First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas
at Ottawa, Illinois
August 21, 1858
MR. DOUGLAS' SPEECH.
Ladies and gentlemen: I appear before you to-day
for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate
the public mind. By an arrangement between Mr. Lincoln and myself, we are
present here to-day for the purpose of having a joint discussion, as the
representatives of the two great political parties of the State and Union, upon
the principles in issue between those parties and this vast concourse of
people, shows the deep feeling which pervades the public mind in regard to the
questions dividing us.
Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great
political parties, known as the Whig and Democratic parties. Both were national
and patriotic, advocating principles that were universal in their application.
An old line Whig could proclaim his principles in Louisiana and Massachusetts
alike. Whig principles had no boundary sectional line, they were not limited by
the Ohio river, nor by the Potomac, nor by the line of the free and slave
States, but applied and were proclaimed wherever the Constitution ruled or the
American flag waved over the American soil. (Hear him, and three cheers.) So it
was, and so it is with the great Democratic party, which, from the days of
Jefferson until this period, has proven itself to be the historic party of this
nation. While the Whig and Democratic parties differed in regard to a bank, the
tariff, distribution, the specie circular and the sub-treasury, they agreed on
the great slavery question which now agitates the Union. I say that the Whig
party and the Democratic party agreed on this slavery question, while they
differed on those matters of expediency to which I have referred. The Whig
party and the Democratic party jointly adopted the Compromise measures of 1850
as the basis of a proper and just solution of this slavery question in all its
forms. Clay was the great leader, with Webster on his right and Cass on his
left, and sustained by the patriots in the Whig and Democratic ranks, who had
devised and enacted the Compromise measures of 1850.
In 1851, the Whig party and the Democratic party
united in Illinois in adopting resolutions indorsing and approving the
principles of the Compromise measures of 1850, as the proper adjustment of that
question. In 1852, when the Whig party assembled in Convention at Baltimore for
the purpose of nominating a candidate for the Presidency, the first thing it
did was to declare the Compromise measures of 1850, in substance and in
principle, a suitable adjustment of that question. (Here the speaker was
interrupted by loud and long continued applause.) My friends, silence will be
more acceptable to me in the discussion of these questions than applause. I
desire to address myself to your judgment, your understanding, and your
consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasm. When the Democratic
Convention assembled in Baltimore in the same year, for the purpose of
nominating a Democratic candidate for the Presidency, it also adopted the
compromise measures of 1850 as the basis of Democratic action. Thus you see
that up to 1853-'54, the Whig party and the Democratic party both stood on the
same platform with regard to the slavery question. That platform was the right of
the people of each State and each Territory to decide their local and domestic
institutions for themselves, subject only to the federal constitution.
During the session of Congress of 1853-'54, I
introduced into the Senate of the United States a bill to organize the
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska on that principle which had been adopted in
the compromise measures of 1850, approved by the Whig party and the Democratic
party in Illinois in 1851, and endorsed by the Whig party and the Democratic
party in national convention in 1852. In order that there might be no
misunderstanding in relation to the principle involved in the Kansas and
Nebraska bill, I put forth the true intent and meaning of the act in these
words: "It is the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate
slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way, subject only to the federal constitution."
Thus, you see, that up to 1854, when the Kansas and Nebraska bill was brought
into Congress for the purpose of carrying out the principles which both parties
had up to that time endorsed and approved, there had been no division in this
country in regard to that principle except the opposition of the abolitionists.
In the House of Representatives of the Illinois Legislature, upon a resolution
asserting that principle, every Whig and every Democrat in the House voted in
the affirmative, and only four men voted against it, and those four were old
line Abolitionists. (Cheers.)
In 1854, Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull entered
into an arrangement, one with the other, and each with his respective friends,
to dissolve the old Whig party on the one hand, and to dissolve the old
Democratic party on the other, and to connect the members of both into an
Abolition party under the name and disguise of a Republican party. (Laughter
and cheers, hurrah for Douglas.) The terms of that arrangement between Mr.
Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull have been published to the world by Mr. Lincoln's
special friend, James H. Matheny, Esq., and they were, that Lincoln should have
Shields's place in the U. S. Senate, which was then about to become vacant, and
that Trumbull should have my seat when my term expired. (Great Laughter.)
Lincoln went to work to abolitionize the Old Whig party all over the State,
pretending that he was then as good a Whig as ever; (laughter) and Trumbull
went to work in his part of the State preaching Abolitionism in its milder and
lighter form, and trying to abolitionize the Democratic party, and bring old
Democrats handcuffed and bound hand and foot into the Abolition camp.
("Good," "hurrah for Douglas," and cheers.) In pursuance of
the arrangement, the parties met at Springfield in October, 1854, and
proclaimed their new platform. Lincoln was to bring into the Abolition camp the
old line Whigs, and transfer them over to Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and
Parson Lovejoy, who were ready to receive them and christen them in their new
faith. (Laughter and cheers.) They laid down on that occasion a platform for
their new Republican party, which was to be thus constructed. I have the
resolutions of their State Convention then held, which was the first mass State
Convention ever held in Illinois by the Black Republican party, and I now hold
them in my hands and will read a part of them, and cause the others to be
printed. Here are the most important and material resolutions of this Abolition
platform:
1. Resolved, That we believe this truth to be self-evident, that
when parties become subversive of the ends for which they are established, or
incapable of restoring the government to the true principles of the
constitution, it is the right and duty of the people to dissolve the political
bands by which they may have been connected therewith, and to organize new
parties upon such principles and with such views as the circumstances and
exigencies of the nation may demand.
2. Resolved, That the times imperatively demand the reorganization
of parties, and repudiating all previous party attachments, names and
predilections, we unite ourselves together in defense of the liberty and
constitution of the country, and will hereafter co-operate as the Republican
party, pledged to the accomplishment of the following purposes: to bring the
administration of the government back to the control of first principles; to
restore Nebraska and Kansas to the position of free Territories; that, as the
constitution of the United States, vests in the States, and not in Congress,
the power to legislate for the extradition of fugitives from labor, to repeal
and entirely abrogate the fugitive slave law; to restrict slavery to those
States in which it exists; to prohibit the admission of any more slave States
into the Union; to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; to exclude
slavery from all the territories over which the general government has
exclusive jurisdiction; and to resist the acquirements of any more Territories
unless the practice of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited.
3. Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles we will use
such constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their
accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office, under the general or
State Government, who is not positively and fully committed to the support of
these principles, and whose personal character and conduct is not a guaranty
that he is reliable, and who shall not have abjured old party allegiance and
ties.
(The resolutions, as they were read, were cheered
throughout.)
Now, gentlemen, your Black Republicans have cheered
every one of those propositions, ("good and cheers, ") and yet I
venture to say that you cannot get Mr. Lincoln to come out and say that he is
now in favor of each one of them. (Laughter and applause. "Hit him again.)
That these propositions, one and all, constitute the platform of the Black
Republican party of this day, I have no doubt; ("good") and when you
were not aware for what purpose I was reading them, your Black Republicans
cheered them as good Black Republican doctrines. ("That's it," etc.)
My object in reading these resolutions, was to put the question to Abraham
Lincoln this day, whether he now stands and will stand by each article in that
creed and carry it out. ("Good." "Hit him again.") I desire
to know whether Mr. Lincoln today stands as he did in 1854, in favor of the
unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave law. I desire him to answer whether
he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more
slave States into the Union, even if the people want them. I want to know
whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union
with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make.
("That's ot;" "put it at him.") I want to know whether he
stands today pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I
desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave
trade between the different States. ("He does.") I desire to know
whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the territories of the
United States, North as well as South of the Missouri Compromise line,
("Kansas too.") I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the
acquisition of any more territory unless slavery is prohibited therein. I want
his answer to these questions. Your affirmative cheers in favor of this
Abolition platform is not satisfactory. I ask Abraham Lincoln to answer these
questions, in order that when I trot him down to lower Egypt, I may put the
same questions to him. (Enthusiastic applause.) My principles are the same
everywhere. (Cheers and "hark.") I can proclaim them alike in the
North, the South, the East, and the West. My principles will apply wherever the
Constitution prevails and the American flag waves. ("Good" and
applause.) I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln's principles will bear
transplanting from Ottawa to Jonesboro? I put these questions to him to-day
distinctly, and ask an answer. I have a right to an answer, for I quote from
the platform of the Republican party, made by himself and others at the time
that party was formed, and the bargain made by Lincoln to dissolve and kill the
old Whig party, and transfer its members, bound hand and foot, to the Abolition
party, under the direction of Giddings and Fred Douglass. (Cheers.) In the
remarks I have made on this platform, and the position of Mr. Lincoln upon it,
I mean nothing personally disrespectful or unkind to that gentleman. I have
known him for nearly twenty-five years. There were many points of sympathy
between us when we first got acquainted. We were both comparatively boys, and
both struggling with poverty in a strange land. I was a school-teacher in the
town of Winchester, and he a flourishing grocery-keeper in the town of Salem.
(Applause and laughter.) He was more successful in his occupation than I was in
mine, and hence more fortunate in this world's goods. Lincoln is one of those
peculiar men who perform with admirable skill everything which they undertake.
I made as good a schoolteacher as I could, and when a cabinet maker I made a
good bedstead and tables, although my old boss said I succeeded better with
bureaus and secretaries than with anything else; (cheers,) but I believe that
Lincoln was always more successful in business than I, for his business enabled
him to get into the Legislature. I met him there, however, and had sympathy
with him, because of the up-hill struggle we
These two men having formed this combination to
abolitionize the old Whig party and the old Democratic party, and put
themselves into the Senate of the Untied States, in pursuance of their bargain,
are now carrying out that arrangement. Matheny states that Trumbull broke
faith; that the bargain was that Lincoln should be the Senator in Shields's
place, and Trumbull was to wait for mine; (laughter and cheers,) and the story
goes, that Trumbull cheated Lincoln, having control of four or five
abolitionized Democrats who were holding over in the Senate; he would not let
them vote for Lincoln, and which obliged the rest of the Abolitionists to
support him in order to secure an Abolition Senator. There are a number of
authorities for the truth of this besides Matheny, and I suppose that even Mr.
Lincoln will not deny it. (Applause and laughter.)
Mr. Lincoln demands that he shall have the place
intended for Trumbull, as Trumbull cheated him and got his, and Trumbull is
stumping the State traducing me for the purpose of securing the position for
Lincoln, in order to quiet him. ("Lincoln can never get it, &c.")
It was in consequence of this arrangement that the Republican Convention was
impanneled to instruct for Lincoln and nobody else, and it was on this account
that they passed resolutions that he was their first, their last, and their
only choice. Archy Williams was nowhere, Browning was nobody, Wentworth was not
to be considered; they had no man in the Republican party for the place except
Lincoln, for the reason that he demanded that they should carry out the
arrangement. ("Hit him again.")
Having formed this new party for the benefit of
deserters from Whiggery, and deserters from Democracy, and having laid down the
Abolition platform which I have read, Lincoln now takes his stand and proclaims
his Abolition doctrines. Let me read a part of them. In his speech at
Springfield to the Convention, which nominated him for the Senate, he said:
"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 Union to
be dissolved-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 became alike lawful in all
the States-old
as well as new, North as well as South."
("Good," "good," and cheers.)
I am delighted to hear you Black Republicans say
"good." (Laughter and cheers.) I have no doubt that doctrine
expresses your sentiments ("hit them again," "that's it,")
and I will prove to you now, if you will listen to me, that it is revolutionary
and destructive of the existence of this Government. ("Hurrah for
Douglas," "good," and cheers.) Mr. Lincoln, in the extract from
which I have read, says that this Government cannot endure permanently in the
same condition in which it was made by its framers-divided into free and slave
States. He says that it has existed for about seventy years thus divided, and
yet he tells you that it cannot endure permanently on the same principles and
in the same relative condition in which our fathers made it. Why can it not
exist divided into free and slave States? Washington, Jefferson, Franklin,
Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and the great men of that day, made this Government
divided into free States and slave States, and left each State perfectly free
to do as it pleased on the subject of slavery. ("Right, right.") Why
can it not exist on the same principles on which our fathers made it? ("It
can.")The knew when they framed the Constitution that in a country as wide
and broad as this, with such a variety of climate, production and interest, the
people necessarily required different laws and institutions in different
localities. They knew that the laws and regulations which would suit the
granite hills of New Hampshire would be unsuited to the rice plantations of
South Carolina, ("right, right,") and they, therefore, provided that
each State should retain its own Legislature and its own sovereignty, with the
full and complete power to do as it pleased within its own limits, in all that
was local and not national. (Applause.) One of the reserved rights of the
States, was the right to regulate the relations between Master and Servant, on
the slavery question. At the time the Constitution was framed, there were
thirteen States in the Union, twelve of which were slaveholding States and one
free State. Suppose this doctrine of uniformity preached by Mr. Lincoln, that
the States should all be free or all be slave had prevailed, and what would
have been the result? Of course, the twelve slaveholding States would have
overruled the one free State, and slavery would have been fastened by a
Constitutional provision on every inch of the American Republic, instead of
being left as our fathers wisely left it, to each State to decide for itself.
("Good, good," and three cheers for Douglas.) Here I assert that
uniformity in the local laws and institutions of the different States in
neither possible or desirable. If uniformity had been adopted when the
Government was established, it must inevitably have been the uniformity of
slavery everywhere, or else the uniformity of negro citizenship and negro
equality everywhere.
We are told by Lincoln that he is utterly opposed to
the Dred Scott decision, and will not submit to it, for the reason that he says
it deprives the negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship. (Laughter
and applause.) That is the first and main reason which he assigns for his
warfare on the Supreme Court of the United Sates and its decision. I ask you, are
you in favor of conferring upon the negro the rights and privileges of
citizenship? ("No, no.") Do you desire to strike out of our State
Constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the State,
and allow the free negroes to flow in, ("never,") and cover your
prairies with black settlements? Do you desire to turn this beautiful State
into a free negro colony, ("no, no,") in order that when Missouri
abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into
Illinois, to become citizens and voters, on an equality with yourselves?
("Never," "no.") If you desire negro citizenship, if you
desire to allow them to come into the State and settle with the white man, if
you desire them to vote on an equality with yourselves, and to make them
eligible to office, to serve on juries, and to adjudge your rights, then
support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who are in favor of the
citizenship of the negro. ("Never, never.") For one, I am opposed to
negro citizenship in any and every form. (Cheers.) I believe this Government
was made on the white basis. ("Good.") I believe it was made by white
men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in
favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent,
instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races.
("Good for you." "Douglas forever.")
Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the
little Abolition orators, who go around and lecture in the basements of schools
and churches, reads from the Declaration of Independence, that all men were
created equal, and then asks, how can you deprive a negro of that equality
which God and the Declaration of Independence awards to him? He and they
maintain that negro equality is guarantied by the laws of God, and that it is
asserted in the Declaration of Independence. If they think so, of course they
have a right to say so, and so vote. I do not question Mr. Lincoln's
conscientious belief that the negro was made his equal, and hence is his
brother, (laughter,) but for my own part, I do not regard the negro as my
equal, and positively deny that he is my brother or any kin to me whatever.
("Never." "Hit him again," and cheers.) Lincoln has evidently
learned by heart Parson Lovejoy's catechism. (Laughter and applause.) He can
repeat it as well as Farnsworth, and he is worthy of a medal from Father
Giddings and Fred Douglass for his Abolitionism. (Laughter.) He holds that the
negro was born his equal and yours, and that he was endowed with equality by
the Almighty, and that no human law can deprive him of these rights which were
guarantied to him by the Supreme ruler of the Universe. Now, I do not believe
that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man.
("Never, never.") If he did, he has been a long time demonstrating
the fact. (Cheers.) For thousands of years the negro has been a race upon the
earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has
wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the race which he has there
met. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior
position. ("Good," "that's so," &c.) I do not hold that
because the negro is our inferior that therefore he ought to be a slave. By no
means can such a conclusion be drawn from what I have said. On the contrary, I
hold that humanity and Christianity both require that the negro shall have and
enjoy every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the
safety of the society in which he lives. (That's so.) On that point, I presume,
there can be no diversity of opinion. You and I are bound to extend to our
inferior and dependent beings every right, every privilege, every facility and
immunity consistent with the public good. The question then arises, what rights
and privileges are consistent with the public good? This is a question which
each State and each Territory must decide for itself-Illinois has decided it
for herself. We have provided that the negro shall not be a slave, and we have
also provided that he shall not be a citizen, but protect him in his civil
rights, in his life, his person and his property, only depriving him of all
political rights whatsoever, and refusing to put him on an equality with the
white man. ("Good.") That policy of Illinois is satisfactory to the
Democratic party and to me, and if it were to the Republicans, there would then
be no question upon the subject; but the Republicans say that he ought to be
made a citizen, and when he becomes a citizen he becomes your equal, with all
your rights and privileges. ("He never shall.") They assert the Dred
Scott decision to be monstrous because it denies that the negro is or can be a
citizen under the Constitution. Now, I hold that Illinois had a right to abolish
and prohibit slavery as she did, and I hold that Kentucky has the same right to
continue and protect slavery that Illinois had to abolish it. I hold that New
York had as much right to abolish slavery as Virginia has to continue it, and
that each and every State of this Union is a sovereign power, with the right to
do as it pleases upon this question of slavery, and upon all its domestic
institutions. Slavery is not the only question which comes up in this
controversy. There is a far more important one to you, and that is, what shall
b
I am told that my time is out. Mr. Lincoln will now
address you for an hour and a half, and I will then occupy an half hour in
replying to him.
MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY.
Mr. Lincoln then came forward and was greeted with
loud and protracted cheers from fully two-thirds of the audience. This was
admitted by the Douglas men on the platform. It was some minutes before he
could make himself heard, even by those on the stand. At last he said:
MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: When a man hears himself somewhat
misrepresented, it provokes him-at least, I find it so with myself; but when
misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him.
The first thing I see fit to notice, is the fact that Judge Douglas alleges, after
running through the history of the old Democratic and the old Whig parties,
that Judge Trumbull and myself made an arrangement in 1854, by which I was to
have the place of Gen. Shields in the United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull
was to have the place of Judge Douglas. Now, all I have to say upon that
subject is, that I think no man-not even Judge Douglas-can prove it, because it is not true. [Cheers.] I have no doubt he
is "conscientious" in saying it.
[Laughter.] As to those resolutions that he took such a length of time to read,
as being the platform of the Republican party in 1854, I say I never had
anything to do with them, and I think Trumbull never had. [Renewed laughter.]
Judge Douglas cannot show that either of us ever did have anything to do with
them. I believe this is true about those
resolutions: There was a call for a Convention to form a Republican party at
Springfield, and I think that my friend, Mr. Lovejoy, who is here upon this
stand, had a hand in it. I think this is true, and I think if he will remember
accurately, he will be able to recollect that he tried to get me into it, and I
would not go in. [Cheers and laughter.] I believe it is also true that I went
away from Springfield when the Convention was in session, to attend court in
Tazewell county. It is true they did place my name, though without authority,
upon the committee, and afterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the
committee, but I refused to do so, and I never had anything to do with that
organization. This is the plain truth about all that matter of the resolutions.
Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells of
Trumbull bargaining to sell out the old Democratic party, and Lincoln agreeing
to sell out the old Whig party, I have the means of knowing about that; Judge Douglas
cannot have; and I know there is no substance to it whatever. Yet I have no
doubt he is "conscientious" about it. I know that
after Mr. Lovejoy got into the Legislature that winter, he complained of me
that I had told all the old Whigs of his district that the old Whig party was
good enough for them, and some of them voted against him because I told them
so. Now, I have no means of totally disproving such charges as this which the
Judge makes. A man cannot prove a negative, but he has a right to claim that
when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to show the
truth of what he says. I certainly cannot introduce testimony to show the
negative about things, but I have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then he must show how he knows it. I always have a
right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be
"conscientious" on the subject. [Cheers and Laughter.]
Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on such
things, but in regard to that general Abolition tilt that Judge Douglas makes,
when he says that I was engaged at that time in selling out and abolitionizing
the old Whig party-I hope you will permit me to read a part of a printed speech
that I made then at Peoria, which will show altogether a different view of the
position I took in that contest of 1854.
VOICE-"Put on your specs."
MR. LINCOLN-Yes, sir, I am obliged to do so. I am no
longer a young man. [Laughter.]
"This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The foregoing history may
not be precisely accurate in every particular; but I am sure it is sufficiently
so for all the uses I shall attempt to make of it, and in it we have before us,
the chief materials enabling us to correctly judge whether the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise is right or wrong.
"I think, and shall try to show, that it is
wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska-and
wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part
of the wide world, where men can be found inclined to take it.
"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal
for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the
monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our
republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of
free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real
friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so
many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very
fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of
Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.
"Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no
prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their
situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce
it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I
believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both
sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would
gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some
Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tiptop Abolitionists;
while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.
"When Southern people tell us they are no more
responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it
is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid
of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I
surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do
myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to
the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and
send them to Liberia,-to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would
convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in
this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all
landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there
are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them
there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us
as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I
would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to
me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and
socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would,
we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether
this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question,
if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or
ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals.
It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but
for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the
South.
"When they remind us of their constitutional
rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would
give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should
not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than
our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.
"But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more
excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would
for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing
of slaves from Africa, and that which has so
long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska,
can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the
former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter."
I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I think he
has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to
allow him to catechise me unless he pays back for it in kind. I will not answer
questions one after another, unless he reciprocates; but as he has made this
inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has got it without my getting
anything in return. He has got my answer on the Fugitive Slave law.
Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater
length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to
the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and
anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality
with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which
a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. [Laughter.] I will say
here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly,
to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I
believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I
have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white
and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in
my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon 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 natural rights enumerated in the
Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the
white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many
respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual
endowment. 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 living man. [Great applause.]
Now I pass on to consider one or two more of these
little follies. The Judge is wofully at fault about his early friend Lincoln
being a "grocery keeper." [Laughter.] I don't know as it would be a
great sin, if I had been; but he is mistaken. Lincoln never kept a grocery
anywhere in the world. [Laughter.] It is true that Lincoln did work the latter
part of one winter in a little still house, up at the head of a hollow. [Roars
of laughter.] And so I think my friend, the Judge, is equally at fault when he
charges me at the time when I was in Congress of having opposed our soldiers
who were fighting in the Mexican war. The Judge did not make his charge very
distinctly, but I can tell you what he can prove, by referring to the record.
You remember I was an old Whig, and whenever the Democratic party tried to get
me to vote that the war had been righteously begun by the President, I would
not do it. But whenever they asked for any money, or land-warrants, or anything
to pay the soldiers there, during all that time, I gave the same vote that
Judge Douglas did. [Loud applause.] You can think as you please as to whether
that was consistent. Such is the truth; and the Judge has the right to make all
he can out of it. But when he, by a general charge, conveys the idea that I
withheld supplies from the soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican war, or
did anything else to hinder the soldiers, he is, to say the least, grossly and
altogether mistaken, as a consultation of the records will prove to him.
As I have not used up so much of my time as I had
supposed, I will dwell a little longer upon one or two of these minor topics
upon which the Judge has spoken. He has read from my speech in Springfield, in
which I say that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Does
the Judge say it can stand? [Laughter.] I don't
know whether he does or not. The Judge does not seem to be attending to me just
now, but I would like to know if it is his opinion that a house divided against
itself can stand. If he does, then there is a
question of veracity, not between him and me, but between the Judge and an
authority of a somewhat higher character. [Laughter and applause.]
Now, my friends, I ask your attention to this matter
for the purpose of saying something seriously. I know that the Judge may
readily enough agree with me that the maxim which was put forth by the Saviour
is true, but he may allege that I misapply it; and the Judge has a right to
urge that, in my application, I do misapply it, and then I have a right to show
that I do not misapply it. When he
undertakes to say that because I think this nation, so far as the question of
slavery is concerned, will all become one thing or all the other, I am in favor
of bringing about a dead uniformity in the various States, in all their
institutions, he argues erroneously. The great variety of the local
institutions in the States, springing from differences in the soil, differences
in the face of the country, and in the climate, are bonds of Union. They do not
make "a house divided against itself," but they make a house united.
If they produce in one section of the country what is called for by the wants
of another section, and this other section can supply the wants of the first,
they are not matters of discord but bonds of union, true bonds of union. But
can this question of slavery be considered as among these varieties in the institutions
of the country? I leave it to you to say whether, in the history of our
Government, this institution of slavery has not always failed to be a bond of
union, and, on the contrary, been an apple of discord, and an element of
division in the house. [Cries of "Yes, yes," and applause.] I ask you
to consider whether, so long as the moral constitution of men's minds shall continue
to be the same, after this generation and assemblage shall sink into the grave,
and another race shall arise, with the same moral and intellectual development
we have-whether, if that institution is standing in the same irritating
position in which it now is, it will not continue an element of division?
[Cries of "Yes, yes."] If so, then I have a right to say that, in
regard to this question, the Union is a house divided against itself; and when
the Judge reminds me that I have often said to him that the institution of
slavery has existed for eighty years in some States, and yet it does not exist
in some others, I agree to the fact, and I account for it by looking at the
position in which our fathers originally placed it-restricting it from the new
Territories where it had not gone, and legislating to cut off its source by the
abrogation of the slave-trade thus putting the seal of legislation against its spread. The public mind did rest in the belief that it
was in the course of ultimate extinction. [Cries of "Yes, yes,"] But
lately, I think-and in this I charge nothing on the Judge's motives-lately, I
think, that he, and those acting with him, have placed that institution on a
new basis, which looks to the perpetuity and nationalization of slavery. [Loud cheers.] And while it
is placed upon this new basis, I say, and I have said, that I believe we shall
not have peace upon the question until the opponents of slavery 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, on the other hand, that
its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all
the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. Now, I believe if we
could arrest the spread, and place it where Washington, and Jefferson, and
Madison placed it, it would
be in the
course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind would, as for eighty years past,
believe that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. The crisis would be
past and the institution might be let alone for a hundred years, if it should
live so long, in the States where it exists, yet it would be going out of
existence in the way best for both the black and the white races. [Great
cheering.]
A VOICE- "Then do you repudiate Popular
Sovereignty?"
MR. LINCOLN-Well, then, let us talk about Popular
Sovereignty! [Laughter.] What is Popular Sovereignty? [Cries of "A
humbug," "a humbug."] Is it the right of the people to have
Slavery or not have it, as they see fit, in the territories? I will state-and I
have an able man to watch me-my understanding is that Popular Sovereignty, as
now applied to the question of slavery, does allow the people of a Territory to
have slavery if they want to, but does not allow them not to have it if they do not want it. [Applause and
laughter.] I do not mean that if this vast concourse of people were in a
Territory of the United States, any one of them would be obliged to have a
slave if he did not want one; but I do say that, as I understand the Dred Scott
decision, if any one man wants slaves, all the rest have no way of keeping that
one man from holding them.
When I made my speech at Springfield, of which the
Judge complains, and from which he quotes, I really was not thinking of the
things which he ascribes to me at all. I had no thought in the world that I was
doing anything to bring about a war between the free and slave States. I had no
thought in the world that I was doing anything to bring about a political and
social equality of the black and white races. It never occurred to me that I
was doing anything or favoring anything to reduce to a dead uniformity all the
local institutions of the various States. But I must say, in all fairness to
him, if he thinks I am doing something which leads to these bad results, it is
none the better that I did not mean it. It is just as fatal to the country, if
I have any influence in producing it, whether I intend it or not. But can it be
true, that placing this institution upon the original basis-the basis upon
which our fathers placed it-can have any tendency to set the Northern and the
Southern States at war with one another, or that it can have any tendency to
make the people of Vermont raise sugarcane, because they raise it in Louisiana,
or that it can compel the people of Illinois to cut pine logs on the Grand
Prairie, where they will not grow, because they cut pine logs in Maine, where
they do grow? [Laughter.] The Judge says this is a new principle started in
regard to this question. Does the Judge claim that he is working on the plan of
the founders of Government? I think he says in some of his speeches-indeed, I
have one here now-that he saw evidence of a policy to allow slavery to be south
of a certain line, while north of it it should be excluded, and he saw an
indisposition on the part of the country to stand upon that policy, and
therefore he set about studying the subject upon original principles, and upon original principles he got up the Nebraska bill!
I am fighting it upon these "original principles''-fighting it in the Jeffersonian,
Washingtonian, and Madisonian fashion. [Laughter and applause.]
Now, my friends, I wish you to attend for a little
while to one or two other things in that Springfield speech. My main object was
to show, so far as my humble ability was capable of showing to the people of
this country, what I believed was the truth-that there was a tendency, if not a conspiracy among
those who have engineered this slavery question for the last four or five
years, to make slavery perpetual and universal in this nation. Having made that
speech principally for that object, after arranging the evidences that I
thought tended to prove my proposition, I concluded with this bit of comment:
"We cannot absolutely know that these exact adaptations
are the result of preconcert, but when we see a lot of framed timbers,
different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and
places, and by different workmen-Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for
instance-and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly
make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly
fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly
adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few -not
omitting even the scaffolding-or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place
in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in-in such a
case we feel it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin, and Roger
and James, all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a
common plan or draft drawn before the first blow was struck." [Great
cheers.]
When my friend, Judge Douglas, came to Chicago, on the
9th of July, this speech having been delivered on the 16th of June, he made an
harangue there, in which he took hold of this speech of mine, showing that he
had carefully read it; and while he paid no attention to this matter at all, but
complimented me as being a "kind, amiable and intelligent gentleman,"
notwithstanding I had said this, he goes on and eliminates, or draws out, from
my speech this tendency of mine to set the States at war with one another, to
make all the institutions uniform, and set the niggers and white people to
marrying together. [Laughter.] Then, as the Judge had complimented me with
these pleasant titles (I must confess to my weakness), I was a little
"taken," [laughter] for it came from a great man. I was not very much
accustomed to flattery, and it came the sweeter to me. I was rather like the
Hoosier, with the gingerbread, when he said he reckoned he loved it better than
any other man, and got less of it. [Roars of laughter.] As the Judge had so
flattered me, I could not make up my mind that he meant to deal unfairly with
me; so I went to work to show him that he misunderstood the whole scope of my
speech, and that I really never intended to set the people at war with one
another. As an illustration, the next time I met him, which was at Springfield,
I used this expression, that I claimed no right under the Constitution, nor had
I any inclination, to enter into the Slave States and interfere with the
institutions of slavery. He says upon that: Lincoln will not enter into the
Slave States, but will go to the banks of the Ohio, on this side, and shoot
over! [Laughter.] He runs on, step by step, in the horse-chestnut style of
argument, until in the Springfield speech he says, "Unless he shall be
successful in firing his batteries, until he shall have extinguished slavery in
all the States, the Union shall be dissolved." Now I don't think that was
exactly the way to treat "a kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman." I
know if I had asked the Judge to show when or where it was I had said that, if
I didn't succeed in firing into the slave States until slavery should be
extinguished, the Union should be dissolved, he could not have shown it. I
understand what he would do. He would say, "I don't mean to quote from
you, but this was the
result of
what you say." But I have the right to ask, and I do ask now, Did you not
put it in such a form that an ordinary reader or listener would take it as an
expression from
me?[Laughter.]
In a speech at Springfield, on the night of the 17th,
I thought I might as well attend to my own business a little, and I recalled
his attention as well as I could to this charge of conspiracy to nationalize
slavery. I called his attention to the fact that he had acknowledged, in my
hearing twice, that he had carefully read the speech, and, in the language of the
lawyers, as he had twice read the speech, and still had put in no plea or
answer, I took a default on him. I insisted that I had a right then to renew
that charge of conspiracy. Ten days afterward I met the Judge at Clinton-that
is to say, I was on the ground, but not in the discussion-and heard him make a
speech. Then he comes in with his plea to this charge, for the first time, and
his plea when put in, as well as I can recollect it, amounted to this: that he
never had any talk with Judge Taney or the President of the United States with
regard to the Dred Scott decision before it was made. I (Lincoln) ought to know
that the man who makes a charge without knowing it to be true, falsifies as
much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood; and lastly, that he would pronounce
the whole thing a falsehood; but he would make no personal application of the
charge of falsehood, not because of any regard for the "kind, amiable,
intelligent gentleman," but because of his own personal self-respect!
[Roars of Laughter.] I have understood since then (but [turning to Judge
Douglas] will not hold the Judge to it if he is not willing) that he has broken
through the "self-respect," and has got to saying the thing out. The Judge nods to me that it
is so. [Laughter.] It is fortunate for me that I can keep as good-humored as I
do, when the Judge acknowledges that he has been trying to make a question of
veracity with me. I know the Judge is a great man, while I am only a small man,
but I feel
that I have got him.
[Tremendous cheering.] I demur to that plea. I waive all objections that it was
not filed till after default was taken, and demur to it upon the merits. What
if Judge Douglas never did talk with Chief Justice Taney and the President,
before the Dred Scott decision was made, does it follow that he could not have
had as perfect an understanding without talking as with it? I am not disposed
to stand upon my legal advantage. I am disposed to take his denial as being
like an answer in chancery, that he neither had any knowledge, information or
belief in the existence of such a conspiracy. I am disposed to take his answer
as being as broad as though he had put it in these words. And now, I ask, even
if he had done so, have not I a right to prove it on him, and to offer the evidence of more than two
witnesses, by whom to prove it; and if the evidence proves the existence of the
conspiracy, does his broad answer denying all knowledge, information, or
belief, disturb the fact? It can only show that he was used by conspirators, and was not
a leader of them. [Vociferous
cheering.]
Now, in regard to his reminding me of the moral rule
that persons who tell what they do not know to be true, falsify as much as
those who knowingly tell falsehoods. I remember the rule, and it must be borne
in mind that in what I have read to you, I do not say that I know such a conspiracy to exist.
To that I reply, I
believe it.
If the Judge says that I do not
believe it, then
he says what he does not know, and falls
within his own rule, that he who asserts a thing which he does not know to be
true, falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood. I want to call
your attention to a little discussion on that branch of the case, and the
evidence which brought my mind to the conclusion which I expressed as my belief. If, in arraying that
evidence, I had stated anything which was false or erroneous, it needed but
that Judge Douglas should point it out, and I would have taken it back with all
the kindness in the world. I do not deal in that way. If I have brought forward
anything not a fact, if he will point it out, it will not even ruffle me to
take it back. But if he will not point out anything erroneous in the evidence,
is it not rather for him to show, by a comparison of the evidence, that I have reasoned falsely, than to call the
"kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman" a liar? [Cheers and laughter.]
If I have reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vocation of an able debater
to show by argument that I have wandered to an erroneous conclusion. I want to
ask your attention to a portion of the Nebraska bill, which Judge Douglas has
quoted: "It being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to
legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but
to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United
States." Thereupon Judge Douglas and others began to argue in favor of
"Popular Sovereignty" -the right of the people to have slaves if they
wanted them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want them. "But,"
said, in substance, a Senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase, I believe), "we more
than suspect that you do not mean to allow the people to exclude slavery if
they wish to, and if you do mean it, accept an amendment which I propose
expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery." I believe I have the
amendment here before me, which was offered, and under which the people of the
Territory, through their proper representatives, might, if they saw fit,
prohibit the existence of slavery therein. And now I state it as a fact, to be taken back if there is
any mistake about it, that Judge Douglas and those acting with him voted that amendment down. [Tremendous applause.] I now
think that those men who voted it down, had a real reason for doing so. They know what
that reason was. It looks to us, since we have seen the Dred Scott decision
pronounced, holding that, "under the Constitution," the people cannot
exclude slavery-I say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, "amiable,
intelligent gentlemen," as though the niche was left as a place to put
that Dred Scott decision in - [laughter and cheers] - a niche which would have
been spoiled by adopting the amendment. And now, I say again, if this was not the reason, it will
avail the Judge much more to calmly and good-humoredly point out to these
people what that other reason was for voting the
amendment down, than, swelling himself up, to vociferate that he may be
provoked to call somebody a liar. [Tremendous applause.]
Again: there is in that same quotation from the
Nebraska bill this clause- "It being the true intent and meaning of this
bill not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State." I have always been
puzzled to know what business the word "State" had in that
connection, Judge Douglas knows. He put it there. He knows what he put it there for. We
outsiders cannot say what he put it there for. The law they were passing was
not about States, and was not making provisions for States. What was it placed
there for? After seeing the Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people
cannot exclude slavery from a Territory, if another Dred Scott decision shall come, holding that they
cannot exclude it from a State, we shall discover that when
the word was originally put there, it was in view of something which was to
come in due time, we shall see that it was the other half of something. [Applause.] I
now say again, if there is any different reason for putting it there, Judge
Douglas, in a good humored way, without calling anybody a liar, can tell what the reason
was. [Renewed
cheers.]
When the Judge spoke at Clinton, he came very near
making a charge of falsehood against me. He used, as I found it printed in a
newspaper, which, I remember, was very nearly like the real speech, the
following language:
"I did not answer the charge [of conspiracy]
before, for the reason that I did not suppose there was a man in America with a
heart so corrupt as to believe such a charge could be true. I have too much respect
for Mr. Lincoln to suppose he is serious in making the charge."
I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of
respect for me he should consider I was making what I deemed rather a grave
charge in fun. [Laughter.] I confess it strikes me rather strangely. But I let
it pass. As the Judge did not for a moment believe that there was a man in
America whose heart was so "corrupt" as to make such a charge, and as
he places me among the "men in America" who have hearts base enough
to make such a charge, I hope he will excuse me if I hunt out another charge
very like this; and if it should turn out that in hunting I should find that
other, and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas himself who made it, I hope
he will reconsider this question of the deep corruption of heart he has thought
fit to ascribe to me. [Great applause and laughter.] In Judge Douglas's speech
of March 22d, 1858, which I hold in my hand, he says:
"In this connection there is another topic to
which I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of newspapers, or notice
the articles which they publish in regard to myself; but the course of the
Washington Union has been so extraordinary,
for the last two or three months, that I think it well enough to make some
allusion to it. It has read me out of the Democratic party every other day, at
least for two or three months, and keeps reading me out, (laughter;) and, as if
it had not succeeded, still continues to read me out, using such terms as
"traitor," "renegade," "deserter," and other kind
and polite epithets of that nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my
Democracy against the Washington Union, or any other newspapers. I am willing to allow my
history and action for the last twenty years to speak for themselves as to my
political principles, and my fidelity to political obligations. The Washington Union has a personal grievance.
When its editor was nominated for public printer I declined to vote for him,
and stated that at some time I might give my reasons for doing so. Since I
declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and
constant attacks have been repeated almost daily on me. Will my friend from
Michigan read the article to which I allude?"
This is a part of the speech. You must excuse me from
reading the entire article of the Washington Union, as Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. Douglas. The
Judge goes on and sums up, as I think, correctly:
"Mr. President, you here find several distinct
propositions advanced boldly by the Washington Union editorially, and
apparently authoritatively, and any man who questions
any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a Freesoiler, a fanatic. The
propositions are, first, that the primary object of all government at its
original institution is the protection of person and property; second, that the
Constitution of the United States declares that the citizens of each State
shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several States; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or
otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another
with their slave property, and especially declaring it forfeited, are direct
violations of the original intention of the Government and Constitution of the
United States; and, fourth, that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern
States was a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was
involuntarily done on the part of the owner.
"Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th of November, and
on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesion of the Union to the Lecompton
Constitution. It was in these words:
"KANSAS AND HER CONSTITUTION-The vexed question
is settled. The problem is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious
trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone'-
"And a column, nearly, of the same sort. Then,
when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same
doctrine incorporated in it which was put forth editorially in the Union. What is it?
" `ARTICLE 7, Section 1. The right of property is before and higher than any
Constitutional sanction; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave
and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any
property whatever.'
"Then in the schedule is a provision that the
Constitution may be amended after 1864 by a two-thirds vote.
"`But no alteration shall be made to affect the
right of property in the ownership of slaves.'
"It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton
Constitution, that they are identical in spirit with the authoritative article in the Washington Union of the day previous to its
indorsement of this Constitution."
I pass over some portions of the speech, and I hope
that any one who feels interested in this matter will read the entire section
of the speech, and see whether I do the Judge injustice. He proceeds:
"When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by the
glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this
clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to
prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being struck at the
sovereignty of the States of this Union."
I stop the quotation there, again requesting that it
may all be read. I have read all of the portion I desire to comment upon. What
is this charge that the Judge thinks I must have a very corrupt heart to make?
It was a purpose on the part of certain high functionaries to make it impossible
for the people of one State to prohibit the people of any other State from
entering it with their "property," so called, and making it a slave
State. In other words, it was a charge implying a design to make the
institution of slavery national. And now I ask your attention to what Judge
Douglas has himself done here. I know he made that part of the speech as a
reason why he had refused to vote for a certain man for public printer, but
when we get at it, the charge itself is the very one I made against him, that
he thinks I am so corrupt for uttering. Now, whom does he make that charge
against? Does he make it against that newspaper editor merely? No; he says it
is identical in spirit with the Lecompton Constitution, and so the framers of
that Constitution are brought in with the editor of the newspaper in that
"fatal blow being struck." He did not call it a
"conspiracy." In his language it is a "fatal blow being
struck." And if the words carry the meaning better when changed from a
"conspiracy" into a "fatal blow being struck," I will
change my expression and call it
"fatal blow being struck." We see the charge made not merely against
the editor of the Union, but all the framers of the
Lecompton Constitution; and not only so, but the article was an authoritative article. By whose authority?
Is there any question but he means it was by the authority of the President and
his Cabinet-the Administration?
Is there any sort of question but he means to make
that charge? Then there are the editors of the Union, the framers of the Lecompton Constitution,
the President of the United States and his Cabinet, and all the supporters of
the Lecompton Constitution, in Congress and out of Congress, who are all
involved in this "fatal blow being struck." I commend to Judge
Douglas's consideration the question of how corrupt a man's heart must be to make such a
charge!
[Vociferous cheering.]
Now, my friends, I have but one branch of the subject,
in the little time I have left, to which to call your attention, and as I shall
come to a close at the end of that branch, it is probable that I shall not
occupy quite all the time allotted to me. Although on these questions I would
like to talk twice as long as I have, I could not enter upon another head and
discuss it properly without running over my time. I ask the attention of the
people here assembled and elsewhere, to the course that Judge Douglas is
pursuing every day as bearing upon this question of making slavery national.
Not going back to the records, but taking the speeches he makes, the speeches
he made yesterday and day before, and makes constantly all over the country-I
ask your attention to them. In the first place, what is necessary to make the
institution national? Not war. There is no danger that the people of Kentucky
will shoulder their muskets, and, with a young nigger stuck on every bayonet,
march into Illinois and force them upon us. There is no danger of our going
over there and making war upon them. Then what is necessary for the
nationalization of slavery? It is simply the next Dred Scott decision. It is
merely for the Supreme Court to decide that no State under the Constitution can exclude it, just as
they have already decided that under the Constitution neither Congress nor the
Territorial Legislature can do it. When that is decided and acquiesced in, the
whole thing is done. This being true, and this being the way, as I think, that
slavery is to be made national, let us consider what Judge Douglas is doing
every day to that end. In the first place, let us see what influence he is
exerting on public sentiment. In this and like communities, public sentiment is
everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can
succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts
statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or
impossible to be executed. This must be borne in mind, as also the additional
fact that Judge Douglas is a man of vast influence, so great that it is enough
for many men to profess to believe anything, when they once find out that Judge
Douglas professes to believe it. Consider also the attitude he occupies at the
head of a large party-a party which he claims has a majority of all the voters
in the country. This man sticks to a decision which forbids the people of a
Territory from excluding slavery, and he does so not because he says it is
right in itself-he does not give any opinion on that-but because it has been decided by the court, and being decided by court,
he is, and you are bound to take it in your political action as law-not that he judges at all of
its merits, but because a decision of the court is to him a "Thus saith the Lord." [Applause.] He places
it on that ground alone, and you will bear in mind that, thus committing
himself unreservedly to this decision, commits him to the next one just as firmly as to this. He
did not commit himself on account of the merit or demerit of the decision, but
it is a Thus
saith the Lord.
The next decision, as much as this, will be a Thus saith the Lord. There is nothing that can
divert or turn him away from this decision. It is nothing that I point out to
him that his great prototype, Gen. Jackson, did not believe in the binding
force of decisions. It is nothing to him that Jefferson did not so believe. I
have said that I have often heard him approve of Jackson's course in
disregarding the decision of the Supreme Court pronouncing a National Bank
constitutional. He says, I did not hear him say so. He denies the accuracy of
my recollection. I say he ought to know better than I, but I will make no
question about this thing, though it still seems to me that I heard him say it
twenty times. [Applause and laughter.] I will tell him though, that he now
claims to
A HIBERNIAN- "Give us something besides Dred
Scott."
MR. LINCOLN-Yes; no doubt you want to hear something
that don't hurt. [Laughter and applause.] Now, having spoken of the Dred Scott
decision, one more word and I am done. Henry Clay, my beau ideal of a
statesman, the man for whom I fought all my humble life-Henry Clay once said of
a class of men who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate
emancipation, that they must, if they would do this, go back to the era of our
Independence, and muzzle the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return;
they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate the human
soul, and eradicate there the love of liberty; and then, and not till then,
could they perpetuate slavery in this country! [Loud cheers.] To my thinking,
Judge Douglas is, by his example and vast influence, doing that very thing in
this community, [cheers,] when he says that the negro has nothing in the
Declaration of Independence. Henry Clay plainly understood the contrary. Judge
Douglas is going back to the era of our Revolution, and to the extent of his
ability, muzzling the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return. When he
invites any people, willing to have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out
the moral lights around us. [Cheers.] When he says he "cares not whether
slavery is voted down or voted up''-that it is a sacred right of
self-government-he is, in my judgment, penetrating the human soul and
eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American
people. [Enthusiastic and continued applause.] And now I will only say that
when, by all these means and appliances, Judge Douglas shall succeed in
bringing public sentiment to an exact accordance with his own views-when these
vast assemblages shall echo back all these sentiments-when they shall come to
repeat his views and to avow his principles, and to say all that he says on
these mighty questions-then it needs only the formality of the second Dred
Scott decision, which he indorses in advance, to make slavery alike lawful in
all the States-old as well as new, North as well as South.
My friends, that ends the chapter. The Judge can take
his half hour.