This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that h_The Papers and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete

about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against Norton

on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public records of the

country show that he himself attempted it upon Trumbull a month before

Harris tried them on Norton; that Harris had the opportunity of learning

it from him, rather than he from Harris. I now ask his attention to that

part of the record on the case. My friends, I am not disposed to detain

you longer in regard to that matter.

I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another matter I

wish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered there was a mistake

in that case, he came forward magnanimously, without my calling his

attention to it, and explained it. I will tell you how he became so

magnanimous. When the newspapers of our side had discovered and published

it, and put it beyond his power to deny it, then he came forward and made

a virtue of necessity by acknowledging it. Now he argues that all

the point there was in those resolutions, although never passed at

Springfield, is retained by their being passed at other localities. Is

that true? He said I had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech,

that I was in the convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutions

touch me at all? It strikes me there is some difference between holding

a man responsible for an act which he has not done and holding him

responsible for an act that he has done. You will judge whether there

is any difference in the "spots." And he has taken credit for great

magnanimity in coming forward and acknowledging what is proved on him

beyond even the capacity of Judge Douglas to deny; and he has more

capacity in that way than any other living man.

Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to a

conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he made.

May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is proven false on

me as that was proven false on him. I will add a little more than that,

I will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man shall be brought to believe

that the charge is not true. I have asked Judge Douglas's attention to

certain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy to

nationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue

because Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the Dred

Scott case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say

the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say that

I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never uttered

it. [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated affirmatively at Mr.

Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say I did, I tell you myself

that I never said the "Democratic" owners of Dred Scott got up the case.

I have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were Democrats,

or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers or Border Ruffians. I have said that

there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a made-up

case, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that that

evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to

be a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the

case tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that

decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his by

that decision. But my time is out, and I can say no more.

LAST DEBATE, AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858

Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have been somewhat, in my own mind, complimented

by a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech,--I mean that portion

which he devotes to the controversy between himself and the present

Administration. This is the seventh time Judge Douglas and myself have met

in these joint discussions, and he has been gradually improving in regard

to his war with the Administration. At Quincy, day before yesterday, he

was a little more severe upon the Administration than I had heard him upon

any occasion, and I took pains to compliment him for it. I then told him

to give it to them with all the power he had; and as some of them were

present, I told them I would be very much obliged if they would give it to

him in about the same way. I take it he has now vastly improved upon

the attack he made then upon the Administration. I flatter myself he has

really taken my advice on this subject. All I can say now is to re-commend

to him and to them what I then commended,--to prosecute the war against

one another in the most vigorous manner. I say to them again: "Go it,

husband!--Go it, bear!"

There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this branch of the

discussion,--although I do not consider it much of my business, anyway. I

refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where he undertakes to involve

Mr. Buchanan in an inconsistency. He reads something from Mr. Buchanan,

from which he undertakes to involve him in an inconsistency; and he gets

something of a cheer for having done so. I would only remind the Judge

that while he is very valiantly fighting for the Nebraska Bill and the

repeal of the Missouri Compromise, it has been but a little while since

he was the valiant advocate of the Missouri Compromise. I want to know

if Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? Has

Douglas the exclusive right, in this country, of being on all sides of

all questions? Is nobody allowed that high privilege but himself? Is he to

have an entire monopoly on that subject?

So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it was

about me, it is my business to pay some attention to it. I have heard the

Judge state two or three times what he has stated to-day, that in a speech

which I made at Springfield, Illinois, I had in a very especial manner

complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had decided that

a negro could never be a citizen of the United States. I have omitted by

some accident heretofore to analyze this statement, and it is required

of me to notice it now. In point of fact it is untrue. I never have

complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it held that a

negro could not be a citizen, and the Judge is always wrong when he says

I ever did so complain of it. I have the speech here, and I will thank

him or any of his friends to show where I said that a negro should be a

citizen, and complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because

it declared he could not be one. I have done no such thing; and Judge

Douglas, so persistently insisting that I have done so, has strongly

impressed me with the belief of a predetermination on his part to

misrepresent me. He could not get his foundation for insisting that I

was in favor of this negro equality anywhere else as well as he could by

assuming that untrue proposition. Let me tell this audience what is true

in regard to that matter; and the means by which they may correct me if I

do not tell them truly is by a recurrence to the speech itself. I spoke

of the Dred Scott decision in my Springfield speech, and I was then

endeavoring to prove that the Dred Scott decision was a portion of a

system or scheme to make slavery national in this country. I pointed out

what things had been decided by the court. I mentioned as a fact that they

had decided that a negro could not be a citizen; that they had done so, as

I supposed, to deprive the negro, under all circumstances, of the remotest

possibility of ever becoming a citizen and claiming the rights of a

citizen of the United States under a certain clause of the Constitution. I

stated that, without making any complaint of it at all. I then went on and

stated the other points decided in the case; namely, that the bringing

of a negro into the State of Illinois and holding him in slavery for two

years here was a matter in regard to which they would not decide whether

it would make him free or not; that they decided the further point that

taking him into a United States Territory where slavery was prohibited by

Act of Congress did not make him free, because that Act of Congress, as

they held, was unconstitutional. I mentioned these three things as making

up the points decided in that case. I mentioned them in a lump, taken in

connection with the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, and the amendment

of Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of the right of the people of

the Territories to exclude slavery, which was voted down by the friends

of the bill. I mentioned all these things together, as evidence tending

to prove a combination and conspiracy to make the institution of slavery

national. In that connection and in that way I mentioned the decision on

the point that a negro could not be a citizen, and in no other connection.

Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of my

purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between the

white and black races. His assertion that I made an "especial objection"

(that is his exact language) to the decision on this account is untrue in

point of fact.

Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry Clay has been alluded to,

I desire to place myself, in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly right

before this people as may be. I am quite aware what the Judge's object

is here by all these allusions. He knows that we are before an audience

having strong sympathies southward, by relationship, place of birth, and

so on. He desires to place me in an extremely Abolition attitude. He read

upon a former occasion, and alludes, without reading, to-day to a portion

of a speech which I delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that

speech, as he has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken

in such a way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of what

is called garbling,--taking portions of a speech which, when taken by

themselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as expressed at

the time. I propose, therefore, out of that same speech, to show how

one portion of it which he skipped over (taking an extract before and an

extract after) will give a different idea, and the true idea I intended to

convey. It will take me some little time to read it, but I believe I will

occupy the time that way.

You have heard him frequently allude to my controversy with him in regard

to the Declaration of Independence. I confess that I have had a struggle

with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try briefly to place myself

right in regard to it on this occasion. I said--and it is between

the extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put in his

published speeches:

"It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities

and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposed

upon a man he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which

we found ourselves when we established this government. We had slaves

among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them

to remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we

grasped for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does

not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let the

charter remain as our standard."

Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas

against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of

slavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from which he takes

garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a disposition to

interfere with the institution of slavery, and establish a perfect social

and political equality between negroes and white people.

Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other extract from

a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at Springfield, in discussing this

very same question, soon after Judge Douglas took his ground that negroes

were, not included in the Declaration of Independence:

"I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all

men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They

did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral

development, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness

in what they did consider all men created equal,--equal in certain

inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to

assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that

equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them.

In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to

declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as

circumstances should permit.

"They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be

familiar to all,--constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even,

though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby

constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the

happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere."

There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard to the

Declaration of Independence upon a former occasion,--sentiments which have

been put in print and read wherever anybody cared to know what so humble

an individual as myself chose to say in regard to it.

At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, that

three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or believed,

in the whole world, who had said that the Declaration of Independence did

not include negroes in the term "all men." I reassert it to-day. I assert

that Judge Douglas and all his friends may search the whole records of the

country, and it will be a matter of great astonishment to me if they shall

be able to find that one human being three years ago had ever uttered the

astounding sentiment that the term "all men" in the Declaration did not

include the negro. Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more than

three years ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly in

the way of their schemes to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation

of slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr. Calhoun and all the

politicians of his school denied the truth of the Declaration. I know

that it ran along in the mouth of some Southern men for a period of years,

ending at last in that shameful, though rather forcible, declaration of

Pettit of Indiana, upon the floor of the United States Senate, that the

Declaration of Independence was in that respect "a self-evident lie,"

rather than a self-evident truth. But I say, with a perfect knowledge of

all this hawking at the Declaration without directly attacking it, that

three years ago there never had lived a man who had ventured to assail it

in the sneaking way of pretending to believe it, and then asserting it did

not include the negro. I believe the first man who ever said it was Chief

Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friend

Stephen A. Douglas. And now it has become the catchword of the entire

party. I would like to call upon his friends everywhere to consider how

they have come in so short a time to view this matter in a way so entirely

different from their former belief; to ask whether they are not being

borne along by an irresistible current,--whither, they know not.

In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last week, I see that some man

in Chicago has got up a letter, addressed to the Chicago Times, to show,

as he professes, that somebody had said so before; and he signs himself

"An Old-Line Whig," if I remember correctly. In the first place, I would

say he was not an old-line Whig. I am somewhat acquainted with old-line

Whigs from the origin to the end of that party; I became pretty well

acquainted with them, and I know they always had some sense, whatever else

you could ascribe to them. I know there never was one who had not more

sense than to try to show by the evidence he produces that some men had,

prior to the time I named, said that negroes were not included in the

term "all men" in the Declaration of Independence. What is the evidence

he produces? I will bring forward his evidence, and let you see what he

offers by way of showing that somebody more than three years ago had said

negroes were not included in the Declaration. He brings forward part of a

speech from Henry Clay,--the part of the speech of Henry Clay which I

used to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary. I guess we are

surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of Mr. Clay, and they

will be glad to hear anything from that authority. While he was in Indiana

a man presented a petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made

a speech in answer to it, which I suppose he carefully wrote out himself

and caused to be published. I have before me an extract from that speech

which constitutes the evidence this pretended "Old-Line Whig" at Chicago

brought forward to show that Mr. Clay did n't suppose the negro was

included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay said:

"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate

the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the

act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American

colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle,

there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration; and it is desirable,

in the original construction of society and in organized societies, to

keep it in view as a great fundamental principle. But, then, I apprehend

that in no society that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, was

or can the equality asserted among the members of the human race be

practically enforced and carried out. There are portions, large portions,

women, minors, insane, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always

probably remain subject to the government of another portion of the

community.

"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made by

the delegations of the thirteen States. In most of them slavery existed,

and had long existed, and was established by law. It was introduced and

forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of England. Do you believe

that in making that declaration the States that concurred in it intended

that it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the slaves

within their respective limits? Would Virginia and other Southern States

have ever united in a declaration which was to be interpreted into an

abolition of slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen colonies

entertain such a design or expectation? To impute such a secret and

unavowed purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest

band of patriots that ever assembled in council,--a fraud upon the

Confederacy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of those States

whose Constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but

permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808."

This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that somebody

previous to three years ago had said the negro was not included in the

term "all men" in the Declaration. How does it do so? In what way has it a

tendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an abstract principle

that all men are created equal, but that we cannot practically apply it in

all eases. He illustrates this by bringing forward the cases of females,

minors, and insane persons, with whom it cannot be enforced; but he says

it is true as an abstract principle in the organization of society as well

as in organized society and it should be kept in view as a fundamental

principle. Let me read a few words more before I add some comments of my

own. Mr. Clay says, a little further on:

"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of

slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have

derived it from the parental government and from our ancestors. I wish

every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. But

here they are, and the question is, How can they be best dealt with? If

a state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations

of society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be to

incorporate the institution of slavery amongst its elements."

Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, in this same extract,

brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held that the negro was not

included in the Declaration of Independence, is no such statement on

his part, but the declaration that it is a great fundamental truth which

should be constantly kept in view in the organization of society and in

societies already organized. But if I say a word about it; if I attempt,

as Mr. Clay said all good men ought to do, to keep it in view; if, in this

"organized society," I ask to have the public eye turned upon it; if I

ask, in relation to the organization of new Territories, that the public

eye should be turned upon it, forthwith I am vilified as you hear me

to-day. What have I done that I have not the license of Henry Clay's

illustrious example here in doing? Have I done aught that I have not his

authority for, while maintaining that in organizing new Territories and

societies this fundamental principle should be regarded, and in organized

society holding it up to the public view and recognizing what he

recognized as the great principle of free government?

And when this new principle--this new proposition that no human being ever

thought of three years ago--is brought forward, I combat it as having an

evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as having a tendency to

dehumanize the negro, to take away from him the right of ever striving to

be a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things constantly done

in these days to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing but

property, of the negro in all the States of this Union.

But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of the

discussion, to ask attention to. I have read and I repeat the words of

Henry Clay: