“Mr. Speaker, let our Democratic friends be comforted with the

assurance that we are content with our position, content with our

company, and content with our candidate; and that although they, in

their generous sympathy, think we ought to be miserable, we really

are not, and that they may dismiss the great anxiety they have on

_our_ account.”

* * * * *

SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. DOUGLAS, ON KANSAS, THE DRED SCOTT DECISION, AND

THE UTAH QUESTION.

(_Delivered at Springfield, Ill., June 26, 1857._)

“FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I am here, to-night, partly by the invitation

of some of you, and partly by my own inclination. Two weeks ago

Judge Douglas spoke here, on the several subjects of Kansas, the

Dred Scott decision, and Utah. I listened to the speech at the

time, and have read the report of it since. It was intended to

controvert opinions which I think just, and to assail (politically,

not personally) those men who, in common with me, entertain those

opinions. For this reason I wished then, and still wish to make

some answer to it which I now take the opportunity of doing.

“I begin with Utah. If it prove to be true, as is probable, that

the people of Utah are in open rebellion against the United States,

then Judge Douglas is in favor of repealing their territorial

organization, and attaching them to the adjoining States for

judicial purposes. I say, too, if they are in rebellion, they ought

to be somehow coerced to obedience; and I am not now prepared to

admit or deny, that the Judge’s mode of coercing them is not as

good as any. The Republicans can fall in with it, without taking

back any thing they have ever said. To be sure, it would be a

considerable backing down by Judge Douglas, from his much vaunted

doctrine of self-government for the territories; but this is only

additional proof of what was very plain from the beginning, that

that doctrine was a mere deceitful pretence for the benefit of

slavery. Those who could not see that much in the Nebraska act

itself, which forced Governors, and Secretaries, and Judges on the

people of the territories, without their choice or consent, could

not be made to see, though one should rise from the dead.

“But in all this, it is very plain the Judge evades the only

question the Republicans have ever pressed upon the Democracy in

regard to Utah. That question the Judge well knew to be this: ‘If

the people of Utah shall peacefully form a State Constitution

tolerating polygamy, will the Democracy admit them into the Union?’

There is nothing in the United States Constitution or law against

polygamy; and why is it not a part of the Judge’s ‘sacred right of

self-government’ for the people to have it, or rather to keep it,

if they choose? These questions, so far as I know, the Judge never

answers. It might involve the Democracy to answer them either way

and they go unanswered.

“As to Kansas. The substance of the Judge’s speech on Kansas, is

an effort to put the Free State men in the wrong for not voting

at the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. He

says: ‘There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will

be fairly interpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure

to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the

elective franchise.’

“It appears extraordinary that Judge Douglas should make such a

statement. He knows that, by the law, no one can vote who has

not been registered; and he knows that the Free State men place

their refusal to vote on the ground that but few of them have been

registered. It is possible this is not true, but Judge Douglas

knows it is asserted to be true in letters, newspapers, and public

speeches, and borne by every mail, and blown by every breeze to the

eyes and ears of the world. He knows it is boldly declared, that

the people of many whole counties, and many whole neighborhoods

in others, are left unregistered; yet he does not venture to

contradict the declaration, or to point out how they can vote

without being registered; but he just slips along, not seeming to

know there is any such question of fact, and complacently declares,

‘There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be

fairly and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide

inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise.’

“I readily agree that if all had a chance to vote, they ought to

have voted. If, on the contrary, as they allege, and Judge Douglas

ventures not particularly to contradict, few only of the Free State

men had a chance to vote, they were perfectly right in staying from

the polls in a body.

“By the way, since the Judge spoke, the Kansas election has come

off. The Judge expressed his confidence that all the Democrats in

Kansas would do their duty--including ‘Free State Democrats’ of

course. The returns received here, as yet, are very incomplete;

but, so far as they go, they indicate that only about one-sixth

of the registered voters, have really voted; and this, too, when

not more, perhaps, than one-half of the rightful voters have been

registered, thus showing the thing to have been altogether the

most exquisite farce ever enacted. I am watching with considerable

interest, to ascertain what figure ‘the Free State Democrats’ cut

in the concern. Of course they voted--all Democrats do their

duty--and of course they did not vote for Slave State candidates.

We soon shall know how many delegates they elected, how many

candidates they have pledged to a free State, and how many votes

were cast for them.

“Allow me to barely whisper my suspicion, that there were no

such things in Kansas as ‘Free State Democrats’--that they were

altogether mythical, good only to figure in newspapers and speeches

in the free States. If there should prove to be one real, living

free State Democrat in Kansas, I suggest that it might be well

to catch him, and stuff and preserve his skin, as an interesting

specimen of that soon to be extinct variety of the genus Democrat.

“And now, as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two

propositions--first, that a negro cannot sue in the United States

Courts; and secondly, that Congress can not prohibit slavery in the

Territories. It was made by a divided court--dividing differently

on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits

of the decision, and in that respect, I shall follow his example,

believing I could no more improve upon McLean and Curtis, than he

could on Taney.

“He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as

offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in

spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the

authority of his master over him?

“Judicial decisions have two uses--first, to absolutely determine

the case decided; and secondly to indicate to the public how other

similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use,

they are called ‘precedents’ and ‘authorities.’

“We believe as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps more) in obedience

to, and respect for the judicial department of Government. We think

its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled,

should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the

general policy of the country subject to be disturbed only by

amendments of the Constitution, as provided in that instrument

itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred

Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it has

often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to

have it overrule this. We offer no resistance to it.

“Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents,

according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both

with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal

profession.

“If this important decision had been made by the unanimous

concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan

bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with

the steady practice of the departments, throughout our history,

and had been in no part based on assumed historical facts which

are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been

before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and

re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps

would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it

as a precedent.

“But when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these claims to

the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious,

it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite

established a settled doctrine for the country. But Judge Douglas

considers this view awful. Hear him:

“‘The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and

created by the authority of the people to determine, expound, and

enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of

the highest judicial tribunal, aims a deadly blow to our whole

Republican system of government--a blow which, if successful,

would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion,

anarchy and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance

to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a

matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly

within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, shall

be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a

distinct and naked issue between the friends and enemies of the

Constitution--the friends and enemies of the supremacy of the laws.’

“Why, this same Supreme Court once decided a national bank to

be Constitutional; but General Jackson, as President of the

United States, disregarded the decision, and vetoed a bill for

a re-charter, partly on Constitutional ground, declaring that

each public functionary must support the Constitution, ‘as he

understands it.’ But hear the General’s own words. Here they are,

taken from his veto message:

“‘It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its

Constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as

settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To

this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous

source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding

questions of Constitutional power, except where the acquiescence

of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So

far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against

the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791,

decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against it.

One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816,

decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore,

the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to

the States, the expression of legislative, judicial, and executive

opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor

as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which,

if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act

before me.’

“I drop the quotations merely to remark, that all there ever was,

in the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the

points therein decided, had been against that decision. But hear

General Jackson further:

“‘If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of

this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of

this Government. The Congress, the Executive and the Court, must

each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution.

Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution,

swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it

is understood by others.’

“Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank

decision, and applaud General Jackson for disregarding it. It

would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech, and

see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting

Supreme Court decisions, fall upon his own head. It will call to

mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon an issue

which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless

estimation, was ‘a distinct issue between the friends and the

enemies of the Constitution,’ and in which war he fought in the

ranks of the enemies of the Constitution.

“I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in

part, based on assumed historical facts which were not really true,

and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons

for saying this; I, therefore, give an instance or two, which I

think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the

opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great length, that

negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made,

the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United

States.

“On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows

that in five of the then thirteen States, to wit: New Hampshire,

Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, free

negroes were voters, and, in proportion to their numbers, had the

same part in making the Constitution that the white people had.

He shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of

its truth; and as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the

following language:

“‘The constitution was ordained and established by the people of

the United States, through the action, in each State, of those

persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf

of themselves and all other citizens of the State. In some of the

States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified

by law to act on the subject. These colored persons were not only

included in the body of ‘the people of the United States,’ by whom

the Constitution was ordained and established; but in at least five

of the States they had the power to act, and, doubtless, did act,

by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption.’

“Again, Chief Justice Taney says: ‘It is difficult, at this day to

realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate

race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of

the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when

the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted.’ And

again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says: ‘The general

words above quoted would seem to include the whole human family,

and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, would be

so understood.’

“In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly

assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is

more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution.

This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars, the

condition of that race has been ameliorated; but as a whole,

in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly

the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so

hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the five

States--New Jersey and North Carolina--that then gave the free

negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away;

and in the third--New York--it has been greatly abridged; while it

has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single additional

State, though the number of the States has more than doubled. In

those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own pleasure,

emancipate their slaves; but since then such legal restraints have

been made upon emancipation as to amount almost to prohibition. In

those days ‘Legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish

slavery in their respective States; but now it is becoming quite

fashionable for State Constitutions to withhold that power from the

Legislatures. In those days by common consent, the spread of the

black man’s bondage to the new countries was prohibited; but now,

Congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition--and

the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it would. In those

days our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and

thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage

of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed, sneered at,

construed, hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise

from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the

powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after

him; ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the theology of the

day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison-house;

they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with

him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon

him; and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a

hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence

of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and

they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they

stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and

matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape

more complete than it is.

“It is grossly incorrect to say or assume, that the public estimate

of the negro is more favorable now than it was at the origin of the

Government.

“Three years and a half ago, Judge Douglas brought forward his

famous Nebraska bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He

scorned all opposition, and carried it through Congress. Since then

he has seen himself superseded in a Presidential nomination, by

one indorsing the general doctrine of his measure, but at the same

time standing clear of the odium of its untimely agitation, and its

gross breach of national faith; and he has seen that successful

rival Constitutionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but

by the division of his adversaries, being in a popular minority

of nearly four hundred thousand votes. He has seen his chief aids

in his own State, Shields and Richardson, politely speaking,

successively tried, convicted, and executed, for an offence not

their own, but his. And now he sees his own case, standing next on

the docket for trial.

“There is a natural disgust, in the minds of nearly all white

people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the

white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his

chief hope upon the chances of his being able to appropriate the

benefit of this disgust to himself. If he can, by much drumming

and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries,

he thinks he can struggle through the storm. He, therefore, clings

to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank. He makes an

occasion for lugging it in from the opposition to the Dred Scott

decision. He finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration

of Independence includes ALL men, black as well as white, and

forthwith he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and

proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does do so only

because they want to vote, eat and sleep, and marry with negroes.

He will have it that they can not be consistent else. Now, I

protest against the counterfeit logic which concludes that because

I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want

her for a wife. I need not have her for either. I can just leave

her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in

her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands,

without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the

equal of all others.

“Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits

that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the

whole human family; but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors

of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact

that they did not at once actually place them on an equality with

the whites. Now, this grave argument comes to just nothing at all,

by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterward,

actually place all white people on an equality with one another.

And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the

Senator for doing this obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable

language of the Declaration.

“I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include

_all_ men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal _in all

respects_. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size,

intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined

with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all

men created equal--equal with ‘certain inalienable rights, among

which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This they

said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious

untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor

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.”

* * * * *

SPEECH IN REPLY TO SENATOR DOUGLAS.

(_At Chicago, on the evening of July 10, 1858._)

“MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: On yesterday evening, upon the occasion of the

reception given to Senator Douglas, I was furnished with a seat

very convenient for hearing him, and was otherwise very courteously

treated by him and his friends, for which I thank him and them.

During the course of his remarks my name was mentioned in such a

way as, I suppose, renders it at least not improper that I should

make some sort of reply to him. I shall not attempt to follow him

in the precise order in which he addressed the assembled multitude

upon that occasion, though I shall perhaps do so in the main.

“There was one question to which he asked the attention of the

crowd, which I deem of somewhat less importance--at least of

propriety for me to dwell upon--than the others, which he brought

in near the close of his speech, and which I think it would not

be entirely proper for me to omit attending to, and yet if I were

not to give some attention to it now, I should probably forget it

altogether. While I am upon this subject, allow me to say that I do

not intend to indulge in that inconvenient mode sometimes adopted

in public speaking, of reading from documents; but I shall depart

from that rule so far as to read a little scrap from his speech,

which notices this first topic of which I shall speak--that is,

provided I can find it in the paper. [Examines the morning’s paper.]

“‘I have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the

combination that has been made against me! the Republican leaders

having formed an alliance, an unholy and unnatural alliance,

with a portion of unscrupulous federal office-holders. I intend

to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. I know they

deny the alliance, but yet these men who are trying to divide

the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Republican

Senator in my place, are just as much the agents and tools of the

supporters of Mr. Lincoln. Hence I shall deal with this allied army

just as the Russians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol--that is,

the Russians did not stop to inquire, when they fired a broadside,

whether it hit an Englishman, a Frenchman, or a Turk. Nor will

I stop to inquire, nor shall I hesitate, whether my blows shall

hit these Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the

federal offices and yet acting in concert with them.’

“Well, now, gentlemen, is not that very alarming? Just to think of

it! right at the outset of his canvass, I, a poor, kind, amiable,

intelligent gentleman, I am to be slain in this way. Why, my

friends, the Judge, is not only, as it turns out, not a dead lion,

nor even a living one--he is the rugged Russian Bear!

“But if they will have it--for he says that we deny it--that there

is any such alliance as he says there is--and I don’t propose

hanging very much upon this question of veracity--but if he will

have it that there is such an alliance--that the Administration men

and we are allied, and we stand in the attitude of English, French

and Turk, he occupying the position of the Russian, in that case,

I beg that he will indulge us while we barely suggest to him that

these allies took Sebastopol.

“Gentlemen, only a few more words as to this alliance. For my part,

I have to say, that whether there be such an alliance, depends,

so far as I know, upon what may be a right definition of the term

_alliance_. If for the Republican party to see the other great

party to which they are opposed divided among themselves, and not

try to stop the division and rather be glad of it--if that is an

alliance, I confess I am in; but if it is meant to be said that

the Republicans had formed an alliance going beyond that, by which

there is contribution of money or sacrifice of principle on the one

side or the other so far as the Republican party is concerned, if

there be any such thing, I protest that I neither know any thing

of it, nor do I believe it. I will, however, say--as I think this

branch of the argument is lugged in--I would, before I leave it,

state, for the benefit of those concerned, that one of those same

Buchanan men did once tell me of an argument that he made for his

opposition to Judge Douglas. He said that a friend of our Senator

Douglas had been talking to him, and had among other things said to

him: ‘Why, you don’t want to beat Douglas?’ ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘I do

want to beat him, and I will tell you why. I believe his original

Nebraska Bill was right in the abstract, but it was wrong in the

time that it was brought forward. It was wrong in the application

to a Territory in regard to which the question had been settled;

it was brought forward in a time when nobody asked him; it was

tendered to the South when the South had not asked for it, but when

they could not well refuse it; and for this same reason he forced

that question upon our party; it has sunk the best men all over the

nation, everywhere; and now when our President, struggling with the

difficulties of this man’s getting up, has reached the very hardest

point to turn in the case, his deserts him, and I _am_ for putting

him where he will trouble us no more.’

“Now, gentlemen, that is not my argument--that is not my argument

at all. I have only been stating to you the argument of a Buchanan

man. You will judge if there is any force in it.

“Popular sovereignty! everlasting popular sovereignty! Let us for

a moment inquire into this vast matter of popular sovereignty.

What is popular sovereignty? We recollect that in an early period

in the history of this struggle, there was another name for the

same thing--_Squatter Sovereignty_. It was not exactly Popular

Sovereignty, but Squatter Sovereignty. What do those terms mean?

What do those terms mean when used now? And vast credit is taken

by our friend, the Judge, in regard to his support of it, when he

declares the last years of his life have been, and all the future

years of his life shall be, devoted to this matter of popular

sovereignty. What is it? Why it is the sovereignty of the people!

What was Squatter Sovereignty? I suppose if it had any significance

at all it was the right of the people to govern themselves, to be

sovereign in their own affairs while they were squatted down in a

country not their own, while they had squatted on a Territory that

did not belong to them, in the sense that a State belongs to the

people who inhabit it--when it belonged to the nation--such right

to govern themselves was called ‘Squatter Sovereignty.’

“Now I wish you to mark. What has become of that Squatter

Sovereignty? What has become of it? Can you get any body to tell

you now that the people of a Territory have any authority to

govern themselves, in regard to this mooted question of slavery,

before they form a State Constitution? No such thing at all,

although there is a general running fire, and although there has

been a hurrah made in every speech on that side, assuming that

policy had given the people of a Territory the right to govern

themselves upon this question; yet the point is dodged. To-day it

has been decided--no more than a year ago it was decided by the

Supreme Court of the United States, as is insisted upon to-day,

that the people of a Territory have no right to exclude slavery

from a Territory, that if any one man chooses to take slaves into

a Territory, all of the rest of the people have no right to keep

them out. This being so, and this decision being made one of the

points that the Judge approved, and one in the approval of which

he says he means to keep me down--_put_ me down I should not say,

for I have never been up. He says he is in favor of it, and sticks

to it, and expects to win his battle on that decision, which says

that there is no such thing as Squatter Sovereignty; but that any

one man may take slaves into a Territory, and all the other men

in the Territory may be opposed to it, and yet by reason of the

Constitution they can not prohibit it. When that is so, how much is

left of this vast matter of Squatter Sovereignty I should like to

know? [A voice--‘It is all gone.’]

“When we get back, we get to the point of the right of the people

to make a Constitution. Kansas was settled, for example, in 1854.

It was a Territory yet, without having formed a Constitution, in

a very regular way, for three years. All this time negro slavery

could be taken in by any few individuals, and by that decision

of the Supreme Court, which the Judge approves, all the rest of

the people can not keep it out; but when they come to make a

Constitution they may say they will not have slavery. But it is

there; they are obliged to tolerate it some way, and all experience

shows it will be so--for they will not take negro slaves and

absolutely deprive the owners of them. All experience shows this to

be so. All that space of time that runs from the beginning of the

settlement of the Territory until there is sufficiency of people

to make a State Constitution--all that portion of time popular

sovereignty is given up. The seal is absolutely put down upon it by

the Court decision, and Judge Douglas puts his on the top of that,

yet he is appealing to the people to give him vast credit for his

devotion to popular sovereignty.

“Again, when we get to the question of the right of the people

to form a State Constitution as they please, to form it with

slavery or without slavery--if that is any thing new, I confess

I don’t know it. Has there ever been a time when any body said

that any other than the people of a Territory itself should form

a Constitution? What is now in it that Judge Douglas should have

fought several years of his life, and pledge himself to fight

all the remaining years of his life for? Can Judge Douglas find

any body on earth that said that any body else should form a

Constitution for a people? [A voice, ‘Yes.’] Well, I should like

you to name him; I should like to know who he was. [Same voice,

‘John Calhoun.’]

“No, Sir, I never heard of even John Calhoun saying such a

thing. He insisted on the same principle as Judge Douglas; but

his mode of applying it in fact, was wrong. It is enough for my

purpose to ask this crowd, when ever a Republican said any thing

against it? They never said any thing against it, but they have

constantly spoken for it; and whosoever will undertake to examine

the platform, and the speeches of responsible men of the party,

and of irresponsible men, too, if you please, will be unable to

find one word from anybody in the Republican ranks, opposed to

that Popular Sovereignty which Judge Douglas thinks that he has

invented. I suppose that Judge Douglas will claim in a little

while, that he is the inventor of the idea that the people should

govern themselves; that nobody ever thought of such a thing until

he brought it forward. We do remember, that in that old Declaration

of Independence, it is said that ‘We hold these truths to be

self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed

by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these

are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure

these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their

just powers from the consent of the governed.’ There is the origin

of the Popular Sovereignty. Who, then, shall come in at this day

and claim that he invented it”?

After referring, in appropriate terms, to the credit claimed by Douglas

for defeating the Lecompton policy, Mr. Lincoln proceeds:

“I defy you to show a printed resolution passed in a Democratic

meeting--I take it upon myself to defy any man to show a printed

resolution of a Democratic meeting, large or small, in favor of

Judge Trumbull, or any of the five to one Republican who beat the

bill. Every thing must be for the Democrats! They did every thing,

and the five to the one that really did the thing, they snub over,

and they do not seem to remember that they have an existence upon

the face of the earth.

“Gentlemen, I fear that I shall become tedious. I leave this branch

of the subject to take hold of another. I take up that part of

Judge Douglas’s speech in which he respectfully attended to me.

“Judge Douglas made two points upon my recent speech at

Springfield. He says they are to be the issues of this campaign.

The first one of these points he bases upon the language in a

speech which I delivered at Springfield, which I believe I can

quote correctly from memory. I said there that ‘we are now far on

in the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed

object, and with the confident promise of putting an end to slavery

agitation; under the operation of that policy, that agitation had

not only not ceased, but had constantly augmented. I believe it

will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed.

A house divided against itself can not stand. I believe this

Government can not endure permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved’--I am quoting from my

speech--‘I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it

will cease to be divided. It will come all one thing or the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the 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 until it shall have become alike lawful in all the States,

North as well as South.’

“In this paragraph which I have quoted in your hearing, and to

which I ask the attention of all, Judge Douglas thinks he discovers

great political heresy. I want your attention particularly to what

he has inferred from it. He says I am in favor of making all the

States of this Union uniform in all their internal regulations;

that in all their domestic concerns I am in favor of making them

entirely uniform. He draws this inference from the language I have

quoted to you. He says that I am in favor of making war by the

North upon the South for the extinction of slavery; that I am also

in favor of inviting, as he expresses it, the South to a war upon

the North, for the purpose of nationalizing slavery. Now, it is

singular enough, if you will carefully read that passage over, that

I did not say that I was in favor of any thing in it. I only said

what I expected would take place. I made a prediction only--it may

have been a foolish one perhaps. I did not even say that I desired

that slavery should be put in course of ultimate extinction. I do

say so now, however, so there need be no longer any difficulty

about that. It may be written down in the next speech.

“Gentlemen, Judge Douglas informed you that this speech of mine

was probably carefully prepared. I admit that it was. I am not

master of language; I have not a fine education; I am not capable

of entering into a disquisition upon dialects, as I believe you

call it; but I do not believe the language I employed bears any

such construction as Judge Douglas puts upon it. But I don’t care

about a quibble in regard to words. I know what I meant, and I will

not leave this crowd in doubt, if I can explain it to them, what I

really meant in the use of that paragraph.

“I am not, in the first place, unaware that this Government has

endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. I know that. I

am tolerably well acquainted with the history of the country, and

I know that it has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half

free. I _believe_--and that is what I meant to allude to there--I

_believe_ it has endured, because during all that time, until the

introduction of the Nebraska bill, the public mind did rest all

the time in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate

extinction. That was what gave us the rest that we had through

that period of eighty-two years; at least, so I believe. I have

always hated slavery, I think, as much as any Abolitionist. I have

been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it, but I have always

been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the

Nebraska Bill began. I always believed that everybody was against

it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction. [Pointing to

Mr. Browning, who stood near by:] Browning thought so; the great

mass of the Nation have rested in the belief that slavery was in

the course of ultimate extinction. They had reason so to believe.

“The adoption of the Constitution and its attendant history led

the people to believe so; and that such was the belief of the

framers of the Constitution itself. Why did those old men, about

the time of the adoption of the Constitution, decree that slavery

should not go into the new territory, where it had not already

gone? Why declare that within twenty years the African slave-trade,

by which slaves are supplied, might be cut off by Congress? Why

were all these acts? I might enumerate more of such acts--but

enough. What were they but a clear indication that the framers of

the Constitution intended and expected the ultimate extinction of

that institution? And now, when I say, as I said in this speech

that Judge Douglas has quoted from, when I say that I think the

opponents of slavery will resist the further spread of it, and

place it where the public mind shall rest with the belief that it

is in course of ultimate extinction, I only mean to say, that they

will place it where the founders of this Government originally

placed it.

“I have said a hundred times, and I have no inclination to take

it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no

inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the

slave States, and to interfere with the question of slavery at all.

I have said that always. Judge Douglas has heard me say it--if not

quite a hundred times, at least as good as a hundred times; and

when it is said that I am in favor of interfering with slavery

where it exists, I know that it is unwarranted by any thing I have

ever intended, and, as I believe, by any thing I have ever said.

If, by any means, I have ever used language which could fairly be

so construed (as, however, I believe I never have), I now correct

it.

“So much, then, for the inference that Judge Douglas draws, that I

am in favor of setting the sections at war with one another. I know

that I never meant any such thing, and I believe that no fair mind

can infer any such thing from any thing I have ever said.

“Now in relation to his inference that I am in favor of a general

consolidation of all the local institutions of the various States.

I will attend to that for a little while, and try to inquire, if

I can, how on earth it could be that any man could draw such an

inference from any thing I said. I have said, very many times, in

Judge Douglas’s hearing, that no man believed more than I in the

principle of self-government; that it lies at the bottom of all my

ideas of just government, from beginning to end. I have denied that

his use of that term applies properly. But for the thing itself, I

deny that any man has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion to the

principle, whatever he may have done in efficiency in advocating

it. I think that I have said it in your hearing--that I believe

each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with

himself and with the fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise

interferes with any other man’s rights--that each community, as

a State, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the

concerns within that State that interfere with the right of no

other State, and that the General Government, upon principle, has

no right to interfere with any thing other than that general class

of things that does concern the whole. I have said that at all

times. I have said as illustrations, that I do not believe in the

right of Illinois to interfere with the cranberry laws of Indiana,

the oyster laws of Virginia, or the liquor laws of Maine. I have

said these things over and over again, and I repeat them here as my

sentiments....

“So much then as to my disposition--my wish--to have all the State

Legislatures blotted out, and to have one consolidated government,

and a uniformity of domestic regulations in all the States; by

which I suppose it is meant, if we raise corn here, we must make

sugar-cane grow here too, and we must make those which grow North

grow in the South. All this I suppose he understands I am in

favor of doing. Now, so much for all this nonsense--for I must

call it so. The Judge can have no issue with me on a question of

established uniformity in the domestic regulations of the States.

“A little now on the other point--the Dred Scott decision. Another

of the issues he says that is to be made with me, is upon his

devotion to the Dred Scott decision, and my opposition to it.

“I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat my opposition to the

Dred Scott decision, but I should be allowed to state the nature of

that opposition, and I ask your indulgence while I do so. What is

fairly implied by the term Judge Douglas has used, ‘resistance to

the decision?’ I do not resist it. If I wanted to take Dred Scott

from his master, I would be interfering with property, and that

terrible difficulty that Judge Douglas speaks of, of interfering

with property would arise. But I am doing no such thing as that,

but all that I am doing is refusing to obey it as a political rule.

If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question

whether slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite

of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should.

“That is what I would do. Judge Douglas said last night, that

before the decision he might advance his opinion, and it might

be contrary to the decision when it was made; but _after_ it was

made he would abide by it until it was reversed. Just so! We let

this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse

that decision. [Loud applause.] We will try to put it where Judge

Douglas will not object, for he says he will obey it until it is

reversed. Some body has to reverse that decision, since it was

made, and we mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably.

“What are the uses of decisions of courts? They have two uses. As

rules of property they have two uses. First--they decide upon the

question before the court. They decide in this case that Dred Scott

is a slave. Nobody resists that. Not only that, but they say to

everybody else, that persons standing just as Dred Scott stands,

is as he is. That is, they say that when a question comes up upon

another person, it will be so decided again unless the court

decides in another way, unless the court overrules its decision.

Well, we mean to do what we can to have the court decide the other

way. That is one thing we mean to try to do.

“The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws around this decision,

is a degree of sacredness that has never been before thrown

around any other decision. I have never heard of such a thing.

Why, decisions apparently contrary to that decision, or that good

lawyers thought were contrary to that decision, have been made

by that very court before. It is the first of the kind; it is an

_astonisher_ in legal history. It is a new wonder of the world. It

is based upon falsehoods in the main as to the facts--allegation

of facts upon which it stands are not facts at all in many

instances, and no decision made on any question--the first instance

of a decision made under so many unfavorable circumstances--thus

placed, has ever been held by the profession as law, and it has

always needed confirmation before the lawyers regarded it as

settled law. But Judge Douglas will have it that all hands must

take this extraordinary decision, made under these extraordinary

circumstances, and give their vote in Congress in accordance with

it, yield to it and obey it in every possible sense. Circumstances

alter cases. Do not gentlemen here remember the case of that same

Supreme Court, twenty-five or thirty years ago, deciding that a

National Bank was Constitutional? I ask, if somebody does not

remember that a National Bank was declared to be Constitutional?

Such is the truth, whether it be remembered or not. The Bank

charter ran out, and a re-charter was granted by Congress. That

re-charter was laid before General Jackson. It was urged upon him,

when he denied the Constitutionality of the Bank, that the Supreme

Court had decided that it was Constitutional; and that General

Jackson then said that the Supreme Court had no right to lay down a

rule to govern a co-ordinate branch of the Government, the members

of which had sworn to support the Constitution--that each member

had sworn to support that Constitution as he understood it. I will

venture here to say, that I have heard Judge Douglas say that he

approved of General Jackson for that act. What has now become of

all his tirade about ‘resistance to the Supreme Court?’ * * *

“We were often--more than once, at least--in the course of Judge

Douglas’s speech last night, reminded that this Government was made

for white men--that he believed it was made for white men. Well,

that is putting it into a shape in which no one wants to deny it;

but the Judge then goes into his passion for drawing inferences

that are not warranted. I protest, now, and forever, against that

counterfeit logic which presumes that because I did not want a

negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife.

My understanding is that I need not have her for either; but, as

God made us separate, we can leave one another alone, and do one

another much good thereby. There are white men enough to marry all

the white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women,

and in God’s name let them be so married. The Judge regales us with

the terrible enormities that take place by the mixture of races;

that is the inferior race bears the superior down. Why, Judge, if

you do not let them get together in the Territories they won’t mix

there.

“Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, some time

about the Fourth of July, for some reason or other. These Fourth of

July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me,

I will state what I suppose to be some of them.

“We are now a mighty nation; we are thirty, or about thirty millions

of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the

dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages

of history for about eighty-two years, and we discover that we were

then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to

what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country, with vastly

less of every thing we deem desirable among men--we look upon the

change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity,

and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way

or other being connected with this rise of posterity. We find a

race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and

grandfathers; they were iron men; they fought for the principle

that they were contending for; and we understood that by what

they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity which

we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to

remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time,

of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically

connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor

with ourselves--we feel more attached the one to the other, and

more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are

better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live,

for these celebrations. But after we have done all this, we have

not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected

with it. We have, besides these--men descended by blood from our

ancestors--those among us perhaps, half our people, who are not

descendants at all of these men; they are men who have come from

Europe--German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian--men that have

come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither

and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things.

If they look back through this history to trace their connection

with those days by blood, they find they have none; they cannot

carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves

feel that they are part of us; but when they look through that old

Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that

‘we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created

equal,’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment, taught on

that day, evidences their relation to those men, that it is the

father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right

to claim it as though they were blood of the blood and flesh of the

flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That

is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of

patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those

patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds

of men throughout the world.

“Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of

‘don’t care if slavery is voted up or voted down,’ for sustaining

the Dred Scott decision, for holding that the Declaration of

Independence did not mean any thing at all, we have Judge Douglas

giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence

means, and we have him saying that the people of America are

equal to the people of England. According to his construction,

you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all

soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if

confirmed and indorsed, if taught to our children and repeated

to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the

country, and to transform this Government into a government of some

other form. These arguments that are made, that the inferior race

are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of

enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition

will allow--what are these arguments? They are the arguments

that Kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the

world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of King-craft

were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people,

not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better

off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument

of the Judge is the same old serpent that says: You work, and I

eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn it whatever

way you will--whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse

for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men

of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race,

it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of

argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public

mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does

not stop with the negro. I should like to know if, taking this old

Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal

upon principle, you begin making exceptions to it, where you will

stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say

it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the

truth, let us get the statute book, in which we find it, and tear

it out! Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear

it out! [cries of ‘no, no,’]; let us stick to it then; let us stand

firmly by it then.

“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 that

charter stand as our standard.

“My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand to quote Scripture.

I will try it again, however. It is said in one of the admonitions

of our Lord: ‘As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also

perfect.’ The Saviour, I suppose, did not expect that any human

creature could be perfect as the Father in Heaven; but He said:

‘As your Father in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect.’ He set

that up as a standard, and he who did most toward reaching that

standard, attained the highest degree of moral perfection. So I say

in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it

be as nearly reached as we can. If we cannot give freedom to every

creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other

creature. Let us then turn this Government back into the channel in

which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it. Let us

stand firmly by each other. If we do not do so we are turning in

the contrary direction, that our friend Judge Douglas proposes--not

intentionally--as working in the traces tends to make this one

universal slave nation. He is one that runs in that direction, and

as such I resist him.

“My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to

do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling

about this man and the other man--this race and that race and the

other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an

inferior position--discarding our standard that we have left us.

Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout

this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men

are created equal.

“My friends, I could not, without launching off upon some new

topic, which would detain you too long, continue to-night. I thank

you for this most extensive audience that you have furnished me

to-night. I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in

your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are

created free and equal.”

* * * * *

OPENING PASSAGES OF HIS SPEECH AT FREEPORT.

“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--On Saturday last, Judge Douglas and myself

first met in public discussion. He spoke one hour, I an hour and a

half, and he replied for half an hour. The order is now reversed. I

am to speak an hour, he an hour and a half, and then I am to reply

for half an hour. I propose to devote myself during the first hour

to the scope of what was brought within the range of his half-hour

speech at Ottawa. Of course there was brought within the scope of

that half-hour’s speech something of his own opening speech. In

the course of that opening argument Judge Douglas proposed to me

seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech of an hour and a half,

I attended to some other parts of his speech, and incidentally,

as I thought, answered one of the interrogatories then. I then

distinctly intimated to him that I would answer the rest of his

interrogatories on condition only that he should agree to answer as

many for me. He made no intimation at the time of the proposition,

nor did he in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of mine.

I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of

his reply in dealing with me as though I had _refused_ to answer

his interrogatories. I now propose that I will answer any of the

interrogatories, upon condition that he will answer questions from

me not exceeding the same number. I give him an opportunity to

respond. The judge remains silent. I now say that I will answer his

interrogatories, whether he answers mine or not; and that after I

have done so, I shall propound mine to him.

“I have supposed myself, since the organization of the Republican

party at Bloomington, in May, 1856, bound as a party man by the

platforms of the party, then and since. If in any interrogatories

which I shall answer, I go beyond the scope of what is within these

platforms, it will be perceived that no one is responsible but

myself.

“Having said thus much, I will take up the judge’s interrogatories

as I find them printed in the Chicago _Times_, and answer them

_seriatim_. In order that there may be no mistake about it, I have

copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them.

The first one of these interrogatories is in these words:

Question 1. “‘I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as he

did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive

Slave law?’

Answer. “I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the

unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law.

Q. 2. “‘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?’

A. “I do not now, nor ever did, stand pledged against the admission

of any more slave States into the Union.

Q. 3. “‘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?’

A. “I do not stand 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.

Q. 4. “‘I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the

abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia?’

A. “I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in

the District of Columbia.

Q. 5. “‘I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the

prohibition of the slave-trade between the different States?’

A. “I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade

between the different States.

Q. 6. “‘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?’

A. “I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the

_right_ and _duty_ of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the

United States Territories.

Q. 7. “‘I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the

acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first prohibited

therein?’

A. “I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory;

and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such

acquisition, accordingly as I might think such acquisition would or

would not agitate the slavery question among ourselves.

“Now, my friends, it will be perceived upon an examination of these

questions and answers, that so far I have only answered that I

was not _pledged_ to this, that or the other. The judge has not

framed his interrogatories to ask me any thing more than this, and

I have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and

have answered truly that I am not _pledged_ at all upon any of the

points to which I have answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon

the exact form of his interrogatory. I am rather disposed to take

up at least some of these questions, and state what I really think

upon them.

“As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive Slave law, I have

never hesitated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I

think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of

the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Slave law.

Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the

existing Fugitive Slave law, further than that I think it should

have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that

pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And inasmuch

as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or

modification of that law, I would not be the man to introduce it as

a new subject of agitation upon the general question of slavery.

“In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the

admission of any more Slave States into the Union, I state to

you very frankly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put

in a position of having to pass upon that question. I should be

exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another slave

State admitted into the Union; but I must add, that if slavery

shall be kept out of the Territories during the Territorial

existence of any one given Territory, and then the people shall,

having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adopt

the Constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a

slave Constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the

institution among them, I see no alternative if we own the country,

but to admit them into the Union.

“The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second,

it being, as I conceive, the same as the second.

“The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the

District of Columbia. In relation to that, I have my mind very

distinctly made up. I should be exceedingly glad to see slavery

abolished in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress

possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. Yet as a member

of Congress, I should not with my present views, be in favor of

_endeavoring_ to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia,

unless it would be upon these conditions: _First_, that the

abolition should be gradual; _second_, that it should be on a vote

of the majority of qualified voters in the District; and _third_,

that compensation should be made to unwilling owners. With these

three conditions, I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see

Congress abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and, in the

language of Henry Clay, ‘sweep from our Capital that foul blot upon

our nation.’

“In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say here, that

as to the question of the abolition of the slave-trade between

the different States, I can truly answer, as I have, that I am

_pledged_ to nothing about it. It is a subject to which I have not

given that mature consideration that would make me feel authorized

to state a position so as to hold myself entirely bound by it.

In other words, that question has never been prominently enough

before me to induce me to investigate whether we really have the

Constitutional power to do it. I could investigate it if I had

sufficient time to bring myself to a conclusion upon that subject;

but I have not done so, and I say so frankly to you here, and to

Judge Douglas. I must say, however, that if I should be of opinion

that Congress does possess the Constitutional power to abolish

slave-trading among the different States, I should still not be in

favor of the exercise of that power unless upon some conservative

principle as I conceive it, akin to what I have said in relation to

the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

“My answer as to whether I desire that slavery should be prohibited

in all Territories of the United States, is full and explicit

within itself, and can not be made clearer by any comments of

mine. So I suppose in regard to the question whether I am opposed

to the acquisition of any more territory unless slavery is first

prohibited therein, my answer is such that I could add nothing by

way of illustration, or making myself better understood, than the

answer which I have placed in writing.

“Now in all this, the judge has me, and he has me on the record.

I suppose he had flattered himself that I was really entertaining

one set of opinions for one place and another set for another

place--that I was afraid to say at one place what I uttered at

another. What I am saying here I suppose I say to a vast audience

as strongly tending to Abolitionism as any audience in the State

of Illinois, and I believe I am saying that which, if it would be

offensive to any persons and render them enemies to myself, would

be offensive to persons in this audience.”

* * * * *

LETTER TO GENERAL McCLELLAN.

“WASHINGTON, April 9, 1862.

“MY DEAR SIR: Your dispatches, complaining that you are not

properly sustained, while they do not offend me, do pain me very

much.

“Blenker’s division was withdrawn from you before you left here,

and you know the pressure under which I did it, and, as I thought,

acquiesced in it--certainly not without reluctance.

“After you left, I ascertained that less than twenty thousand

unorganized men, without a single field battery, were all you

designed to be left for the defence of Washington and Manassas

Junction, and part of this even was to go to Gen. Hooker’s old

position. General Banks’ corps, once designated for Manassas

Junction, was diverted and tied up on the line of Winchester and

Strasburgh, and could not leave it without again exposing the Upper

Potomac and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. This presented, or

would present, when McDowell and Sumner should be gone, a great

temptation to the enemy to turn back from the Rappahannock and

sack Washington. My explicit order that Washington should, by the

judgment of all the commanders of army corps, be left entirely

secure, had been neglected. It was precisely this that drove me to

detain McDowell.

“I do not forget that I was satisfied with your arrangement to

leave Banks at Manassas Junction: but when that arrangement was

broken up, and nothing was substituted for it, of course I was

constrained to substitute something for it myself. And allow me to

ask, do you really think I should permit the line from Richmond,

_via_ Manassas Junction, to this city, to be entirely open, except

what resistance could be presented by less than twenty thousand

unorganized troops? This is a question which the country will not

allow me to evade.

“There is a curious mystery about the number of troops now with

you. When I telegraphed you on the 6th, saying you had over a

hundred thousand with you, I had just obtained from the Secretary

of War a statement taken, as he said, from your own returns, making

one hundred and eight thousand then with you and _en route_ to

you. You say you will have but eighty-five thousand when all _en

route_ to you shall have reached you. How can the discrepancy of

twenty-three thousand be accounted for?

“As to General Wool’s command, I understand it is doing for you

precisely what a like number of your own would have to do if that

command was away.

“I suppose the whole force which has gone forward for you is with

you by this time. And if so, I think it is the precise time for

you to strike a blow. By delay, the enemy will relatively gain

upon you--that is, he will gain faster by fortifications and

reinforcement than you can by reinforcements alone. And once more

let me tell you, it is indispensable to you that you strike a blow.

I am powerless to help this. You will do me the justice to remember

I always insisted that going down the bay in search of a field,

instead of fighting at or near Manassas, was only shifting, and not

surmounting a difficulty; that we would find the same enemy, and

the same or equal intrenchments, at either place. The country will

not fail to note, is now noting, that the present hesitation to

move upon an intrenched enemy is but the story of Manassas repeated.

“I beg to assure you that I have never written you or spoken to

you in greater kindness of feeling than now, nor with a fuller

purpose to sustain you, so far as, in my most anxious judgment, I

consistently can. But you must act.

“Yours, very truly,

A. LINCOLN.

“Maj.-Gen. MCCLELLAN.”

* * * * *

LETTER TO GEN. SCHOFIELD RELATIVE TO THE REMOVAL OF GEN. CURTIS.

“_Executive Mansion_, Washington, May 27, 1863.

“Gen. J. M. SCHOFIELD--_Dear Sir_: Having removed Gen. Curtis and

assigned you to the command of the Department of the Missouri, I

think it may be of some advantage to me to state to you why I did

it. I did not remove Gen. Curtis because of my full conviction that

he had done wrong by commission or omission. I did it because of a

conviction in my mind that the Union men of Missouri, constituting,

when united, a vast majority of the people, have entered into a

pestilent, factious quarrel among themselves, Gen. Curtis, perhaps

not of choice, being the head of one faction, and Gov. Gamble that

of the other. After months of labor to reconcile the difficulty, it

seemed to grow worse and worse, until I felt it my duty to break it

up somehow, and as I could not remove Gov. Gamble, I had to remove

Gen. Curtis. Now that you are in the position, I wish you to undo

nothing merely because Gen. Curtis or Gov. Gamble did it, but to

exercise your own judgment, and do right for the public interest.

Let your military measures be strong enough to repel the invaders

and keep the peace, and not so strong as to unnecessarily harass

and persecute the people. It is a difficult _role_, and so much

more will be the honor if you perform it well. If both factions, or

neither, shall abuse you, you will probably be about right. Beware

of being assailed by one and praised by the other.

“Yours, truly, A. LINCOLN.”

* * * * *

THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN CALLED FOR.

“WHEREAS, The term of service of part of the volunteer forces

of the United States will expire during the coming year; and

_whereas_, in addition to the men raised by the present draft, it

is deemed expedient to call out three hundred thousand volunteers,

to serve for three years or the war--not, however, exceeding three

years.

“Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States

and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, and of the

militia of the several States when called into actual service,

do issue this my proclamation, calling upon the Governors of the

different States to raise and have enlisted into the United States

service, for the various companies and regiments in the field from

their respective States, their quotas of three hundred thousand men.

“I further proclaim that all the volunteers thus called out and

duly enlisted shall receive advance pay, premium and bounty, as

heretofore communicated to the Governors of States by the War

Department, through the Provost-Marshal General’s office, by

special letters.

“I further proclaim that all volunteers received under this call,

as well as all others not heretofore credited, shall be duly

credited and deducted from the quotas established for the next

draft.

“I further proclaim that, if any State shall fail to raise the

quota assigned to it by the War Department under this call; then a

draft for the deficiency in said quota shall be made in said State,

or on the districts of said State, for their due proportion of

said quota, and the said draft shall commence on the fifth day of

January, 1864.

“And I further proclaim that nothing in this proclamation shall

interfere with existing orders, or with those which may be issued

for the present draft in the States where it is now in progress or

where it has not yet been commenced.

“The quotas of the States and districts will be assigned by the

War Department, through the Provost-Marshal General’s office, due

regard being had for the men heretofore furnished, whether by

volunteering or drafting, and the recruiting will be conducted in

accordance with such instructions as have been or may be issued by

that department.

“In issuing this proclamation I address myself not only to the

Governors of the several States, but also to the good and loyal

people thereof, invoking them to lend their cheerful, willing

and effective aid to the measures thus adopted, with a view to

reinforce our victorious armies now in the field and bring our

needful military operations to a prosperous end, thus closing

forever the fountains of sedition and civil war.

“In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal

of the United States to be affixed.

“Done at the city of Washington, this seventeenth day of October,

in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three,

and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.

“By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

“WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.”

* * * * *

REV. DR. M’PHEETERS--THE PRESIDENT’S REPLY TO AN APPEAL FOR

INTERFERENCE.

“_Executive Mansion_, Washington, December 23, 1863.

“I have just looked over a petition signed by some three dozen

citizens of St. Louis, and their accompanying letters, one by

yourself, one by a Mr. Nathan Ranney, and one by a Mr. John D.

Coalter, the whole relating to the Rev. Dr. McPheeters. The

petition prays, in the name of justice and mercy, that I will

restore Dr. McPheeters to all his ecclesiastical rights.

“This gives no intimation as to what ecclesiastical rights are

withdrawn. Your letter states that Provost Marshal Dick, about

a year ago, ordered the arrest of Dr. McPheeters, pastor of the

Vine-street Church, prohibited him from officiating, and placed

the management of affairs of the church out of the control of the

chosen trustees; and near the close you state that a certain course

‘would insure his release.’ Mr. Ranney’s letter says: ‘Dr. Samuel

McPheeters is enjoying all the rights of a civilian, but can not

preach the gospel!’ Mr. Coalter, in his letter, asks: ‘Is it not a

strange illustration of the condition of things, that the question

who shall be allowed to preach in a church in St. Louis shall be

decided by the President of the United States?’

“Now, all this sounds very strangely; and, withal, a little as if

you gentlemen making the application do not understand the case

alike--one affirming that this doctor is enjoying all the rights

of a civilian, and another pointing out to me what will secure his

_release_! On the second of January last, I wrote to Gen. Curtis

in relation to Mr. Dick’s order upon Dr. McPheeters; and, as I

suppose the Doctor is enjoying all the rights of a civilian, I

only quote that part of the letter which relates to the church. It

was as follows: ‘But I must add that the United States Government

must not, as by this order, undertake to run the churches. When

an individual, in a church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the

public interest, he must be checked; but the churches, as such,

must take care of themselves. It will not do for the United States

to appoint trustees, supervisors, or other agents for the churches.’

“This letter going to Gen. Curtis, then in command, I supposed, of

course, it was obeyed, especially as I heard no further complaint

from Dr. Mc. or his friends for nearly an entire year. I have never

interfered, nor thought of interfering, as to who shall or shall

not preach in any church; nor have I knowingly or believingly

tolerated any one else to interfere by my authority. If any one is

so interfering by color of my authority, I would like to have it

specifically made known to me.

“If, after all, what is now sought is to have me put Dr. Mc. back

over the heads of a majority of his own congregation, that, too,

will be declined. I will not have control of any church on any side.”

“A. LINCOLN.”

* * * * *

AN ELECTION ORDERED IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.

“_Executive Mansion_, Washington, January 20, 1864.

“MAJ. GEN. STEELE: Sundry citizens of the State of Arkansas

petition me that an election may be held in that State, at

which to elect a Governor; that it be assumed at that election,

and henceforward, that the Constitution and laws of the State,

as before the rebellion, are in full force, except that the

Constitution is so modified as to declare that there shall be

neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except in the punishment

of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; that

the General assembly may make such provisions for the freed people

as shall recognize and declare their permanent freedom, and provide

for their education, and which may yet be construed as a temporary

arrangement, suitable to their condition as a laboring, landless,

and homeless class; that said election shall be held on the 28th

of March, 1864, at all the usual places of the State, or all such

as voters may attend for that purpose; that the voters attending

at 8 o’clock in the morning of said day may choose judges and

clerks of election for such purpose; that all persons qualified

by said Constitution and laws, and taking the oath presented in

the President’s proclamation of December 8, 1863, either before

or at the election, and none others, may be voters; that each

set of judges and clerks may make returns directly to you on or

before the --th day of ---- next; that in all other respects said

election may be conducted according to said Constitution and laws;

that on receipt of said returns, when five thousand four hundred

and six votes shall have been cast, you can receive said votes

and ascertain all who shall thereby appear to have been elected;

that on the -- day of ---- next, all persons so appearing to have

been elected, who shall appear before you at Little Rock, and take

the oath, to be by you severally administered, to support the

Constitution of the United States, and said modified Constitution

of the State of Arkansas, may be declared by you qualified and

empowered to immediately enter upon the duties of the offices to

which they shall have been respectively elected.

“You will please order an election to take place on the 28th of

March, 1864, and returns to be made in fifteen days thereafter.

“A. LINCOLN.”

Later, the President wrote the following letter:

“WILLIAM FISHBACK, ESQ.: When I fixed a plan for an election in

Arkansas, I did it in ignorance that your Convention was at the

same work. Since I learned the latter fact, I have been constantly

trying to yield my plan to theirs. I have sent two letters to Gen.

Steele, and three or four dispatches to you and others, saying that

he (Gen. Steele) must be master, but that it will probably be best

for him to keep the Convention on its own plan. Some single mind

must be master, else there will be no agreement on anything; and

Gen. Steele, commanding the military, and being on the ground, is

the best man to be that master. Even now citizens are telegraphing

me to postpone the election to a later day than either fixed by the

Convention or me. This discord must be silenced.

“A. LINCOLN.”

* * * * *

CALL FOR FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN.

“WHEREAS, By the Act approved July 4, 1864, entitled ‘An Act

further to regulate and provide for the enrolling and calling out

the National Forces, and for other purposes,’ it is provided that

the President of the United States may, at his discretion, at any

time hereafter, call for any number of men as volunteers, for the

respective terms of one, two, or three years, for military service,

and ‘that in case the quota, or any part thereof, of any town,

township, ward of a city, precinct, or election district, or of a

county not so subdivided, shall not be filled within the space of

fifty days after such call, then the President shall immediately

order a draft for one year to fill such quota, or any part thereof,

which may be unfilled.’

“AND WHEREAS, The new enrollment heretofore ordered is so far

completed as that the aforementioned Act of Congress may now be

put in operation for recruiting and keeping up the strength of the

armies in the field, for garrisons, and such military operations

as may be required for the purpose of suppressing the rebellion

and restoring the authority of the United States Government in the

insurgent States.

“Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United

States, do issue this, my call, for five hundred thousand

volunteers for the military service; provided, nevertheless, that

all credits which may be established under Section Eight of the

aforesaid Act, on account of persons who have entered the naval

service during the present Rebellion, and by credits for men

furnished to the military service in excess of calls heretofore

made for volunteers, will be accepted under this call for one, two,

or three years, as they may elect, and will be entitled to the

bounty provided by the law for the period of service for which they

enlist.

“And I hereby proclaim, order, and direct, that immediately after

the fifth day of September, 1864, being fifty days from the date

of this call, a draft for troops to serve for one year, shall be

held in every town, township, ward of a city, precinct, election

district, or a county not so subdivided, to fill the quota which

shall be assigned to it under this call, or any part thereof which

may be unfilled by volunteers on the said fifth day of September,

1864.

“In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused

the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of

Washington, this eighteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord,

one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, and of the independence

of the United States the eighty-ninth.

“By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

“WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.”

* * * * *

LETTER TO MRS. GURNEY.

This letter was written by the President prior to his re-election

to Mrs. Eliza P. Gurney, an American lady, the widow of the late

well-known Friend and philanthropist, Joseph John Gurney, one of the

wealthiest bankers of London.

“MY ESTEEMED FRIEND: I have not forgotten, probably never shall

forget, the very impressive occasion when yourself and friends

visited me on a Sabbath forenoon two years ago. Nor had your kind

letter, written nearly a year later, ever been forgotten. In all

it has been your purpose to strengthen my reliance in God. I am

much indebted to the good Christian people of the country for their

constant prayers and consolations, and to no one of them more than

to yourself. The purposes of the Almighty are perfect and must

prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to accurately perceive

them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible

war, long before this, but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise.

We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own errors therein;

meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best lights He gives us,

trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He

ordains. Surely, He intends some great good to follow this mighty

convulsion which no mortal could make, and no mortal could stay.

“Your people--the Friends--have had, and are having very great

trials, on principles and faith opposed to both war and oppression.

They can only practically oppose oppression by war. In this hard

dilemma, some have chosen one horn and some the other.

“For those appealing to me on conscientious grounds I have done and

shall do the best I could, and can, in my own conscience under my

oath to the law. That you believe this, I doubt not, and believing

it, I shall still receive for our country and myself your earnest

prayers to our father in Heaven.

“Your sincere friend,

“A. LINCOLN.”

* * * * *

THE TENNESSEE TEST OATH.

“_Executive Mansion_, Washington, D. C.,

Saturday, October 22, 1864

“MESSRS. WM. B. CAMPBELL, THOMAS A. R. NELSON, JAMES T. P. CARTER,

JOHN WILLIAMS, A. BLIZZARD, HENRY COOPER, BAILIE PEYTON, JOHN

LILLYETT, EMERSON ETHERIDGE, AND JOHN D. PERRYMAN.

“GENTLEMEN: On the fifteenth day of this month, as I remember, a

printed paper manuscript, with a few manuscript interlineations, called

a protest, with your names appended thereto, and accompanied by another

printed paper, purporting to be a proclamation by ANDREW JOHNSON,

Military Governor of Tennessee, and also a manuscript paper purporting

to be extracts from the code of Tennessee, were laid before me.”

[The protest is here recited, and also the proclamation of GOV.

JOHNSON, dated September 30, to which it refers, together with a list

of the counties in East, Middle, and West Tennessee; also extracts

from the code of Tennessee in relation to electors of President and

Vice President, qualifications of voters for members of the General

Assembly, and places of holding elections and officers of popular

elections.]

“At the time these papers were presented as before stated, I had

never seen either of them, nor heard of the subject to which they

relate, except in a general way, only one day previously.

“Up to the present moment, nothing whatever upon the subject has

passed between GOV. JOHNSON, or any one else connected with the

proclamation and myself.

“Since receiving the papers, as stated, I have given the subject

such brief consideration as I have been able to do, in the midst of

so many pressing duties.

“My conclusion is, that I can have nothing to do with the matter,

either to sustain the plan as the Convention and GOV. JOHNSON have

initiated it, or to modify it as you demand. By the Constitution

and laws the President is charged with no duty in the Presidential

election in any State. Nor do I, in this case, perceive any

military reason for his interference in the matter.

“The movement set a-foot by the Convention and GOV. JOHNSON does

not, as seems to be assumed by you, emanate from the National

Executive.

“In no proper sense can it be considered other than as an

independent movement of at least a portion of the loyal people of

Tennessee.

“I do not perceive in the plan any menace, or violence, or coercion

toward any one.

“GOV. JOHNSON, like any other loyal citizen of Tennessee has the

right to form any political plan he chooses, and as Military

Governor it is his duty to keep the peace among and for the loyal

people of the State.

“I cannot discern that by his plan he purposes any more--but you

object to the plan.

“Leaving it alone will be your perfect security against it. It is

not proposed to force you into it.

“Do as you please on your own account peaceably and loyally, and

GOV. JOHNSON will not molest you, but will protect you against

violence so far as in his power.

“I presume that the conducting of a Presidential election in

Tennessee, in strict accordance with the old code of the State, is

not now a possibility.

“It is scarcely necessary to add, that if any election shall be

had, and any votes shall be cast in the State of Tennessee for

President and Vice-President of the United States, it will belong

not to the military agents nor yet to the Executive Department, but

exclusively to another department of the Government, to determine

whether they are entitled to be counted in conformity with the

Constitution and laws of the United States.

“Except it be to give protection against violence, I decline to

interfere in any way with any Presidential election.

“ABRAHAM LINCOLN.”

THE END.

Transcriber’s Notes:

The original book contained many unprinted characters. Those omissions

are too numerous to enumerate here, and have been silently corrected

unless more than one alternative existed. Those exceptions are noted

below.

Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant

preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

Simple typographical errors were corrected.

Unbalanced and mismatched single- and double-quotation marks remedied

only when the correction was unambiguous.

Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained. Inconsistent

hyphenation retained unless there was a predominant preference for one

form.

Text mostly uses “any thing” but sometimes uses “anything”.

Text uses both “Chancelor” and “Chancellor”.

Page 44: “the tenth commandment” probably should be “amendment”.

Page 56: “rule of political action.” should end with a question mark,

not with a period.

Page 195 does not have a “Second” order.

Page 244: “acknowledgment” in “as a grateful acknowledgment” was

misprinted. It was spelled correctly in Lincoln’s original handwritten

letter and that spelling is used here.

Page 376: “reportively replied” was incompletely printed with empty

space before “portively”. Transcriber added “re” as it seemed to be the

best fit.

Page 386: “homely often” was incompletely printed with empty space

before “omely”. Transcriber added “h” as it seemed to be the best fit.

Page 409: “_wholly_ good; almost every” originally had a period after

“good”. Changed here to a semi-colon, but perhaps the following word

should have been capitalized instead, as “Almost”.

Page 413: “[Here Mr. Meade ... every improvement?]” was missing a

closing square bracket. Added by Transcriber based on context.