He smiles now, and says, "Did n't they carry you off?" but he said then
"he had to be carried off"; and he said it to convince the country that
he had so completely broken me down by his speech that I had to be carried
away. Now he seeks to dodge it, and asks, "Did n't they carry you off?"
Yes, they did. But, Judge Douglas, why didn't you tell the truth? I would
like to know why you did n't tell the truth about it. And then again "He
laid up seven days." He put this in print for the people of the country to
read as a serious document. I think if he had been in his sober senses he
would not have risked that barefacedness in the presence of thousands of
his own friends who knew that I made speeches within six of the seven days
at Henry, Marshall County, Augusta, Hancock County, and Macomb, McDonough
County, including all the necessary travel to meet him again at Freeport
at the end of the six days. Now I say there is no charitable way to look
at that statement, except to conclude that he is actually crazy. There is
another thing in that statement that alarmed me very greatly as he states
it, that he was going to "trot me down to Egypt." Thereby he would have
you infer that I would not come to Egypt unless he forced me--that I
could not be got here unless he, giant-like, had hauled me down here. That
statement he makes, too, in the teeth of the knowledge that I had made the
stipulation to come down here and that he himself had been very reluctant
to enter into the stipulation. More than all this: Judge Douglas, when
he made that statement, must have been crazy and wholly out of his sober
senses, or else he would have known that when he got me down here, that
promise--that windy promise--of his powers to annihilate me, would n't
amount to anything. Now, how little do I look like being carried away
trembling? Let the Judge go on; and after he is done with his half-hour, I
want you all, if I can't go home myself, to let me stay and rot here; and
if anything happens to the Judge, if I cannot carry him to the hotel and
put him to bed, let me stay here and rot. I say, then, here is something
extraordinary in this statement. I ask you if you know any other living
man who would make such a statement? I will ask my friend Casey, over
there, if he would do such a thing? Would he send that out and have his
men take it as the truth? Did the Judge talk of trotting me down to Egypt
to scare me to death? Why, I know this people better than he does. I was
raised just a little east of here. I am a part of this people. But the
Judge was raised farther north, and perhaps he has some horrid idea of
what this people might be induced to do. But really I have talked about
this matter perhaps longer than I ought, for it is no great thing; and yet
the smallest are often the most difficult things to deal with. The Judge
has set about seriously trying to make the impression that when we meet
at different places I am literally in his clutches--that I am a poor,
helpless, decrepit mouse, and that I can do nothing at all. This is one
of the ways he has taken to create that impression. I don't know any other
way to meet it except this. I don't want to quarrel with him--to call him
a liar; but when I come square up to him I don't know what else to call
him if I must tell the truth out. I want to be at peace, and reserve all
my fighting powers for necessary occasions. My time now is very nearly
out, and I give up the trifle that is left to the Judge, to let him set my
knees trembling again, if he can. set my knees trembling again, if he can.
THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
VOLUME FOUR
CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION
By Abraham Lincoln
Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley
THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Volume Four
THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II
LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH DEBATE, AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--It will be very difficult for an audience so large
as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is
important that as profound silence be preserved as possible.
While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to
know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between
the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this
occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I
thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard
to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of
bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white
and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making
voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor
to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which
I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of
social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live,
while they do remain together there must be the position of superior
and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion
I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior
position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that
because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want
her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am
now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for
either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get
along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this
that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was
in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between
negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance
that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its
correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel
Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am
not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the
least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was
no law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem
to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep
them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very
last stand by the law of this State which forbids the marrying of white
people with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this: that I do
not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social
and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, except
in the State Legislature,--not in the Congress of the United States; and
as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and
as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is
rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the
Judge be kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight the
measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject.
When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to Illinois
in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in which he made what
may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which I understand proved to
be very offensive to him. The Judge was at that time out upon one of his
speaking tours through the country, and when the news of it reached him,
as I am informed, he denounced Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for
having said what he did in regard to that matter. I was traveling at that
time, and speaking at the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent
days, and when I heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and
what Douglas had said back again, I felt that I was in a position where
I could not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter. Consequently,
upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no other
wise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by Trumbull against
Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to say nothing about it;
that I did personally know Judge Trumbull; that I believed him to be a
man of veracity; that I believed him to be a man of capacity sufficient to
know very well whether an assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn
from a set of facts, was true or false; and as a conclusion of my own from
that, I stated it as my belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon,
he would prove everything he had said. I said this upon two or three
occasions. Upon a subsequent occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again before
an audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his charge
against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to substantiate
it. This speech was published at length; and subsequently at Jacksonville
Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In the course of his speech, and near
the close of it, he stated in regard to myself what I will now read:
"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his
time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, Lincoln having
indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him
(Lincoln) responsible for the slanders."
I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitation
to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally been my
purpose to discuss that matter at all But in-as-much as it seems to be the
wish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once in
my life I will play General Jackson, and to the just extent I take the
responsibility.
I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that
portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this matter,
and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at Jacksonville in
answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of this debate with the
complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I cannot now read them,
for the reason that it would take half of my first hour to do so. I can
only make some comments upon them. Trumbull's charge is in the following
words:
"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a
constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the
people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the
plot."
I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity of
reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he regards
as sufficient evidence to substantiate this charge.
It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon the
floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference among the
senators, in which conference it was determined to have an enabling act
passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution under, and in
this conference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a
provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people after
it should be formed. He then brings forward to show, and showing, as he
deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with that
clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause inserted
into the bill, which would in its nature prevent a reference of the
constitution back for a vote of the people,--if, indeed, upon a mere
silence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to vote
upon it. These are the general statements that he has made.
I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he
attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to
examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he
makes is:
"Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and that
I struck it out,--is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution upon
them against their will?"
His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill,
he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the
purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would say, in the first
place, that that would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, as
Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial bills have passed without
having such a provision in them. I believe it is true, though I am not
certain, that in some instances constitutions framed under such bills
have been submitted to a vote of the people with the law silent upon the
subject; but it does not appear that they once had their enabling acts
framed with an express provision for submitting the constitution to be
framed to a vote of the people, then that they were stricken out when
Congress did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have been
bills which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when was
that provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does the
evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, when
we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almost
simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a conference among
certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be passed
leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to attend to
the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which it was agreed
they should so frame the bill that there should be no submission of the
constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge does not notice this part
of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that
simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to
be submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty fair
show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter into a plot
to put in force a constitution for Kansas, without giving the people any
opportunity of voting upon it.
But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is this:
"But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain
a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted."
This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I only
want to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that these words
were not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill from which it is
alleged the provision was stricken out,--a bill which goes by the name of
Toomb's, because he originally brought it forward? I ask why, if the Judge
wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take the exact
proposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not stricken out?
Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the Toomb's bill,
and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were stricken out. Judge
Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken
out were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision in the
Toomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We see at
once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the words.
He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about these words
being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to it, only taking an
issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if there be any issue upon
the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the question of fact as to
whether these words were stricken out, I have before me what I suppose to
be a genuine copy of the Toomb's bill, in which it can be shown that the
words Trumbull says were in it were, in fact, originally there. If there
be any dispute upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show
they were there. If there be any controversy upon the sense of the
words,--whether these words which were stricken out really constituted a
provision for submitting the matter to a vote of the people,--as that is a
matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull's own argument. He
says that the proposition is in these words:
"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to
the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their free
acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified
by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall
be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas."
Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill
when it came back, and he says this was a provision for submitting the
constitution to a vote of the people; and his argument is this:
"Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the
election for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an election was
to be held?"
This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge
at all, but he stands up and says there was no such proposition in that
bill for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people.
Trumbull admits that the language is not a direct provision for submitting
it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another provision. He
asks you how it is possible to ratify the land proposition at the election
for the adoption of the constitution, if there was no election to be held
for the adoption of the constitution. And he goes on to show that it is
not any less a law because the provision is put in that indirect shape
than it would be if it were put directly. But I presume I have said enough
to draw attention to this point, and I pass it by also.
Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and at
very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in
a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to be made would
have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thought so then,
what ground is there for anybody thinking otherwise now? Fellow-citizens,
this much may be said in reply: That bill had been in the hands of a
party to which Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of the
committee at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had a
printed copy of the original Toomb's bill. I have not the evidence on
that point except a sort of inference I draw from the general course
of business there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of
altering, were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing,
until the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterwards, when it was
reported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull in
reading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the bearings
of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not
follow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive,
that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that what
Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did? Suppose Trumbull had
been in the plot with these other men, would that let Douglas out of it?
Would it exonerate Douglas that Trumbull did n't then perceive he was in
the plot? He also asks the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose to
amend the bill, if he thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe that
everything Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection with
this question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of
the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his friends.
He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to anything on this
subject would receive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull did
bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the fact that there was no
provision for submitting the constitution about to be made for the people
of Kansas to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture to say that
Judge Douglas made some reply to this speech of Judge Trumbull's, but he
never noticed that part of it at all. And so the thing passed by. I think,
then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not throw
much blame upon him; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact
as to what Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself
been in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it
from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial it
should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, but that
the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at all touch
the question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck that they
discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to be guilty too.
Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is, that
when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the fact that the
bill had the provision in it for submitting the constitution to a vote
of the people when it went into his Judge Douglas's hands, that it was
missing when he reported it to the Senate, and that in a public speech he
had subsequently said the alterations in the bill were made while it was
in committee, and that they were made in consultation between him (Judge
Douglas) and Toomb's. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact
of Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill
not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with another
clause and another provision in it, saying that "until the
complete execution of this Act there shall be no election in said
Territory,"--which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the provision
for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but was adding an
affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from exercising the right
under a bill that was merely silent on the question. Now, in regard
to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the issue, that he shifts his
ground,--and I believe he uses the term that, "it being proven false, he
has changed ground," I call upon all of you, when you come to examine that
portion of Trumbull's speech (for it will make a part of mine), to examine
whether Trumbull has shifted his ground or not. I say he did not shift his
ground, but that he brought forward his original charge and the evidence
to sustain it yet more fully, but precisely as he originally made it.
Then, in addition thereto, he brought in a new piece of evidence. He
shifted no ground. He brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with
his former testimony; but he brought a new piece, tending, as he thought,
and as I think, to prove his proposition. To illustrate: A man brings
an accusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge
introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a second trial he
introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and a
third witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives further
testimony corroborative of the charge. So with Trumbull. There was no
shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony between the new piece
of evidence and what he originally introduced.
But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last
provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and a
substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is true
that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. Trumbull
has not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it was so stricken
out. He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as Judge Douglas reported
it back. It was amended somewhat in the Senate before it passed, but I am
speaking of it as he brought it back." Now, when Judge Douglas parades the
fact that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he
asserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only said
that he originally put it in, not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull
says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. When it came
back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made by him in
consultation with Toomb's. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as his conclusion,
that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants to contradict
Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not put it in, and not
that he did n't take it out again. It is said that a bear is sometimes
hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I presume it was in this case.
I presume the truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward took it out.
That, I take it, is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing,
Douglas says another thing, and the two don't contradict one another at
all. The question is, what did he put it in for? In the first place, what
did he take the other provision out of the bill for,--the provision which
Trumbull argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of
the people? What did he take that out for; and, having taken it out, what
did he put this in for? I say that in the run of things it is not unlikely
forces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge Douglas to take
that latter clause out again. The question that Trumbull has made is
that Judge Douglas put it in; and he don't meet Trumbull at all unless he
denies that.
In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses this
language toward Judge Trumbull. He says:
"He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the
record, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge."
Well, that is a pretty serious statement--Trumbull forges his evidence
from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say that it is not
true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has brought
forward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to, examine
whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had the bill
or document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says that is a
copy of the Toomb's bill,--the amendment offered by Toomb's. He says that
is a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas's
hands. Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? That is one thing
Trumbull brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning
to end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does Douglas say that is a
forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent examination
upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another document like this, and
says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came back in the amended form
out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery?
Does he say it in his general sweeping charge? Does he say so now? If he
does not, then take this Toomb's bill and the bill in the amended form,
and it only needs to compare them to see that the provision is in the one
and not in the other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken
out.
But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull's
other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull says
there are in this original Toomb's bill these words:
"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to
the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free
acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified
by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall
be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas."
Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper here and
see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr.
Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December
9, 1857: