The second debate was held at Freeport on August 27th. Lincoln
opened his speech with a series of answers to the questions asked
at Ottawa.
"I do not," he said, * * * "stand in favor of the unconditional
repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. * * *
"I do not * * * stand pledged against the admission of
any more slave States into the Union. * * * *
"I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new State. *
* * with such a Constitutions as the people * * * may see
fit to make. * * *
"I do not stand pledged to the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia. * * *
"I'm impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the right
and duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the United
States Territories. * * *
"I am not opposed to the honest acquisition of territory. * * * I
would or would not oppose such acquisition accordingly as I might
think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the slavery
question among ourselves."
The questions asked and answered were, whether he was PLEDGED to
any of these things. He was willing, however, to state what he
really thought of them.
"I do not hesitate to say that * * * under the Constitution of the
United States the people of the Southern States are entitled to
a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law. * * * The existing Fugitive
Slave Law should have been so framed as to be free from some of the
objections that pertain to it without lessening its efficiency. *
* * * In regard to the admission of any more slave States into the
Union, I state to you 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 be kept out of the Territories during their territorial
existence, * * * * and then the people shall * * * adopt a slave
Constitution, * * * I see no alternative but to admit them into
the Union. * * * I should not be in favor of abolishing slavery in
the District of Columbia, unless upon the condition that abolition
should be gradual; that it should be on the vote of a majority
of the qualified voters of the District; and that compensation be
made to unwilling owners. * * * 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."
He then asked Douglas four questions:
1st. "If the people of Kansas shall * * * adopt a State Constitution
and ask admission * * * * before they have the requisite number of
inhabitants under the English bill, * * * will you vote to admit
them?
2nd. "Can the people of a * * * Territory in any lawful way,
against the wish of any citizen, * * * exclude slavery from its
limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?
3rd. "If the Supreme Court * * * * shall decide that States cannot
exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing
in, adopting and following such decision as a rule of political
action?
4th. "Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory in
disregard of how such action may affect the Nation on the slavery
question?
When the Nebraska bill was introduced, he continued, it was declared
the intent and meaning of the act not to legislate slavery into
any State or Territory or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the
people perfectly free to regulate their own domestic institutions
in their own way. Chase of Ohio introduced an amendment expressly
declaring that the people of a Territory should have the power to
exclude slavery if they saw fit. Douglas and those who agreed with
him, voted it down. A little later the Supreme Court decided that
a territorial legislature had no right to exclude slavery.
"For men who did intend that the people of the Territory should
have the right to exclude slavery * * * * the voting down of Chase's
amendment is wholly inexplicable. It is a puzzle, a riddle. But
* * * with men who did look forward to such a decision * * * *
the voting down of that amendment would be perfectly rational and
intelligible. It would keep Congress from coming into collision
with the decision when it was made. * * * If there was an intention
or expectation that such a decision was to follow, it would not be
very desirable for the Democratic Supreme Court to decide one way
when the party in Congress had decided the other. Hence it would
be very rational for men expecting such a decision to keep the niche
in that law clear for it. * * * It looks to me as though here was
the reason why Chase's amendment was voted down. * * * If it was
done for a different reason, * * * he knows what that reason was and
can tell us what it was. * * * It will be vastly more satisfactory
to the country for him to give some other intelligible, plausible
reason why it was voted down than to stand upon his dignity and
call people liars."
Cass, it was said, on behalf of the Democrats in the Senate, proposed
to Chase that he so change his amendment as to provide that the
people of a Territory should have power either to introduce or exclude
slavery, and they would accept it. Chase, having conscientious
scruples on the question of slavery, declined to do this and his
amendment was voted down. But it was quite possible for them to
have accepted Chase's amendment, forbidden by the Senate rule, but
an amendment to the amended bill, which was permitted.
Douglas, in his reply, with admirable readiness, addressed himself
to Lincoln's four questions. "In reference to Kansas," he said,
"it is my opinion that, as she has population enough to constitute
a slave State, she has people enough for a free State. * * * The
next question is, 'Can the people of a Territory * * * exclude
slavery prior to the formation of a State Constitution?' * * * In
my opinion they can. * * * It matters not in what way the Supreme
Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question whether
slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution,
the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as
they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an
hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations.
Those police regulations can only be established by the local
legislature; and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect
representatives to that body who will, by unfriendly legislation,
effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If
on the contrary they are for it, their legislation will favor its
extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court
may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to
make a slave Territory or a free Territory, is perfect and complete
under the Nebraska bill."
This bill provided that the legislative power of the Territory
should extend to all rightful subjects of legislation. It made
no exception as to slavery, but gave full power to introduce or
exclude it. What more could Chase's amendment do? Chase offered
it for the purpose of having it rejected. He expected it to be
capital for small politicians, and he was not mistaken. He was
amazed that Lincoln should ask his third question. He had denounced
in the Senate an article in the Washington Union claiming that any
provision in the laws or Constitutions of the free States excluding
slavery was in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
Senator Toombs, on behalf of the South, had utterly repudiated the
doctrine. The question cast an imputation upon the Supreme Court.
Such a decision was not possible. It would be an act of moral
treason that no man on the bench could ever descend to.
"As to Lincoln's fourth question," he said: "I answer, that whenever
it becomes necessary in our growth and progress to acquire more
territory, I am in favor of it without reference to the question
of slavery; and when we have acquired it I would leave the people
free to do as they please, either to make it slave or free territory as
they preferred. * * * I tell you, increase, multiply and expand
is the law of this Nation's existence. * * * Just as fast as
our interests and our destiny require additional territory in the
North, in the South or on the islands of the ocean, I am for it;
and, when we acquire it, will leave the people * * * free to do as
they please on the question of slavery and every other question."
At all the Republican Congressional Conventions held in Illinois
in 1854, the resolutions adopted declared that the continued
aggressions of slavery were destructive of the best rights of a
free people and must be resisted by the united political action of
all good men; Kansas and Nebraska must be made free Territories,
the Fugitive Slave Law repealed, slavery restricted to the States
in which it then existed, no more slave States admitted, slavery
excluded from the Territories and no more Territories acquired unless
slavery therein were prohibited; and no man must be supported for
office unless positively pledged to support these principles.
"Yet Lincoln denies that he stands on this platform and declares
that he would not like to be placed in a position where he would
have to vote for these things. * * * I do not think there is much
danger of his being placed in such a position. * * * I propose,
out of mere kindness, to relieve him from any such necessity."
When the legislature elected in 1854 came to choose between Lincoln
and Trumbull for Senator, before a ballot was taken, Lovejoy, the
Abolitionist introduced resolutions declaring that slavery must be
excluded from all the territory then owned or thereafter acquired
by the United States; that no more slave States should be admitted
and that the Fugitive Slave Law should be unconditionally repealed.
On the following day every man who had voted for these resolutions,
with two exceptions, voted for Lincoln. Members so voting were
all pledged to vote for no man who was not pledged to support their
platform. "Either Lincoln was committed to these propositions, or
your members violated their faith. Take either horn of the dilemma
you choose. There is no dodging the question; I want Lincoln's
answer. He is altogether undecided on these grave questions and
does not know what to think or do. If elected Senator he will have
to decide. Do not put him in a position that would embarrass him
so much. He does not know whether he would vote for the admission
of more slave States, yet he has declared his belief that this
Union cannot endure with slave States in it. I do not think that
the people of Illinois desire a man to represent them who would like
to be put to the test on the performance of a high constitutional
duty.
"I will retire in shame from the Senate of the United States when
I am not willing to be put to the test in the performance of my duty.
I have been put to severe tests. I have stood by my principles
in fair weather and foul, in the sunshine and in the rain. I have
defended the great principles of self-government here among you
when Northern sentiment ran in a torrent against me, and I have
defended that same great principle when Southern sentiment came
down like an avalanche upon me. I was not afraid of any test they
put me to. I knew my principles were right; I knew my principles were
sound; I knew that the people would see in the end hat I had done
right and I knew that the God of heaven would smile upon
me if I was faithful in the performance of my duty. * * *
At the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, Lincoln says there
was a conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court, President
Pierce, President Buchanan and myself, that bill and the decision
of the court to break down the barriers and establish slavery
all over the Union. * * *
"Mr. Buchanan was at that time in England and did not return for
a year or more after. That fact proves the charge to be false as
against him. * * * The Dred Scott case was not then before the
Supreme Court at all; * * * * and the Judges in all probability knew
nothing of it. * * * * As to President Pierce, his high character
as a man of integrity and honor is enough to vindicate him from
such a charge; and as to myself I pronounce the charge an infamous
lie whenever and wherever made and by whomsoever made."
Lincoln closed the debate. As to the discrepancy between the
various Republican resolutions adopted in local conventions in 1854
and the views stated in his opening speech, he said that at the
beginning of the Nebraska agitation a new era in American politics
began.
"In our opposition to that measure we did not agree with one another
in everything. * * * * These meetings which the Judge has alluded
to and the resolutions he has read from were local. * * * We at
last met together in 1856 from all parts of the State and agreed
upon a common platform. * * * We agreed then upon a platform for
the party throughout the entire State and now we are all bound to
that platform. * * * If any one expects that I will do anything not
signified by our Republican platform and my answers here to-day, I
will tell you very frankly that person will be deceived. I do not
ask for the vote of anyone who supposes that I have secret purposes
or pledges that I dare not speak out. * * * Douglas says if I
should vote for the admission of a slave State I would be voting
for the dissolution of the Union, because I hold that the Union
cannot permanently exist half slave and half free. * * * It does
not at all follow that the admission of a single slave State will
permanently fix the character and establish this as a universal
slave Nation."
In March, 1856, Douglas, speaking in the Senate upon an article
published, apparently by authority, in the Washington Union,
the organ of the Administration, charged a conspiracy between the
President, his cabinet and the Lecompton Convention to establish the
proposition that all State laws and Constitutions, which prohibited
the citizens of one State from settling in another with their
slave property, were violations of the Constitution of the United
States. He declared that a fatal blow was being struck at the
sovereignty of the States. Charges of conspiracy were not entirely
unheard of when the one was made at Springfield so sharply condemned
by Douglas.
"But his eye is farther South now than it was last March. His
hope then rested on the idea of visiting the great black Republican
party and making it the tail of his new kite. He was then
expected from day to day to turn Republican and place himself at
the head of our organization. He has found that these despised
black Republicans estimate him, by a standard which he has taught
them, none to well. Hence he is crawling back into the old camp
and you will find him eventually installed in full fellowship among
those whom he was then battling and with whom he still pretends to
be at such fearful variance."
There is an interesting and well authenticated tradition, perhaps
too strongly established to be questioned, that Lincoln's second
interrogatory was designed as a snare for Douglas and that he was
forced by it to proclaim his unfortunate doctrine of unfriendly
legislation, which gave such deep offense to the South. It is related
on the highest authority that on the night before the Freeport
debate, "Lincoln was catching a few hours' rest at a railroad center
named Mendota, to which place the converging trains brought, after
midnight, a number of excited Republican leaders on their way to
attend the great meeting at the neighboring town of Freeport. *
* * * Lincoln's bedroom was invaded by an improvised caucus, and
the ominous question was once more brought under consideration.
The whole drift of advice ran against putting the interrogatory
(number two) to Douglas, but Lincoln persisted in his determination
to force him to answer it. Finally his friends in a chorus cried:
'If you do, you can never be Senator.'
"'Gentlemen,' replied Lincoln, 'I am killing larger game. If
Douglas answers, he can never be President, and the battle of 1860
is worth a hundred of this.'"
Whatever may be the truth as to the Mendota conference, it is unjust
to Douglas to say that he was surprised by the question, or that
his answer was a mere extemporized feat of ingenuity to meet an
embarrassing exigency. Long before this and on many occasions he
had announced his opinion that the people of a Territory could by
unfriendly legislation, in defiance of the Constitution, the Supreme
Court and Congress, effectually prevent slavery among themselves.
It was one of his most deliberately formed, openly avowed and widely
known opinions. It is incredible that Lincoln and his advisors
were in doubt how he would answer the question. Whatever may be
our view of the soundness of his doctrine, it is not just to the
ablest debater and foremost statesman of the time to say that he
was taken by surprise and driven into a corner by a question which,
as he was taken by surprise and driven into a corner by a question
which, as he said then, he had answered a hundred times from every
stump in Illinois.
The third debate was held at Jonesboro, near the southern boundary
of the State, on September 15th.
Douglas, in his opening speech, stated anew his now familiar
argument that the Republican party was sectional, threatening to
disrupt the Union by its slavery agitation, while the Democratic
party was national, with a wholesome creed, alike applicable in
all latitudes. Lincoln and Trumbull had conspired to abolitinize
the old parties and secure seats in the Senate. Lincoln's doctrine
of the house divided against itself was examined and the implied
threat emphasized that Southern institutions must be overthrown
and a dead level of uniformity reached in order that the Government
should stand. The finality of the Dred Scott decision and the
exclusion of negroes from the Declaration of Independence were
insisted on. Much of the speech was devoted to the local and
transient questions of Illinois politics.
Lincoln, replying to the charge that the slavery agitation was the
result of the aggressive attitude of Northern Abolitionists, again
insisted that the propagandists of slavery were the aggressors,
having attempted to change it from a local and declining institution
and spread it through all the Territories, removing it "from the
basis on which the fathers left it to the basis of its perpetuation
and nationalization." The agitation began with the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise.
"Who," he asked, "did that? Why, when we had peace under the
Missouri Compromise, could you not have left it alone?"
He quoted Douglas' speech in the Senate on June 9th, 1856, in which
he had declared that "whether the people could exclude slavery
prior to the formation of a Constitution or not, was a question to
be decided by the Supreme Court. * * * * When he says, after the
Supreme Court has decided the question, that the people may yet
exclude slavery by any means whatever, he does virtually say that
it is not a question for the Supreme Court. * * * the proposition
that slavery cannot enter a new country without police regulations
is historically false. * * * Slavery was originally planted upon
this continent without these police regulations. * * * How came
the Dred Scott decision to be made? It was made upon the case
of a negro being taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota
Territory, claiming his freedom because the act of Congress prohibited
his being so held there. Will the Judge pretend that Dred Scott
was not held there without police regulations? * * * * This shows
that there is vigor enough in slavery to plant itself in a new
country, even against unfriendly legislation. It takes not only
law, but the enforcement of the law, to keep it out. This is the
history of this country upon the subject. * * * The first thing
a Senator does is swear to support the Constitution of the United
States. Suppose a Senator believes, as Douglas does, that the
Constitution guarantees the right to hold slaves in a Territory.
How can he clear his oath unless he supports such legislation as is
necessary to enable the people to enjoy their property? Can you,
if you swear to support the Constitution, and believe that the
Constitution establishes a right, clear your oath without giving
it support? * * * * There can be nothing in the words, 'support
the Constitution,' if you may run counter to it by refusing to
support it. * * * * And what I say here will hod with still more
force against the Judge's doctrine of unfriendly legislation. * *
* Is not Congress itself bound to give legislative support to any
right that is established in the United States Constitution? A
Member of Congress swears to support the Constitution * * * and
if he sees a right established by that Constitution which needs
specific legislative protection, can he clear his oath without
giving that protection. * * * If I acknowledge * * * that this
(Dred Scott) decision properly construes the Constitution, I cannot
conceive that I would be less than a perjured man if I should
refuse in Congress to give such protection to that property as in
its nature is needed."
He then stated his fifth interrogatory: If slave-holding citizens
of the United States Territory should need and demand congressional
legislation for the protection of their slave property in such
Territory, would you as a Member of Congress, vote for or against
such legislation?
Douglas in his reply took up Lincoln's rather evasive answer to
his second interrogatory submitted at Ottawa. "Lincoln," he said,
"would be exceedingly sorry to be put in a position where he would
have to vote on the question of the admission of slave States. Why
is he a candidate for the Senate if he would be sorry to be put in
that position? * * * * If Congress keeps out slavery by law while
it is a Territory and then the people should have a fair chance
and should adopt slavery, he supposes he would have to admit the
State. Suppose Congress should not keep slavery out during their
territorial existence, then how would he vote when the people
applied for admission with a slave Constitution? That he does not
answer; and that is the condition of every Territory we have now
got. His answer only applies to a given case which he knows does
not exist in any Territory. But Mr. Lincoln does not want to be
held responsible for the black Republican doctrine of no more slave
States. Why are men running for Congress in the northern Distracts
and taking that Abolition platform for their guide when Mr. Lincoln
does not want to be held to it down here in Egypt? His party in
the northern part of the State hold to that Abolition platform,
and if they do not in the south, they present the extra-ordinary
spectacle of 'a house divided against itself' and hence 'cannot
stand.'"
In answer to Lincoln's last question, he said: "It is a fundamental
article of the Democratic creed that there should be non-interference
or non-intervention of Congress with slavery in the States or
Territories. The Democratic party have always stood by that great
principle and I stand on that platform now. * * * * Lincoln himself
will not answer this question. * * * It is true * * * (he admits)
that under the decision of the Supreme Court, it is the duty of a
man to vote for a slave code in the Territories. If he believed
in that decision he would be a perjured man if he did not give the
vote. I want to know whether he is not bound to a decision which
is contrary to his opinions just as much as to one in accordance
with his opinions? * * * Is every man in this land allowed to resist
decisions he does not like and only support those which meet his
approval? * * * * It is the fundamental principle of the judiciary
that its decisions are final. * * * * My doctrine is that, even
taking Mr. Lincoln's view that the decision recognizes the right of
a man to carry his slaves into the Territories, yet after he gets
them there he needs affirmative law to make that right of any value.
The same doctrine applies to all other kinds of property.
"Suppose one of your merchants should move to Kansas and open
a liquor store; he has a right to take groceries or liquor there;
but the circumstances under which they shall be sold and all the
remedies must be prescribed by local legislation; and if that is
unfriendly it will drive him out just as effectually as if there
was a constitutional provision against the sale of liquor. Hence,
I assert, that under the Dred Scott decision you cannot maintain
slavery a day in a Territory where there is an unwilling people
and unfriendly legislation. If the people want slavery they will
have it, and if they do not want it you cannot force it upon them."
Neither Lincoln nor Douglas could as yet fairly and fearlessly
grapple with the great problem. Lincoln's virtual rejection and
defiance of the decision of the Supreme Court suggests not reform
but revolution. These dark hints that the decisions of the highest
tribunal should not be accepted or obeyed, that they were binding
only on those who believed in them, portended nothing less than
war. Slavery being an established institution, recognized by the
Constitution and regulated by law, had the right to exist. Lincoln
and his party abhorred it and resented the injustice of the law.
Obeying the dominant instinct of the race, the scrupulously observed
the form of the law while waging war upon it. On the other hand
it is impossible to find either legal or philosophical foundation
for Douglas' arguments. Slavery had been adjudged lawful in all
the Territories. The proposition gravely argued by him, that the
people could lawfully exclude a thing from a place where it had a
lawful right to be, was monstrous. He sternly rebuked Lincoln for
his irreverence in refusing to cordially accept the Dred Scott
decision and in the next breath, with shocking inconsistency, dissolved
its entire force in the menstruum of unfriendly legislation. The
decision was utterly repugnant to the people of the State. The
both viewed it as a political rather than a philosophic problem.
Both rejected it and the consequences flowing from it. Lincoln
quibbled when asked to accept it as a rule governing his political
conduct. Douglas, by a cunning device, sought to destroy its force
as a rule of private right. Lincoln insisted on the essential
dishonesty of the juggling trick by which Douglas got rid of the
adjudicated law. Douglas insisted on the anarchic spirit with
which Lincoln bade defiance to it.
It would be tedious to follow the debates through in detail.
Necessarily the later arguments were mainly a repetition of those
made in the earlier speeches. Thee was a marked falling off in
the good temper and mutual courtesy of the combatants in the later
stages of the contest. The abiding question to which the argument
constantly recurred was that of negro slavery, as to which Lincoln
was darkly oracular and Douglas was resolutely evasive. Lincoln
again and again pressed Douglas to say whether he regarded slavery
as wrong. Douglas persistently declined the question on the pleat
that it was one wholly foreign to national politics. Each State
had a right to decide for itself; and that right had been delegated
to the Territories by the Compromise act of 1850 and again by the
Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854.
"I look forward," he said, "to a time when each State shall be allowed
to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is
not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it
is its own business, not mine. I care more for the great principle
of self-government, the right of the people to rule, then I do for
all the negroes in Christendom. I would not endanger the perpetuity
of this Union, I would not blot out the great inalienable rights
of the white man, for all the negroes that ever existed."
Lincoln persistently pressed his argument: "When Douglas says he
don't care whether slaver is voted up or voted down, he can thus
argue logically if he don't see anything wrong in it; but he cannot
say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say
that the would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When
he says that slave property and horse and hog property are alike
to be allowed to go into the Territories upon the principle of
equality, he is reasoning truly if there is no difference between
them and property; but if the one is property held rightfully and
the other is wrong, then there is no equality between the right and
the wrong. * * * That is the real issue. That is the issue that
will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge
Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle
between these two principles that have stood face to face from
the beginning of time and will ever continue to struggle. The one
is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of
kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops. It
is the same spirit that says, 'you work and toil and earn bread,
and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from
the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own
nation and live by the fruit of their labor or from one race of men
as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical
principle."
In the Quincy debate, and again in the last debate at Alton, Douglas,
with great skill, took up the attack made upon him by the Buchanan
Administration because of his alleged heresies on the Kansas
question. The Washington Union in an editorial had condemned his
Freeport declaration that the people could by their unfriendly
attitude exclude slavery from a Territory. It argued that his plan
was to exclude it by means of his device of popular sovereignty and
declared that he was not a sound Democrat and had not been since
1850. He quoted from Buchanan's letter accepting the nomination,
in which he warmly applauded those "principles as ancient as free
government itself * * * in accordance with which * * * * the people
of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves
whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits."
He also quoted in vindication of the soundness of his Democracy
a speech of Jefferson Davis declaring that, if the inhabitants of
a Territory should refuse to enact laws to protect and encourage
slavery, the insecurity would be so great that the owner could not
hold his slaves.
"Therefore," said Davis, "though the right would remain, the remedy
being withheld, it would follow that the owner would be practically
debarred from taking slave property into a Territory when the sense
of its inhabitants was opposed to its introduction."
These latter arguments were addressed to the Administration
Democrats, who, however, proved a quite unimportant factor in the
campaign. They were an utter negation politically. Were it an
academic problem, much could be said in their defense. In a time
of stormy passion, they were passionless. In a time of fanatical
convictions and intolerant opinions, they were coldly neutral,
appealing with impotent pride to the traditions and precedents of
the past.
The election was held on the 2nd of November. The Republicans
elected their State ticket by a popularity of nearly 4,000, but
lost the legislature. When that body met Douglas was again chose
Senator.