in his hearing; made it in the Abolition +District,--in Lovejoy's District,--in the personal presence of +Lovejoy himself,--in the same atmosphere exactly in which I had made +my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much. + +Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation +from the Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me +to handle. Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the +Chicago speech I delivered two years ago in "Egypt," as he calls it. +It was down at Springfield. That speech is here in this book, and I +could turn to it and read it to you but for the lack of time. I have +not now the time to read it. ["Read it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I +am obliged to use discretion in disposing most advantageously of my +brief time. The Judge has taken great exception to my adopting the +heretical statement in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men +are created equal," and he has a great deal to say about negro +equality. I want to say that in sometimes alluding to the +Declaration of Independence, I have only uttered the sentiments that +Henry Clay used to hold. Allow me to occupy your time a moment with +what he said. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indiana, and +in a way that I suppose was very insulting, to liberate his slaves; +and he made a written reply to that application, and one portion of +it is in these words: + +"What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate +the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in +the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen +American colonies, that men are created equal. Now, as an abstract +principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it +is desirable in the original construction of society, and in +organized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundamental +principle." + +When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in +new countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we +should keep that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I +want a negro wife. He never can be brought to understand that there +is any middle ground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth +year, and have never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, +and I think I can live fifty centuries, for that matter, without +having had one for either. I maintain that you may take Judge +Douglas's quotations from my Chicago speech, and from my Charleston +speech, and the Galesburgh speech,--in his speech of to-day,--and +compare them over, and I am willing to trust them with you upon his +proposition that they show rascality or double-dealing. I deny that +they do. + +The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he +is disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath +would not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or +Thomas L. Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It +is certainly not for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these +gentlemen, but I will tell Judge Douglas again the facts upon which I +"dared" to say they proved a forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh +that the publication of these resolutions in the Illinois State +Register could not have been the result of accident, as the +proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable evidence of being done +by a man who knew it was a forgery; that it was a publication partly +taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and partly from +the proceedings of a convention at another place, which showed that +he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part of the +resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and +fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also +that his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time +and now is, must have known how it was done. Now, whether he did it, +or got some friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he +certainly knew all about it. I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in +his Freeport speech he had promised to investigate that matter. +Does he now say that he did not make that promise? I have a right +to ask why he did not keep it. I call upon him to tell here to-day +why he did not keep that promise? That fraud has been traced up so +that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier. There is little room +for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge good service, +and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. He desires +Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his newspaper. +He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; and when +this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where the +guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate +it, and implied that he would tell us the result of his +investigation, I demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, +if he did not; and if he did, why he won't tell the result. I call +upon him for that. + +This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned +about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against +Norton on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public +records of the country show that he himself attempted it upon +Trumbull a month before Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had +the opportunity of learning it from him, rather than he from Harris. +I now ask his attention to that part of the record on the case. My +friends, I am not disposed to detain you longer in regard to that +matter. + +I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another +matter I wish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered +there was a mistake in that case, he came forward magnanimously, +without my calling his attention to it, and explained it. I will +tell you how he became so magnanimous. When the newspapers of our +side had discovered and published it, and put it beyond his power to +deny it, then he came forward and made a virtue of necessity by +acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the point there was in +those resolutions, although never passed at Springfield, is retained +by their being passed at other localities. Is that true? He said I +had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech, that I was in the +convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutions touch me at +all? It strikes me there is some difference between holding a man +responsible for an act which he has not done and holding him +responsible for an act that he has +done. You will judge whether there is any difference in the "spots." +And he has taken credit for great magnanimity in coming forward and +acknowledging what is proved on him beyond even the capacity of Judge +Douglas to deny; and he has more capacity in that way than any other +living man. + +Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a +conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he +made. May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is +proven false on me as that was proven false on him. I will add a +little more than that, I will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man +shall be brought to believe that the charge is not true. I have +asked Judge Douglas's attention to certain matters of fact tending to +prove the charge of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery, and he says +he convinces me that this is all untrue because Buchanan was not in +the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott case had not +then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say the +Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say +that I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never +uttered it. [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated +affirmatively at Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say +I did, I tell you myself that I never said the "Democratic" owners of +Dred Scott got up the case. I have never pretended to know whether +Dred Scott's owners were Democrats, or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers +or Border Ruffians. I have said that there is evidence about the +case tending to show that it was a made-up case, for the purpose of +getting that decision. I have said that that evidence was very +strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be a slave, +the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the case +tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that +decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his +by that decision. But my time is out, and I can say no more. + + + +LAST JOINT DEBATE, + +AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858 + +Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY + +LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have been somewhat, in my own mind, +complimented by a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech,--I mean +that portion which he devotes to the controversy between himself and +the present Administration. This is the seventh time Judge Douglas +and myself have met in these joint discussions, and he has been +gradually improving in regard to his war with the Administration. At +Quincy, day before yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the +Administration than I had heard him upon any occasion, and I took +pains to compliment him for it. I then told him to give it to them +with all the power he had; and as some of them were present, I told +them I would be very much obliged if they would give it to him in +about the same way. I take it he has now vastly improved upon the +attack he made then upon the Administration. I flatter myself he has +really taken my advice on this subject. All I can say now is to +re-commend to him and to them what I then commended,--to prosecute +the war against one another in the most vigorous manner. I say to +them again: "Go it, husband!--Go it, bear!" + +There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this branch of +the discussion,--although I do not consider it much of my business, +anyway. I refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where he +undertakes to involve Mr. Buchanan in an inconsistency. He reads +something from Mr. Buchanan, from which he undertakes to involve him +in an inconsistency; and he gets something of a cheer for having done +so. I would only remind the Judge that while he is very valiantly +fighting for the Nebraska Bill and the repeal of the Missouri +Compromise, it has been but a little while since he was the valiant +advocate of the Missouri Compromise. I want to know if Buchanan has +not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? Has Douglas the +exclusive right, in this country, of being on all sides of all +questions? Is nobody allowed that high privilege but himself? Is he +to have an entire monopoly on that subject? + +So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it +was about me, it is my business to pay some attention to it. I have +heard the Judge state two or three times what he has stated to-day, +that in a speech which I made at Springfield, Illinois, I had in a +very especial manner complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred +Scott case had decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the +United States. I have omitted by some accident heretofore to analyze +this statement, and it is required of me to notice it now. In point +of fact it is untrue. I never have complained especially of the Dred +Scott decision because it held that a negro could not be a citizen, +and the Judge is always wrong when he says I ever did so complain of +it. I have the speech here, and I will thank him or any of his +friends to show where I said that a negro should be a citizen, and +complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it declared +he could not be one. I have done no such thing; and Judge Douglas, +so persistently insisting that I have done so, has strongly impressed +me with the belief of a predetermination on his part to misrepresent +me. He could not get his foundation for insisting that I was in +favor of this negro equality anywhere else as well as he could by +assuming that untrue proposition. Let me tell this audience what is +true in regard to that matter; and the means by which they may +correct me if I do not tell them truly is by a recurrence to the +speech itself. I spoke of the Dred Scott decision in my Springfield +speech, and I was then endeavoring to prove that the Dred Scott +decision was a portion of a system or scheme to make slavery national +in this country. I pointed out what things had been decided by the +court. I mentioned as a fact that they had decided that a negro +could not be a citizen; that they had done so, as I supposed, to +deprive the negro, under all circumstances, of the remotest +possibility of ever becoming a citizen and claiming the rights of a +citizen of the United States under a certain clause of the +Constitution. I stated that, without making any complaint of it at +all. I then went on and stated the other points decided in the case; +namely, that the bringing of a negro into the State of Illinois and +holding him in slavery for two years here was a matter in regard to +which they would not decide whether it would make him free or not; +that they decided the further point that taking him into a United +States Territory where slavery was prohibited by Act of Congress did +not make him free, because that Act of Congress, as they held, was +unconstitutional. I mentioned these three things as making up the +points decided in that case. I mentioned them in a lump, taken in +connection with the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, and the +amendment of Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of the right of +the people of the Territories to exclude slavery, which was voted +down by the friends of the bill. I mentioned all these things +together, as evidence tending to prove a combination and conspiracy +to make the institution of slavery national. In that connection and +in that way I mentioned the decision on the point that a negro could +not be a citizen, and in no other connection. + +Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of my +purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between +the white and black races. His assertion that I made an "especial +objection" (that is his exact language) to the decision on this +account is untrue in point of fact. + +Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry Clay has been alluded +to, I desire to place myself, in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly +right before this people as may be. I am quite aware what the +Judge's object is here by all these allusions. He knows that we are +before an audience having strong sympathies southward, by +relationship, place of birth, and so on. He desires to place me in +an extremely Abolition attitude. He read upon a former occasion, and +alludes, without reading, to-day to a portion of a speech which I +delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that speech, as he has +made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken in such a +way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of what is +called garbling, --taking portions of a speech which, when taken by +themselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as +expressed at the time. I propose, therefore, out of that same +speech, to show how one portion of it which he skipped over (taking +an extract before and an extract after) will give a different idea, +and the true idea I intended to convey. It will take me some little +time to read it, but I believe I will occupy the time that way. + +You have heard him frequently allude to my controversy with him in +regard to the Declaration of Independence. I confess that I have had +a struggle with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try briefly +to place myself right in regard to it on this occasion. I said--and +it is between the extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, +and put in his published speeches: + +"It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make +necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a +necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it. I think that +was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established +this government. We had slaves among us, we could not get our +Constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery, we could +not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more; and having +by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the +principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter +remain as our standard." + +Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas +against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of +slavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from which he +takes garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a +disposition to interfere with the institution of slavery, and +establish a perfect social and political equality between negroes and +white people. + +Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other extract +from a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at Springfield, in +discussing this very same question, soon after Judge Douglas took his +ground that negroes were, not included in the Declaration of +Independence: + +"I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include +all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all +respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, +size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity. They defined +with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created +equal,--equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, +liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This they said, and this they +meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were +then actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to +confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer +such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the +enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should +permit. + +"They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should +be familiar to all,--constantly looked to, constantly labored for, +and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, +and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and +augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all +colors, everywhere." + +There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard to the +Declaration of Independence upon a former occasion,--sentiments which +have been put in print and read wherever anybody cared to know what +so humble an individual as myself chose to say in regard to it. + +At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, +that three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or +believed, in the whole world, who had said that the Declaration of +Independence did not include negroes in the term "all men." I +reassert it to-day. I assert that Judge Douglas and all his friends +may search the whole records of the country, and it will be a matter +of great astonishment to me if they shall be able to find that one +human being three years ago had ever uttered the astounding sentiment +that the term "all men" in the Declaration did not include the negro. +Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more than three years +ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly in the way +of their schemes to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation of +slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr. Calhoun and all the +politicians of his school denied the truth of the Declaration. I +know that it ran along in the mouth of some Southern men for a period +of years, ending at last in that shameful, though rather forcible, +declaration of Pettit of Indiana, upon the floor of the United States +Senate, that the Declaration of Independence was in that respect "a +self-evident lie," rather than a self-evident truth. But I say, with +a perfect knowledge of all this hawking at the Declaration without +directly attacking it, that three years ago there never had lived a +man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking way of pretending +to believe it, and then asserting it did not include the negro. I +believe the first man who ever said it was Chief Justice Taney in the +Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friend Stephen A. +Douglas. And now it has become the catchword of the entire party. I +would like to call upon his friends everywhere to consider how they +have come in so short a time to view this matter in a way so entirely +different from their former belief; to ask whether they are not being +borne along by an irresistible current,--whither, they know not. + +In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last week, I see that some +man in Chicago has got up a letter, addressed to the Chicago Times, +to show, as he professes, that somebody had said so before; and he +signs himself "An Old-Line Whig," if I remember correctly. In the +first place, I would say he was not an old-line Whig. I am somewhat +acquainted with old-line Whigs from the origin to the end of that +party; I became pretty well acquainted with them, and I know they +always had some sense, whatever else you could ascribe to them. I +know there never was one who had not more sense than to try to show +by the evidence he produces that some men had, prior to the time I +named, said that negroes were not included in the term "all men" in +the Declaration of Independence. What is the evidence he produces? +I will bring forward his evidence, and let you see what he offers by +way of showing that somebody more than three years ago had said +negroes were not included in the Declaration. He brings forward part +of a speech from Henry Clay,--the part of the speech of Henry Clay +which I used to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary. I +guess we are surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of +Mr. Clay, and they will be glad to hear anything from that authority. +While he was in Indiana a man presented a petition to liberate his +negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made a speech in answer to it, which I +suppose he carefully wrote out himself and caused to be published. I +have before me an extract from that speech which constitutes the +evidence this pretended "Old-Line Whig" at Chicago brought forward to +show that Mr. Clay did n't suppose the negro was included in the +Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay said: + +"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to +liberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general +declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of +the thirteen American colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, +as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that +declaration; and it is desirable, in the original construction of +society and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a great +fundamental principle. But, then, I apprehend that in no society +that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, was or can the equality +asserted among the members of the human race be practically enforced +and carried out. There are portions, large portions, women, minors, +insane, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always probably +remain subject to the government of another portion of the community. + +"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made +by the delegations of the thirteen States. In most of them slavery +existed, and had long existed, and was established by law. It was +introduced and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of +England. Do you believe that in making that declaration the States +that concurred in it intended that it should be tortured into a +virtual emancipation of all the slaves within their respective +limits? Would Virginia and other Southern States have ever united in +a declaration which was to be interpreted into an abolition of +slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen colonies entertain +such a design or expectation? To impute such a secret and unavowed +purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest band +of patriots that ever assembled in council,--a fraud upon the +Confederacy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of those States +whose Constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but +permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808." + + +This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that somebody +previous to three years ago had said the negro was not included in +the term "all men" in the Declaration. How does it do so? In what +way has it a tendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an +abstract principle that all men are created equal, but that we cannot +practically apply it in all eases. He illustrates this by bringing +forward the cases of females, minors, and insane persons, with whom +it cannot be enforced; but he says it is true as an abstract +principle in the organization of society as well as in organized +society and it should be kept in view as a fundamental principle. +Let me read a few words more before I add some comments of my own. +Mr. Clay says, a little further on: + +"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution +of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that +we have derived it from the parental government and from our +ancestors. I wish every slave in the United States was in the +country of his ancestors. But here they are, and the question is, +How can they be best dealt with? If a state of nature existed, and +we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more +strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of +slavery amongst its elements." + + +Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, in this same +extract, brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held that the negro +was not included in the Declaration of Independence, is no such +statement on his part, but the declaration that it is a great +fundamental truth which should be constantly kept in view in the +organization of society and in societies already organized. But if I +say a word about it; if I attempt, as Mr. Clay said all good men +ought to do, to keep it in view; if, in this "organized society," I +ask to have the public eye turned upon it; if I ask, in relation to +the organization of new Territories, that the public eye should be +turned upon it, forthwith I am vilified as you hear me to-day. what +have I done that I have not the license of Henry Clay's illustrious +example here in doing? Have I done aught that I have not his +authority for, while maintaining that in organizing new Territories +and societies this fundamental principle should be regarded, and in +organized society holding it up to the public view and recognizing +what he recognized as the great principle of free government? + +And when this new principle--this new proposition that no human being +ever thought of three years ago--is brought forward, I combat it as +having an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as +having a tendency to dehumanize the negro, to take away from him the +right of ever striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of the +thousand things constantly done in these days to prepare the public +mind to make property, and nothing but property, of the negro in all +the States of this Union. + +But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of the +discussion, to ask attention to. I have read and I repeat the words +of Henry Clay: + +"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution +of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that +we have derived it from the parental government and from our +ancestors. I wish every slave in the United States was in the +country of his ancestors. But here they are, and the question is, +How can they be best dealt with? If a state of nature existed, and +we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more +strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of +slavery amongst its elements." + +The principle upon which I have insisted in this canvass is in +relation to laying the foundations of new societies. I have never +sought to apply these principles to the old States for the purpose of +abolishing slavery in those States. It is nothing but a miserable +perversion of what I have said, to assume that I have declared +Missouri, or any other slave State, shall emancipate her slaves; I +have proposed no such thing. But when Mr. Clay says that in laying +the foundations of society in our Territories where it does not +exist, he would be opposed to the introduction of slavery as an +element, I insist that we have his warrant--his license--for +insisting upon the exclusion of that element which he declared in +such strong and emphatic language was most hurtful to him. + +Judge Douglas has again referred to a Springfield speech in which I +said "a house divided against itself cannot stand." The Judge has so +often made the entire quotation from that speech that I can make it +from memory. I used this language: + +"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with +the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the +slavery agitation. Under the operation of this policy, that +agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In +my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached +and passed. 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe +this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. +I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to +be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either +the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and +place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in +the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it +forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as +well as new, North as well as South." + +That extract and the sentiments expressed in it have been extremely +offensive to Judge Douglas. He has warred upon them as Satan wars +upon the Bible. His perversions upon it are endless. Here now are +my views upon it in brief: + +I said we were now far into the fifth year since a policy was +initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an +end to the slavery agitation. Is it not so? When that Nebraska Bill +was brought forward four years ago last January, was it not for the +"avowed object" of putting an end to the slavery agitation? We were +to have no more agitation in Congress; it was all to be banished to +the Territories. By the way, I will remark here that, as Judge +Douglas is very fond of complimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days, +Mr. Crittenden has said there was a falsehood in that whole business, +for there was no slavery agitation at that time to allay. We were +for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and that very +allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again. But was it +not understood or intimated with the "confident promise" of putting +an end to the slavery agitation? Surely it was. In every speech you +heard Judge Douglas make, until he got into this "imbroglio," as they +call it, with the Administration about the Lecompton Constitution, +every speech on that Nebraska Bill was full of his felicitations that +we were just at the end of the slavery agitation. The last tip of +the last joint of the old serpent's tail was just drawing out of +view. But has it proved so? I have asserted that under that policy +that agitation "has not only not ceased, but has constantly +augmented." When was there ever a greater agitation in Congress than +last winter? When was it as great in the country as to-day? + +There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska +policy, which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a +superior degree of self-government, beyond what they had ever had +before. The first object and the main one of conferring upon the +people a higher degree of "self-government" is a question of fact to +be determined by you in answer to a single question. Have you ever +heard or known of a people anywhere on earth who had as little to do +as, in the first instance of its use, the people of Kansas had with +this same right of "self-government "? In its main policy and in its +collateral object, it has been nothing but a living, creeping lie +from the time of its introduction till to-day. + +I have intimated that I thought the agitation would not cease until a +crisis should have been reached and passed. I have stated in what +way I thought it would be reached and passed. I have said that it +might go one way or the other. We might, by arresting the further +spread of it, and placing it where the fathers originally placed it, +put it where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in +the course of ultimate extinction. Thus the agitation may cease. It +may be pushed forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the +States, old as well as new, North as well as South. I have said, and +I repeat, my wish is that the further spread of it may be arrested, +and that it may be where the public mind shall rest in the belief +that it is in the course of ultimate extinction--I have expressed +that as my wish I entertain the opinion, upon evidence sufficient to +my mind, that the fathers of this government placed that institution +where the public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the +course of ultimate extinction. Let me ask why they made provision +that the source of slavery--the African slave-trade--should be cut +off at the end of twenty years? Why did they make provision that in +all the new territory we owned at that time slavery should be forever +inhibited? Why stop its spread in one direction, and cut off its +source in another, if they did not look to its being placed in the +course of its ultimate extinction? + +Again: the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the +Constitution of the United States two or three times, and in neither +of these cases does the word "slavery" or "negro race" occur; but +covert language is used each time, and for a purpose full of +significance. What is the language in regard to the prohibition of +the African slave-trade? It runs in about this way: + +"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States +now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by +the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight." + +The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of slavery and +the black race is on the subject of the basis of representation, and +there the language used is: + +"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the +several States which may be included within this Union, according to +their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the +whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a +term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all +other persons." + +It says "persons," not slaves, not negroes; but this "three-fifths" +can be applied to no other class among us than the negroes. + +Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it +is said: + +"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws +thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or +regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but +shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or +labor may be due." + +There again there is no mention of the word "negro" or of slavery. +In all three of these places, being the only allusions to slavery in +the instrument, covert language is used. Language is used not +suggesting that slavery existed or that the black race were among us. +And I understand the contemporaneous history of those times to be +that covert language was used with a purpose, and that purpose was +that in our Constitution, which it was hoped and is still hoped will +endure forever,--when it should be read by intelligent and patriotic +men, after the institution of slavery had passed from among us,-- +there should be nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty +suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed among +us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the government +expected and intended the institution of slavery to come to an end. +They expected and intended that it should be in the course of +ultimate extinction. And when I say that I desire to see the further +spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the +fathers have first done. When I say I desire to see it placed where +the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of +ultimate extinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they +placed it. It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas +assumes, made this government part slave and part free. Understand +the sense in which he puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful +thing within itself,--was introduced by the framers of the +Constitution. The exact truth is, that they found the institution +existing among us, and they left it as they found it. But in making +the government they left this institution with many clear marks of +disapprobation upon it. They found slavery among them, and they left +it among them because of the difficulty--the absolute impossibility-- +of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks me why we +cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the +government made it, he asks a question based upon an assumption which +is itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him and ask him the question, +when the policy that the fathers of the government had adopted in +relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world, +the only wise policy, the only policy that we can ever safely +continue upon that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous +element masters us all and becomes a national institution,--I turn +upon him and ask him why he could not leave it alone. I turn and ask +him why he was driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy in +regard to it. He has himself said he introduced a new policy. He +said so in his speech on the 22d of March of the present year, 1858. +I ask him why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it. +I ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall not again +place this institution upon the basis on which the fathers left it. +I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and +slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude +by those who made the Constitution, did they make any war? If we had +no war out of it when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief +that we shall have war out of it if we return to that policy? Have +we had any peace upon this matter springing from any other basis? I +maintain that we have not. I have proposed nothing more than a +return to the policy of the fathers. + +I confess, when I propose a certain measure of policy, it is not +enough for me that I do not intend anything evil in the result, but +it is incumbent on me to show that it has not a tendency to that +result. I have met Judge Douglas in that point of view. I have not +only made the declaration that I do not mean to produce a conflict +between the States, but I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I +think I have shown to the minds of fair men, that I propose nothing +but what has a most peaceful tendency. The quotation that I happened +to make in that Springfield Speech, that "a house divided against +itself cannot stand," and which has proved so offensive to the judge, +was part and parcel of the same thing. He tries to show that variety +in the democratic institutions of the different States is necessary +and indispensable. I do not dispute it. I have no controversy with +Judge Douglas about that. I shall very readily agree with him that +it would be foolish for us to insist upon having a cranberry law here +in Illinois, where we have no cranberries, because they have a +cranberry law in Indiana, where they have cranberries. I should +insist that it would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia +the right to enact oyster laws, where they have oysters, because we +want no such laws here. I understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge +Douglas or anybody else, that the variety in the soil and climate and +face of the country, and consequent variety in the industrial +pursuits and productions of a country, require systems of law +conforming to this variety in the natural features of the country. I +understand quite as well as Judge Douglas that if we here raise a +barrel of flour more than we want, and the Louisianians raise a +barrel of sugar more than they want, it is of mutual advantage to +exchange. That produces commerce, brings us together, and makes us +better friends. We like one another the more for it. And I +understand as well as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, that these +mutual accommodations are the cements which bind together the +different parts of this Union; that instead of being a thing to +"divide the house,"--figuratively expressing the Union,--they tend to +sustain it; they are the props of the house, tending always to hold +it up. + +But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is any parallel +between these things and this institution of slavery? I do not see +that there is any parallel at all between them. Consider it. When +have we had any difficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the +cranberry laws of Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the +pine-lumber laws of Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar, +and Illinois flour? When have we had any quarrels over these things? +When have we had perfect peace in regard to this thing which I say is +an element of discord in this Union? We have sometimes had peace, +but when was it? It was when the institution of slavery remained +quiet where it was. We have had difficulty and turmoil whenever it +has made a struggle to spread itself where it was not. I ask, then, +if experience does not speak in thunder-tones telling us that the +policy which has given peace to the country heretofore, being +returned to, gives the greatest promise of peace again. You may say, +and Judge Douglas has intimated the same thing, that all this +difficulty in regard to the institution of slavery is the mere +agitation of office-seekers and ambitious Northern politicians. He +thinks we want to get "his place," I suppose. I agree that there are +office-seekers amongst us. The Bible says somewhere that we are +desperately selfish. I think we would have discovered that fact +without the Bible. I do not claim that I am any less so than the +average of men, but I do claim that I am not more selfish than Judge +Douglas. + +But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in +regard to this institution of slavery spring from office-seeking, +from the mere ambition of politicians? Is that the truth? How many +times have we had danger from this question? Go back to the day of +the Missouri Compromise. Go back to the nullification question, at +the bottom of which lay this same slavery question. Go back to the +time of the annexation of Texas. Go back to the troubles that led to +the Compromise of 1850. You will find that every time, with the +single exception of the Nullification question, they sprung from an +endeavor to spread this institution. There never was a party in the +history of this country, and there probably never will be, of +sufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country. +Parties themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet +it extends not beyond the parties themselves. But +does not this question make a disturbance outside of political +circles? Does it not enter into the churches and rend them asunder? +What divided the great Methodist Church into two parts, North and +South? What has raised this constant disturbance in every +Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What disturbed the +Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has jarred +and shaken the great American Tract Society recently, not yet +splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end? Is it not this same +mighty, deep-seated power that somehow operates on the minds of men, +exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society,--in +politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold +relations of life? Is this the work of politicians? Is that +irresistible power, which for fifty years has shaken the government +and agitated the people, to be stifled and subdued by pretending that +it is an exceedingly simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it? +If you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, I assure you +I will quit before they have half done so. But where is the +philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that +disturbing element in our society which has disturbed us for more +than half a century, which has been the only serious danger that has +threatened our institutions,--I say, where is the philosophy or the +statesmanship based on the assumption that we are to quit talking +about it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being +agitated by it? Yet this is the policy here in the North that +Douglas is advocating, that we are to care nothing about it! I ask +you if it is not a false philosophy. Is it not a false statesmanship +that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of +caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most +about--a thing which all experience has shown we care a very great +deal about? + +The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the +exclusive right which the States have to decide the whole thing for +themselves. I agree with him very readily that the different States +have that right. He is but fighting a man of straw when he assumes +that I am contending against the right of the States to do as they +please about it. Our controversy with him is in regard to the new +Territories. We agree that when the States come in as States they +have the right and the power to do as they please. We have no power +as citizens of the free-States, or in our Federal capacity as members +of the Federal Union through the General Government, to disturb +slavery in the States where it exists. We profess constantly that we +have no more inclination than belief in the power of the government +to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from +the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the Sates. +What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free +from it while in the Territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes +that we have no interest in them,--that we have no right whatever to +interfere. I think we have some interest. I think that as white men +we have. Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if +I may so express myself? Do we not feel an interest in getting to +that outlet with such institutions as we would like to have prevail +there? If you go to the Territory opposed to slavery, and another +man comes upon the same ground with his slave, upon the assumption +that the things are equal, it turns out that he has the equal right +all his way, and you have no part of it your way. If he goes in and +makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence a slave State, is it +not time that those who desire to have it a free State were on equal +ground? Let me suggest it in a different way. How many Democrats +are there about here ["A thousand"] who have left slave States and +come into the free State of Illinois to get rid of the institution of +slavery? [Another voice: 'A thousand and one."] I reckon there are a +thousand and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are now +advocating had prevailed when this country was in a Territorial +condition, where would you have gone to get rid of it? Where would +you have found your free State or Territory to go to? And when +hereafter, for any cause, the people in this place shall desire to +find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will +they find the place to go to? + +Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether +there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor +of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may +find a home,--may find some spot where they can better their +condition; where they can settle upon new soil and better their +condition in life. I am in favor of this, not merely (I must say it +here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, +but as an outlet for free white people everywhere the world over--in +which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the +world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life. + +I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, +what I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between +Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war +between the free and the slave States, there has been no issue +between us. So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of producing +a perfect social and political equality between the white and black +races. These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to +force the controversy. There is no foundation in truth for the +charge that I maintain either of these propositions. The real issue +in this controversy--the one pressing upon every mind--is the +sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of +slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it +as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution of +slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican +party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their +arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They +look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while +they contemplate it a, such, they nevertheless have due regard for +its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of +it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations +thrown about it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a +policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more +danger. They insist that it should, as far as may be, be treated as +a wrong; and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make +provision that it shall grow no larger. They also desire a policy +that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some time. These are the +views they entertain in regard to it as I understand them; and all +their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are brought +within this range. I have said, and I repeat it here, that if there +be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of +slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he +is misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man +amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its +actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it +suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional +obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our +platform. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He is +not placed properly with us. + +On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, +let me say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of +this Union save and except this very institution of slavery? What is +it that we hold most dear amongst us? Our own liberty and +prosperity. What has ever threatened our liberty and prosperity, +save and except this institution of slavery? If this is true, how do +you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery, +by spreading it out and making it bigger? You may have a wen or +cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out, lest you +bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and +spread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of treating +what you regard a wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing with +it as a wrong, restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to +go into new countries where it has not already existed. That is the +peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers +themselves set us the example. + +On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it +as not being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I +do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range +positively asserts that it is right. That class will include all who +positively assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, +treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either right or wrong. +These two classes of men fall within the general class of those who +do not look upon it as a wrong. And if there be among you anybody +who supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself "as much +opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with him. You +never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you consider as a +wrong do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you say it is +wrong--but your leader never does, and you quarrel with anybody who +says it is wrong. Although you pretend to say so yourself, you can +find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You must not say +anything about it in the free States, because it is not here. You +must not say anything about it in the slave States, because it is +there. You must not say anything about it in the pulpit, because +that is religion, and has nothing to do with it. You must not say +anything about it in politics, because that will disturb the security +of "my place." There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, +although you say yourself it is a wrong. But, finally, you will +screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the slave +States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the slavery +question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor of it. +You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad +to see it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself. You all know +that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook +to introduce that system in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as +they could for the system of gradual emancipation which you pretend +you would be glad to see succeed. Now, I will bring you to the test. +After a hard fight they were beaten, and when the news came over +here, you threw up your hats and hurrahed for Democracy. More than +that, take all the argument made in favor of the system you have +proposed, and it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything +wrong in the institution of slavery. The arguments to sustain that +policy carefully exclude it. Even here to-day you heard Judge +Douglas quarrel with me because I uttered a wish that it might +sometime come to an end. Although Henry Clay could say he wished +every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors, +I am denounced by those pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering +a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. +The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate +the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong +about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he +"don't care whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories. +I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is +intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the +subject, or only of the national policy he desires to have +established. It is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say +that who does not see anything wrong in slavery; but no man can +logically say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can +logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted +down. He may say he don't care whether an indifferent thing is voted +up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing +and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves +has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But +if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He +says that upon the score of equality slaves should be allowed to go +in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if +there is no difference between it and other property. If it and +other property are equal, this argument is entirely logical. But if +you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to +institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn over +everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in +the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the +Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the +shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,--it everywhere +carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. + +That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this +country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be +silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles-- +right and wrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles +that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will +ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, +and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in +whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, +"You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in +what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to +bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their +labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another +race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I was glad to express my +gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, to Judge Douglas,-- +that he looks to no end of the institution of slavery. That will +help the people to see where the struggle really is. It will +hereafter place with us all men who really do wish the wrong may have +an end. And whenever we can get rid of the fog which obscures the +real question, when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to avow +a policy looking to its perpetuation,--we can get out from among that +class of men and bring them to the side of those who treat it as a +wrong. Then there will soon be an end of it, and that end will be +its "ultimate extinction." Whenever the issue can be distinctly +made, and all extraneous matter thrown out so that men can fairly see +the real difference between the parties, this controversy will soon +be settled, and it will be done peaceably too. There will be no war, +no violence. It will be placed again where the wisest and best men +of the world placed it. Brooks of South Carolina once declared that +when this Constitution was framed its framers did not look to the +institution existing until this day. When he said this, I think he +stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history of the times. +But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men of these +days, yet the men of these days had experience which they had not, +and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this +country that slavery should be perpetual. I now say that, willingly +or unwillingly--purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been +the most prominent instrument in changing the position of the +institution of slavery,--which the fathers of the government expected +to come to an end ere this, and putting it upon Brooks's cotton-gin +basis; placing it where he openly confesses he has no desire there +shall ever be an end of it. + +I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying +something about this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains +the Dred Scott decision, that the people of the Territories can still +somehow exclude slavery. The first thing I ask attention to is the +fact that Judge Douglas constantly said, before the decision, that +whether they could or not, was a question for the Supreme Court. But +after the court had made the decision he virtually says it is not a +question for the Supreme Court, but for the people. And how is it he +tells us they can exclude it? He says it needs "police regulations," +and that admits of "unfriendly legislation." Although it is a right +established by the Constitution of the United States to take a slave +into a Territory of the United States and hold him as property, yet +unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation, +and more especially if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can +practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition as a +matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional +obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face +before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial +Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to swear that he +will support the Constitution of the United States. His neighbor by +his side in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial +legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional right. Can he +withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment +of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Constitution of the +United States which he has sworn to support? Can he withhold it +without violating his oath? And, more especially, can he pass +unfriendly legislation to violate his oath? Why, this is a monstrous +sort of talk about the Constitution of the United States! There has +never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any +respectable man on earth. I do not believe it is a constitutional +right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States. I believe +the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it. Judge +Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision. +But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself +stands. I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine +uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. + +I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of +the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave +law,--that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be +made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the +Judge's language, it is a "barren right," which needs legislation +before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it +is guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional, I agree that the +legislation shall be granted to it, and that not that we like the +institution of slavery. We profess to have no taste for running and +catching niggers, at least, I profess no taste for that job at all. +Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law? Because I do +not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right, +can be supported without it. And if I believed that the right to +hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution +with the right to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to give it the +legislation necessary to support it. I say that no man can deny his +obligation to give the necessary legislation to support slavery in a +Territory, who believes it is a constitutional right to have it +there. No man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument +to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a +Fugitive State law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition +argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, +then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a +constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his +runaway returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The +one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to +be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be +correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by +unfriendly legislation, in spite of that constitutional right, +slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing +an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return +fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right +of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such +an arguement may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy +anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to +estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of +difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive and +the constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided +this Dred Scott decision is correct, I defy any man to make an +argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a +slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will +not equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an +argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not +such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all! + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg Etext of The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 4 + |