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 the inferior race
bears the superior down. Why, Judge, if we do not let them get together in
the Territories, they won't mix there.
[A voice: "Three cheers for Lincoln".--The cheers were given with a hearty
good-will.]
I should say at least that that is a self-evident truth.
Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometimes about
the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th 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 everything 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
prosperity. 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--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 in 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
anything 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. Those 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 kingcraft 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 in 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, and making exceptions to
it, where will it 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 slavery
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 Savior, 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 towards
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.
SPEECH AT SPRINGFIELD, JULY 17, 1858.
DELIVERED SATURDAY EVENING
(Mr. Douglas was not present.)
FELLOW-CITIZENS:--Another election, which is deemed an important one, is
approaching, and, as I suppose, the Republican party will, without much
difficulty, elect their State ticket. But in regard to the Legislature,
we, the Republicans, labor under some disadvantages. In the first place,
we have a Legislature to elect upon an apportionment of the representation
made several years ago, when the proportion of the population was far
greater in the South (as compared with the North) than it now is; and
inasmuch as our opponents hold almost entire sway in the South, and we a
correspondingly large majority in the North, the fact that we are now to
be represented as we were years ago, when the population was different,
is to us a very great disadvantage. We had in the year 1855, according to
law, a census, or enumeration of the inhabitants, taken for the purpose of
a new apportionment of representation. We know what a fair apportionment
of representation upon that census would give us. We know that it could
not, if fairly made, fail to give the Republican party from six to ten
more members of the Legislature than they can probably get as the law now
stands. It so happened at the last session of the Legislature that our
opponents, holding the control of both branches of the Legislature,
steadily refused to give us such an apportionment as we were rightly
entitled to have upon the census already taken. The Legislature steadily
refused to give us such an apportionment as we were rightfully entitled to
have upon the census taken of the population of the State. The Legislature
would pass no bill upon that subject, except such as was at least as
unfair to us as the old one, and in which, in some instances, two men in
the Democratic regions were allowed to go as far toward sending a member
to the Legislature as three were in the Republican regions. Comparison
was made at the time as to representative and senatorial districts, which
completely demonstrated that such was the fact. Such a bill was passed and
tendered to the Republican Governor for his signature; but, principally
for the reasons I have stated, he withheld his approval, and the bill fell
without becoming a law.
Another disadvantage under which we labor is that there are one or two
Democratic Senators who will be members of the next Legislature, and will
vote for the election of Senator, who are holding over in districts in
which we could, on all reasonable calculation, elect men of our own, if
we only had the chance of an election. When we consider that there are but
twenty-five Senators in the Senate, taking two from the side where they
rightfully belong, and adding them to the other, is to us a disadvantage
not to be lightly regarded. Still, so it is; we have this to contend with.
Perhaps there is no ground of complaint on our part. In attending to the
many things involved in the last general election for President, Governor,
Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Members of
Congress, of the Legislature, County Officers, and so on, we allowed these
things to happen by want of sufficient attention, and we have no cause to
complain of our adversaries, so far as this matter is concerned. But
we have some cause to complain of the refusal to give us a fair
apportionment.
There is still another disadvantage under which we labor, and to which I
will ask your attention. It arises out of the relative positions of the
two persons who stand before the State as candidates for the Senate.
Senator Douglas is of world-wide renown. All the anxious politicians of
his party, or who have been of his party for years past, have been looking
upon him as certainly, at no distant day, to be the President of
the United States. They have seen in his round, jolly, fruitful face
post-offices, land-offices, marshalships, and cabinet appointments,
charge-ships and foreign missions bursting and sprouting out in wonderful
exuberance, ready to be laid hold of by their greedy hands. And as they
have been gazing upon this attractive picture so long, they cannot, in the
little distraction that has taken place in the party, bring themselves to
give up the charming hope; but with greedier anxiety they rush about
him, sustain him, and give him marches, triumphal entries, and receptions
beyond what even in the days of his highest prosperity they could have
brought about in his favor. On the contrary, nobody has ever expected me
to be President. In my poor, lean, lank face, nobody has ever seen that
any cabbages were sprouting out. These are disadvantages all, taken
together, that the Republicans labor under. We have to fight this battle
upon principle, and upon principle alone. I am, in a certain sense, made
the standard-bearer in behalf of the Republicans. I was made so merely
because there had to be some one so placed,--I being in nowise preferable
to any other one of twenty-five, perhaps a hundred, we have in the
Republican ranks. Then I say I wish it to be distinctly understood and
borne in mind that we have to fight this battle without many--perhaps
without any of the external aids which are brought to bear against us.
So I hope those with whom I am surrounded have principle enough to nerve
themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can be fairly done
to bring about the right result.
After Senator Douglas left Washington, as his movements were made known by
the public prints, he tarried a considerable time in the city of New
York; and it was heralded that, like another Napoleon, he was lying by and
framing the plan of his campaign. It was telegraphed to Washington City,
and published in the Union, that he was framing his plan for the purpose
of going to Illinois to pounce upon and annihilate the treasonable and
disunion speech which Lincoln had made here on the 16th of June. Now, I
do suppose that the Judge really spent some time in New York maturing the
plan of the campaign, as his friends heralded for him. I have been
able, by noting his movements since his arrival in Illinois, to discover
evidences confirmatory of that allegation. I think I have been able to see
what are the material points of that plan. I will, for a little while, ask
your attention to some of them. What I shall point out, though not showing
the whole plan, are, nevertheless, the main points, as I suppose.
They are not very numerous. The first is popular sovereignty. The second
and third are attacks upon my speech made on the 16th of June. Out of
these three points--drawing within the range of popular sovereignty the
question of the Lecompton Constitution--he makes his principal assault.
Upon these his successive speeches are substantially one and the same.
On this matter of popular sovereignty I wish to be a little careful.
Auxiliary to these main points, to be sure, are their thunderings of
cannon, their marching and music, their fizzlegigs and fireworks; but I
will not waste time with them. They are but the little trappings of the
campaign.
Coming to the substance,--the first point, "popular sovereignty." It is to
be labeled upon the cars in which he travels; put upon the hacks he rides
in; to be flaunted upon the arches he passes under, and the banners which
wave over him. It is to be dished up in as many varieties as a French cook
can produce soups from potatoes. Now, as this is so great a staple of the
plan of the campaign, it is worth while to examine it carefully; and if
we examine only a very little, and do not allow ourselves to be misled,
we shall be able to see that the whole thing is the most arrant Quixotism
that was ever enacted before a community. What is the matter of popular
sovereignty? The first thing, in order to understand it, is to get a good
definition of what it is, and after that to see how it is applied.
I suppose almost every one knows that, in this controversy, whatever has
been said has had reference to the question of negro slavery. We have not
been in a controversy about the right of the people to govern themselves
in the ordinary matters of domestic concern in the States and Territories.
Mr. Buchanan, in one of his late messages (I think when he sent up the
Lecompton Constitution) urged that the main point to which the public
attention had been directed was not in regard to the great variety of
small domestic matters, but was directed to the question of negro slavery;
and he asserts that if the people had had a fair chance to vote on that
question there was no reasonable ground of objection in regard to minor
questions. Now, while I think that the people had not had given, or
offered, them a fair chance upon that slavery question, still, if
there had been a fair submission to a vote upon that main question, the
President's proposition would have been true to the utmost. Hence, when
hereafter I speak of popular sovereignty, I wish to be understood as
applying what I say to the question of slavery only, not to other minor
domestic matters of a Territory or a State.
Does Judge Douglas, when he says that several of the past years of his
life have been devoted to the question of "popular sovereignty," and that
all the remainder of his life shall be devoted to it, does he mean to
say that he has been devoting his life to securing to the people of the
Territories the right to exclude slavery from the Territories? If he means
so to say he means to deceive; because he and every one knows that the
decision of the Supreme Court, which he approves and makes especial ground
of attack upon me for disapproving, forbids the people of a Territory to
exclude slavery. This covers the whole ground, from the settlement of a
Territory till it reaches the degree of maturity entitling it to form a
State Constitution. So far as all that ground is concerned, the Judge
is not sustaining popular sovereignty, but absolutely opposing it.
He sustains the decision which declares that the popular will of the
Territory has no constitutional power to exclude slavery during their
territorial existence. This being so, the period of time from the first
settlement of a Territory till it reaches the point of forming a State
Constitution is not the thing that the Judge has fought for or is fighting
for, but, on the contrary, he has fought for, and is fighting for, the
thing that annihilates and crushes out that same popular sovereignty.
Well, so much being disposed of, what is left? Why, he is contending for
the right of the people, when they come to make a State Constitution,
to make it for themselves, and precisely as best suits themselves. I say
again, that is quixotic. I defy contradiction when I declare that the
Judge can find no one to oppose him on that proposition. I repeat,
there is nobody opposing that proposition on principle. Let me not be
misunderstood. I know that, with reference to the Lecompton Constitution,
I may be misunderstood; but when you understand me correctly, my
proposition will be true and accurate. Nobody is opposing, or has opposed,
the right of the people, when they form a constitution, to form it for
themselves. Mr. Buchanan and his friends have not done it; they, too, as
well as the Republicans and the Anti-Lecompton Democrats, have not done
it; but on the contrary, they together have insisted on the right of the
people to form a constitution for themselves. The difference between the
Buchanan men on the one hand, and the Douglas men and the Republicans on
the other, has not been on a question of principle, but on a question of
fact.
The dispute was upon the question of fact, whether the Lecompton
Constitution had been fairly formed by the people or not. Mr. Buchanan and
his friends have not contended for the contrary principle any more than
the Douglas men or the Republicans. They have insisted that whatever of
small irregularities existed in getting up the Lecompton Constitution were
such as happen in the settlement of all new Territories. The question was,
Was it a fair emanation of the people? It was a question of fact, and not
of principle. As to the principle, all were agreed. Judge Douglas voted
with the Republicans upon that matter of fact.
He and they, by their voices and votes, denied that it was a fair
emanation of the people. The Administration affirmed that it was. With
respect to the evidence bearing upon that question of fact, I readily
agree that Judge Douglas and the Republicans had the right on their side,
and that the Administration was wrong. But I state again that, as a
matter of principle, there is no dispute upon the right of a people in
a Territory, merging into a State, to form a constitution for themselves
without outside interference from any quarter. This being so, what is
Judge Douglas going to spend his life for? Is he going to spend his life
in maintaining a principle that nobody on earth opposes? Does he expect to
stand up in majestic dignity, and go through his apotheosis and become a
god in the maintaining of a principle which neither man nor mouse in
all God's creation is opposing? Now something in regard to the Lecompton
Constitution more specially; for I pass from this other question of
popular sovereignty as the most arrant humbug that has ever been attempted
on an intelligent community.
As to the Lecompton Constitution, I have already said that on the question
of fact, as to whether it was a fair emanation of the people or not, Judge
Douglas, with the Republicans and some Americans, had greatly the argument
against the Administration; and while I repeat this, I wish to know what
there is in the opposition of Judge Douglas to the Lecompton Constitution
that entitles him to be considered the only opponent to it,--as being
par excellence the very quintessence of that opposition. I agree to the
rightfulness of his opposition. He in the Senate and his class of men
there formed the number three and no more. In the House of Representatives
his class of men--the Anti-Lecompton Democrats--formed a number of about
twenty. It took one hundred and twenty to defeat the measure, against one
hundred and twelve. Of the votes of that one hundred and twenty, Judge
Douglas's friends furnished twenty, to add to which there were six
Americans and ninety-four Republicans. I do not say that I am precisely
accurate in their numbers, but I am sufficiently so for any use I am
making of it.
Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the credit of doing that
work, and the hundred none of it? Why, if, as Judge Douglas says, the
honor is to be divided and due credit is to be given to other parties, why
is just so much given as is consonant with the wishes, the interests, and
advancement of the twenty? My understanding is, when a common job is done,
or a common enterprise prosecuted, if I put in five dollars to your one,
I have a right to take out five dollars to your one. But he does not so
understand it. He declares the dividend of credit for defeating Lecompton
upon a basis which seems unprecedented and incomprehensible.