MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH.

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 inasmuch 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 every thing.  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 Col.  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 otherwise 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 every thing 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 inasmuch 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.

[*  See the extract of Douglas's speech at Jacksonville, here.]

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. 

[* See the extract of Trumbull’s speech at Alton, here.]

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, and 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 this 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 Toombs bill, or this bill from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out—a bill which goes by the name of Toombs, 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 Toombs 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 Toombs 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 Toombs 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?”  That 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 was 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 any body 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 Toombs 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 afterward, 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 didn’t then perceive he was in the plot?  He also asks the question: Why didn’t Trumbull propose to amend the bill if he thought it needed any amendment?  Why, I believe that every thing 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 any thing on this subject would receive the slightest consideration.  Judge Trumbull did bring to the notice of the Senate at that time to 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 alteration in the bill was made while it was in committee, and that they were made in consultation between him (Judge Douglas) and Toombs.  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 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 Toombs.  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 didn’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 Toombs bill—the amendment offered by Toombs.  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.  Docs 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 Toombs 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 Toombs 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:

“I was present when that subject was discussed by Senators before the bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, whether the Constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people.  It was held by those most intelligent on the subject, that in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better there should be no such provision in the Toombs bill; and it was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the Convention would make a Constitution, and send it here without submitting it to the popular vote.”

Then Trumbull follows on: “In speaking of this meeting again on the- 21st December, 1857 [Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said:

“ ‘Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or confidential interview.  The meeting was not of that character.  Indeed, it was semi-official and called to promote the public good.  My recollection was clear that I left the conference under the impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this Convention.  This impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great aversion; but with the hope of accomplishing a great good, and as no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and concluded to support the measure.  I have a few items of testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their submission I shall be content.  I have before me the bill reported by the Senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows:

“ ‘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.’

“ ‘The bill read in his place by the Senator from Georgia, on the 25th of June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same section word for word.  Both these bills were under consideration at the conference referred to; but, sir, when the Senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate with amendments, the next morning it did not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the Convention that the Constitution should be approved by the people.  The words, ‘and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the Constitution,’ had been stricken out.’ ”

Now these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the Congressional Globe on certain pages.  Does Judge Douglas say this is a forgery?  Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional Globe?  What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his evidence from beginning to end?  So again he says in another place, that Judge Douglas, in his speech December 9, 1857 [Congressional Globe, part 1, page 15], stated:

“That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a Constitution for themselves.  Subsequently the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate.”

Now Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and is recorded in the Congressional Globe.  Is it a forgery?  Is it there or not?  It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take these pieces of evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he dare do it.

A voice—“He will.”

Mr. Lincoln—Well, sir, you had better not commit him.  He gives other quotations—another from Judge Douglas.  He says:

“I will ask the Senator to show me an intimation, from any one member of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union, from any quarter, that the Constitution was not to be submitted to the people.  I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so understood at the time.  If the opponents of the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on it; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause.  That is a discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done, which ought in fairness to have been done.”

Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded.  Does Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true?  Trumbull says somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any one who will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the notice of those who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that provision, and then he goes on to give another quotation from Judge Douglas, where Judge Trumbull uses this language:

“Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probably recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had objected to the Toombs bill when pending that it did not provide for a submission of the Constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the Globe, page 22, in which he says:”

“ ‘That the bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention was called to that about the time it was passed; and I took the fair construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the Constitution would be submitted to the people.’

“Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that it was a new discovery, you will determine.”

So I say.  I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and yet maintain his position that Trumbull’s evidence “was forged from beginning to end.”  I will remark that I have not got these Congressional Globes with me.  They are large books and difficult to carry about, and if Judge Douglas shall say that on these points where Trumbull has quoted from them, there are no such passages there, I shall not be able to prove they are there upon this occasion, but I will have another chance.  Whenever he points out the forgery and says, “I declare that this particular thing which Trumbull has uttered is not to be found where he says it is,” then my attention will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest—stating now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find every quotation just where Trumbull says it is.  Then the question is, how can Douglas call that a forgery?  How can he make out that it is a forgery?  What is a forgery?  It is the bringing forward something in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect when it is altogether untrue.  If you come forward with my note for one hundred dollars when I have never given such a note, there is a forgery.  If you come forward with a letter purporting to be written by me which I never wrote, there is another forgery.  If you produce any thing in writing or in print saying it is so and so, the document not being genuine, a forgery has been committed.  How do you make this a forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine?  If Judge Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false and forged, he has a full right to do so, but until he does it specifically we don’t know how to get at him.  If he does say they are false and forged, I will then look further into it, and I presume I can procure the certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies.  I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where Trumbull says it is.  Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in making his sweeping charge that Judge Trumbull’s evidence is forged from beginning to end, at all meets the case—if that is the way to get at the facts.  I repeat again, if he will point out which one is a forgery, I will carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one of them is really a forgery it will not be me who will hold to it any longer.  I have always wanted to deal with every one I meet candidly and honestly.  If I have made any assertion not warranted by facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully.  But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and the evidence he has brought forward branded in general terms, “a forgery from beginning to end.”  This is not the legal way of meeting a charge, and I submit to all intelligent persons, both friends of Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is.

The point upon Judge Douglas is this.  The bill that went into his hands had the provision in it for a submission of the Constitution to the people; and I say its language amounts to an express provision for a submission, and that he took the provision out.  He says it was known that the bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge Douglas, it was not silent when you got it.  It was vocal with the declaration when you got it, for a submission of the Constitution to the people.  And now, my direct question to Judge Douglas is, to answer why, if he deemed the bill silent on this point, he found it necessary to strike out those particular harmless words.  If he had found the bill silent and without this provision, he might say what he does now.  If he supposes it was implied that the Constitution would be submitted to a vote of the people, how could these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to strike them out?  How could he infer that a submission was still implied, after its express provision had been stricken from the bill?  I find the bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it.  He took it out, and although he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a vote of the people, I ask, why did you first put it in?  I ask him whether he took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges was in the bill?  If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he did for it?  It looks to us as if he had altered the bill.  If it looks differently to him—if he has a different reason for his action from the one we assign him—he can tell it.  I insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it.

I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three minutes of being out.  I presume it is expired now.  I therefore close.

MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I had supposed that we assembled here to-day for the purpose of a joint discussion between Mr. Lincoln and myself, upon the political questions that now agitate the whole country.  The rule of such discussions is, that the opening speaker shall touch upon all the points he intends to discuss, in order that his opponent, in reply, shall have the opportunity of answering them.  Let me ask you what questions of public policy, relating to the welfare of this State or the Union, has Mr. Lincoln discussed before you?  Mr. Lincoln simply contented himself at the outset by saying, that he was not in favor of social and political equality between the white man and the negro, and did not desire the law so changed as to make the latter voters or eligible to office.  I am glad that I have at last succeeded in getting an answer out of him upon this question of negro citizenship and eligibility to office, for I have been trying to bring him to the point on it ever since this canvass commenced.

I will now call your attention to the question which Mr. Lincoln has occupied his entire time in discussing.  He spent his whole hour in retailing a charge made by Senator Trumbull against me.  The circumstances out of which that charge was manufactured, occurred prior to the last Presidential election, over two years ago.  If the charge was true, why did not Trumbull make it in 1856, when I was discussing the questions of that day all over this State with Lincoln and him, and when it was pertinent to the then issue?  He was then as silent as the grave on the subject.  If that charge was true, the time to have brought it forward was the canvass of 1856, the year when the Toombs bill passed the Senate.  When the facts were fresh in the public mind, when the Kansas question was the paramount question of the day, and when such a charge would have had a material bearing on the election, why did he and Lincoln remain silent then, knowing that such a charge could be made and proven if true?  Were they not false to you and false to the country in going through that entire campaign, concealing their knowledge of this enormous conspiracy which, Mr. Trumbull says, he then knew and would not tell?  Mr. Lincoln intimates, in his speech, a good reason why Mr. Trumbull would not tell, for, he says, that it might be true, as I proved that it was at Jacksonville, that Trumbull was also in the plot, yet that the fact of Trumbull’s being in the plot would not in any way relieve me.  He illustrates this argument by supposing himself on trial for murder, and says that it would be no extenuating circumstance if, on his trial, another man was found to be a party to his crime.  Well, if Trumbull was in the plot, and concealed it in order to escape the odium which would have fallen upon himself, I ask you whether you can believe him now when he turns State’s evidence, and avows his own infamy in order to implicate me.  I am amazed that Mr. Lincoln should now come forward and indorse that charge, occupying his whole hour in reading Mr. Trumbull’s speech in support of it.  Why, I ask, does not Mr. Lincoln make a speech of his own instead of taking up his time reading Trumbull’s speech at Alton?  I supposed that Mr. Lincoln was capable of making a public speech on his own account, or I should not have accepted the banter from him for a joint discussion.  [“How about the charges?”]  Do not trouble yourselves, I am going to make my speech in my own way, and I trust, as the Democrats listened patiently and respectfully to Mr. Lincoln, that his friends will not interrupt me when I am answering him.  When Mr. Trumbull returned from the East, the first thing he did when he landed at Chicago was to make a speech wholly devoted to assaults upon my public character and public action.  Up to that time I had never alluded to his course in Congress, or to him directly or indirectly, and hence his assaults upon me were entirely without provocation and without excuse.  Since then he has been traveling from one end of the State to the other repeating his vile charge.  I propose now to read it in his own language: 

“Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge, that there was a preconcerted arrangement and plot entered into by the very men who now claim credit for opposing a Constitution formed and put in force without giving the people any opportunity to pass upon it.  This, my friends, is a serious charge, but I charge it to-night that the very men who traverse the country under banners proclaiming popular sovereignty, by design concocted a bill on purpose to force a Constitution upon that people.”

In answer to some one in the crowd, who asked him a question, Trumbull said:

“And you want to satisfy yourself that he was in the plot to force a Constitution upon that people?  I will satisfy you.  I will cram the truth down any honest man’s throat until he cannot deny it.  And to the man who does deny it, I will cram the lie down his throat till he shall cry enough.

“It is preposterous—it is the most damnable effrontery that man ever put on, to conceal a scheme to defraud and cheat the people out of their rights and then claim credit for it.”

That is the polite language Senator Trumbull applied to me, his colleague, when I was two hundred miles off.  Why did he not speak out as boldly in the Senate of the United States, and cram the lie down my throat when I denied the charge, first made by Bigler, and make him take it back?  You all recollect how Bigler assaulted me when I was engaged in a hand-to-hand fight, resisting a scheme to force a Constitution on the people of Kansas against their will.  He then attacked me with this charge; but I proved its utter falsity; nailed the slander to the counter, and made him take the back track.  There is not an honest man in America who read that debate who will pretend that the charge is true.  Trumbull was then present in the Senate, face to face with me, and why did he not then rise and repeat the charge, and say he would cram the lie down my throat?  I tell you that Trumbull then knew it was a lie.  He knew that Toombs denied that there ever was a clause in the bill he brought forward, calling for and requiring a submission of the Kansas Constitution to the people.  I will tell you what the facts of the case were.  I introduced a bill to authorize the people of Kansas to form a Constitution, and come into the Union as a State whenever they should have the requisite population for a member of Congress, and Mr. Toombs proposed a substitute, authorizing the people of Kansas, with their then population of only 25,000, to form a Constitution, and come in at once.  The question at issue was, whether we would admit Kansas with a population of 25,000, or, make her wait until she had the ratio entitling her to a representative in Congress, which was 93,420.  That was the point of dispute in the Committee of Territories, to which both my bill and Mr. Toombs’s substitute had been referred.  I was overruled by a majority of the committee, my proposition rejected, and Mr. Toombs’s proposition to admit Kansas then, with her population of 25,000, adopted.  Accordingly, a bill to carry out his idea of immediate admission was reported as a substitute for mine—the only points at issue being, as I have already said, the question of population, and the adoption of safeguards against frauds at the election.  Trumbull knew this—the whole Senate knew it—and hence he was silent at that time.  He waited until I became engaged in this canvass, and finding that I was showing up Lincoln’s Abolitionism and negro equality doctrines, that I was driving Lincoln to the wall, and white men would not support his rank Abolitionism, he came back from the East and trumped up a system of charges against me, hoping that I would be compelled to occupy my entire time in defending myself, so that I would not be able to show up the enormity of the principles of the Abolitionists.  Now the only reason, and the true reason, why Mr. Lincoln has occupied the whole of his first hour in this issue between Trumbull and myself, is,  to conceal from this vast audience the real questions which divide the two great parties.

I am not going to allow them to waste much of my time with these personal matters.  I have lived in this State twenty-five years, most of that time have been in public life, and my record is open to you all.  If that record is not enough to vindicate me from these petty, malicious assaults, I despise ever to be elected to office by slandering my opponents and traducing other men.  Mr. Lincoln asks you to elect him to the United States Senate to-day solely because he and Trumbull can slander me.  Has he given any other reason?  Has he avowed what he was desirous to do in Congress on any one question?  He desires to ride into office, not upon his own merits, not upon the merits and soundness of his principles, but upon his success in fastening a stale old slander upon me.

I wish you to bear in mind that up to the time of the introduction of the Toombs bill, and after its introduction, there had never been an act of Congress for the admission of a new State which contained a clause requiring its Constitution to be submitted to the people.  The general rule made the law silent on the subject, taking it for granted that the people would demand and compel a popular vote on the ratification of their Constitution.  Such was the general rule under Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson and Polk, under the Whig Presidents and the Democratic Presidents from the beginning of the Government down, and nobody dreamed that an effort would ever be made to abuse the power thus confided to the people of a Territory.  For this reason our attention was not called to the fact of whether there was or was not a clause in the Toombs bill compelling submission, but it was taken for granted that the Constitution would be submitted to the people whether the law compelled it or not.

Now, I will read from the report by me as Chairman of the Committee on Territories at the time I reported back the Toombs substitute to the Senate.  It contained several things which I had voted against in committee, but had been overruled by a majority of the members, and it was my duty as chairman of the committee to report the bill back as it was agreed upon by them.  The main point upon which I had been overruled was the question of population.  In my report accompanying the Toombs bill, I said:

“In the opinion of your Committee, whenever a Constitution shall be formed in any Territory, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State, justice, the genius of our institutions, the whole theory of our republican system, imperatively demand that the voice of the people shall be fairly expressed, and their will embodied in that fundamental law, without fraud, or violence, or intimidation, or any other improper or unlawful influence, and subject to no other restrictions than those imposed by the Constitution of the United States.”

There you find that we took it for granted that the Constitution was to be submitted to the people, whether the bill was silent on the subject or not.  Suppose I had reported it so, following the example of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, and Pierce, would that fact have been evidence of a conspiracy to force a Constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will?  If the charge which Mr. Lincoln makes be true against me, it is true against Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and every Whig President, as well as every Democratic President, and against Henry Clay, who, in the Senate or House, for forty years advocated bills similar to the one I reported, no one of them containing a clause compelling the submission of the Constitution to the people.  Are Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull prepared to charge upon all those eminent men from the beginning of the Government down to the present day, that the absence of a provision compelling submission, in the various bills passed by them, authorizing the people of Territories to form State Constitutions, is evidence of a corrupt design on their part to force a Constitution upon an unwilling people?

I ask you to reflect on these things, for I tell you that there is a conspiracy to carry this election for the Black Republicans by slander, and not by fair means.  Mr. Lincoln’s speech this day is conclusive evidence of the fact.  He has devoted his entire time to an issue between Mr. Trumbull and myself, and has not uttered a word about the politics of the day.  Are you going to elect Mr. Trumbull’s colleague upon an issue between Mr. Trumbull and me?  I thought I was running against Abraham Lincoln, that he claimed to be my opponent, had challenged me to a discussion of the public questions of the day with him, and was discussing these questions with me; but it turns out that his only hope is to ride into office on Trumbull’s back, who will carry him by falsehood. 

Permit me to pursue this subject a little further.  An examination of the record proves that Trumbull’s charge—that the Toombs bill originally contained a clause requiring the Constitution to be submitted to the people—is false.  The printed copy of the bill which Mr. Lincoln held up before you, and which he pretends contains such a clause, merely contains a clause requiring a submission of the land grant, and there is no clause in it requiring a submission of the Constitution.  Mr. Lincoln cannot find such a clause in it.  My report shows that we took it for granted that the people would require a submission of the Constitution, and secure it for themselves.  There never was a clause in the Toombs bill requiring the Constitution to be submitted; Trumbull knew it at the time, and his speech made on the night of its passage discloses the fact that he knew it was silent on the subject; Lincoln pretends, and tells you that Trumbull has not changed his evidence in support of his charge since he made his speech in Chicago.  Let us see.  The Chicago Times took up Trumbull’s Chicago speech, compared it with the official records of Congress, and proved that speech to be false in its charge that the original Toombs bill required a submission of the Constitution to the people.  Trumbull then saw that he was caught—and his falsehood exposed—and he went to Alton, and, under the very walls of the penitentiary, made a new speech, in which he predicated his assault upon me in the allegation that I had caused to be voted into the Toombs bill a clause which prohibited the Convention from submitting the Constitution to the people, and quoted what he pretended was the clause.  Now, has not Mr. Trumbull entirely changed the evidence on which he bases his charge?  The clause which he quoted in his Alton speech (which he has published and circulated broadcast over the State) as having been put into the Toombs bill by me, is in the following words:

“And until the complete execution of this act, no other election shall be held in said Territory.” 

Trumbull says that the object of that amendment was to prevent the Convention from submitting the Constitution to a vote of the people.

Now, I will show you that when Trumbull made that statement at Alton he knew it to be untrue.  I read from Trumbull’s speech in the Senate on the Toombs bill on the night of its passage.  He then said: 

“There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have discovered, about submitting the Constitution, which is to be formed, to the people for their sanction or rejection.  Perhaps the Convention will have the right to submit it, if it should think proper, but it is certainly not compelled to do so according to the provisions of the bill.”

Thus you see that Trumbull, when the bill was on its passage in the Senate, said that it was silent on the subject of submission, and that there was nothing in the bill one way or the other on it.  In his Alton speech he says there was a clause in the bill preventing its submission to the people, and that I had it voted in as an amendment.  Thus I convict him of falsehood and slander by quoting from him on the passage of the Toombs bill in the Senate of the United States, his own speech, made on the night of July 2, 1856, and reported in the Congressional Globe for the first session of the thirty-fourth Congress, vol.  33.  What will you think of a man who makes a false charge and falsifies the records to prove it?  I will now show you that the clause which Trumbull says was put in the bill on my motion, was never put in at all by me, but was stricken out on my motion and another substituted in its place.  I call your attention to the same volume of the Congressional Globe to which I have already referred, page 795, where you will find the following report of the proceedings of the Senate: 

“Mr. Douglas—I have an amendment to offer from the Committee on Territories.  On page 8, section 11, strike out the words ‘until the complete execution of this act, no other election shall be held in said Territory,’ and insert the amendment which I hold in my hand.”

You see from this that I moved to strike out the very words that Trumbull says I put in.  The Committee on Territories overruled me in Committee and put the clause in, but as soon as I got the bill back into the Senate, I moved to strike it out and put another clause in its place.  On the same page you will find that my amendment was agreed to unanimously.  I then offered another amendment, recognizing the right of the people of Kansas, under the Toombs bill, to order just such elections as they saw proper. You can find it on page 796 of the same volume.  I will read it: 

“Mr. Douglas—I have another amendment to offer from the Committee, to follow the amendment which has been adopted.  The bill reads now: ‘And until the complete execution of this act, no other election shall be held in said Territory.’  It has been suggested that it should be modified in this way: ‘And to avoid conflict in the complete execution of this act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby postponed until such time as said Convention shall appoint,’ so that they can appoint the day in the event that there should be a failure to come into the Union.”

The amendment was unanimously agreed to—clearly and distinctly recognizing the right of the Convention to order just as many elections as they saw proper in the execution of the act.  Trumbull concealed in his Alton speech the fact that the clause he quoted had been stricken out in my motion, and the other fact that this other clause was put in the bill on my motion, and made the false charge that I incorporated into the bill a clause preventing submission, in the face of the fact, that, on my motion, the bill was so amended before it passed as to recognize in express words the right and duty of submission. 

On this record that I have produced before you, I repeat my charge that Trumbull did falsify the public records of the country, in order to make his charge against me, and I tell Mr. Abraham Lincoln that if he will examine these records, he will then know that what I state is true.  Mr. Lincoln has this day indorsed Mr. Trumbull’s veracity after he had my word for it that that veracity was proved to be violated and forfeited by the public records.  It will not do for Mr. Lincoln in parading his calumnies against me, to put Mr. Trumbull between him and the odium and responsibility which justly attaches to such calumnies.  I tell him that I am as ready to prosecute the indorser as the maker of a forged note.  I regret the necessity of occupying my time with these petty personal matters.  It is unbecoming the dignity of a canvass for an office of the character for which we are candidates.  When I commenced the canvass at Chicago, I spoke of Mr. Lincoln in terms of kindness as an old friend—I said that he was a good citizen, of unblemished character, against whom I had nothing to say.  I repeated these complimentary remarks about him in my successive speeches, until he became the indorser for these and other slanders against me.  If there is any thing personally disagreeable, uncourteous or disreputable in these personalities, the sole responsibility rests on Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Trumbull and their backers.

I will show you another charge made by Mr. Lincoln against me, as an offset to his determination of willingness to take back any thing that is incorrect, and to correct any false statement he may have made.  He has several times charged that the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself, at the time I introduced the Nebraska bill in January, 1854, at Washington, entered into a conspiracy to establish slavery all over this country.  I branded this charge as a falsehood, and then he repeated it, asked me to analyze its truth and answer it.  I told him, “Mr. Lincoln, I know what you are after—you want to occupy my time in personal matters, to prevent me from showing up the revolutionary principles which the Abolition party—whose candidate you are—have proclaimed to the world.  “But he asked me to analyze his proof, and I did so.  I called his attention to the fact that at the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, there was no such case as the Dred Scott case pending in the Supreme Court, nor was it brought there for years afterward, and hence that it was impossible there could have been any such conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court and the other parties involved.  I proved by the record that the charge was false, and what did he answer?  Did he take it back like an honest man and say that he had been mistaken?  No; he repeated the charge, and said, that although there was no such case pending that year, there was an understanding between the Democratic owners of Dred Scott and the Judges of the Supreme Court and other parties involved, that the case should be brought up.  I then demanded to know who these Democratic owners of Dred Scott were.  He could not or would not tell; he did not know.  In truth, there were no Democratic owners of Dred Scott on the face of the land.  Dred Scott was owned at that time by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress from Springfield, Massachusetts, and his wife; and Mr. Lincoln ought to have known that Dred Scott was so owned, for the reason that as soon as the decision was announced by the court, Dr. Chaffee and his wife executed a deed emancipating him, and put that deed on record.  It was a matter of public record, therefore, that at the time the case was taken to the Supreme Court, Dred Scott was owned by an Abolition member of Congress, a friend of Lincoln’s, and a leading man of his party, while the defense was conducted by Abolition lawyers—and thus the Abolitionists managed both sides of the case.  I have exposed these facts to Mr. Lincoln, and yet he will not withdraw his charge of conspiracy.  I now submit to you whether you can place any confidence in a man who continues to make a charge when its utter falsity is proven by the public records.  I will state another fact to show how utterly reckless and unscrupulous this charge against the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan and myself is.  Lincoln says that President Buchanan was in the conspiracy at Washington in the winter of 1854, when the Nebraska bill was introduced.  The history of this country shows that James Buchanan was at that time representing this country at the Court of St.  James, Great Britain, with distinguished ability and usefulness, that he had not been in the United States for nearly a year previous, and that he did not return until about three years after.  Yet Mr. Lincoln keeps repeating this charge of conspiracy against Mr. Buchanan when the public records prove it to be untrue.  Having proved it to be false as far as the Supreme Court and President Buchanan are concerned, I drop it, leaving the public to say whether I, by myself, without their concurrence, could have gone into a conspiracy with them.  My friends, you see that the object clearly is to conduct the canvass on personal matters, and hunt me down with charges that are proven to be false by the public records of the country.  I am willing to throw open my whole public and private life to the inspection of any man, or all men who desire to investigate it.  Having resided among you twenty-five years, during nearly the whole of which time a public man, exposed to more assaults, perhaps more abuse than any man living of my age, or who ever did live, and having survived it all and still commanded your confidence, I am willing to trust to your knowledge of me and my public conduct without making any more defense against these assaults. 

Fellow-citizens, I came here for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the country.  I have no charges to make against Mr. Lincoln, none against Mr. Trumbull, and none against any man who is a candidate, except in repelling their assaults upon me.  If Mr. Lincoln is a man of bad character, I leave you to find it out; if his votes in the past are not satisfactory, I leave others to ascertain the fact; if his course on the Mexican war was not in accordance with your notions of patriotism and fidelity to our own country as against a public enemy, I leave you to ascertain the fact.  I have no assaults to make upon him, except to trace his course on the questions that now divide the country and engross so much of the people’s attention.

You know that prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political parties, one the Whig, the other the Democratic.  I, as a Democrat for twenty years prior to that time, had been in public discussions in this State as an advocate of Democratic principles, and I can appeal with confidence to every old line Whig within the hearing of my voice to bear testimony that during all that period I fought you Whigs like a man on every question that separated the two parties.  I had the highest respect for Henry Clay as a gallant party leader, as an eminent statesman, and as one of the bright ornaments of this country; but I conscientiously believed that the Democratic party was right on the questions which separated the Democrats from the Whigs.  The man does not live who can say that I ever personally assailed Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, or any one of the leaders of that great party, whilst I combated with all my energy the measures they advocated.  What did we differ about in those days?  Did Whigs and Democrats differ about this slavery question?  On the contrary, did we not, in 1850, unite to a man in favor of that system of Compromise measures which Mr. Clay introduced, Webster defended, Cass supported, and Fillmore approved and made the law of the land by his signature?  While we agreed on those Compromise measures, we differed about a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, the sub-treasury, and other questions of that description.  Now, let me ask you, which one of those questions on which Whigs and Democrats then differed now remains to divide the two great parties?  Every one of those questions which divided Whigs and Democrats has passed away, the country has outgrown them, they have passed into history.  Hence it is immaterial whether you were right or I was right on the bank, the sub-treasury, and other questions, because they no longer continue living issues.  What, then, has taken the place of those questions about which we once differed?  The slavery question has now become the leading and controlling issue; that question on which you and I agreed, on which the Whigs and Democrats united, has now become the leading issue between the National Democracy on the one side, and the Republican or Abolition party on the other. 

Just recollect for a moment the memorable contest of 1850, when this country was agitated from its center to its circumference by the slavery agitation.  All eyes in this nation were then turned to the three great lights that survived the days of the Revolution.  They looked to Clay, then in retirement at Ashland, and to Webster and Cass in the United States Senate.  Clay had retired to Ashland, having, as he supposed, performed his mission on earth, and was preparing himself for a better sphere of existence in another world.  In that retirement he heard the discordant, harsh and grating sounds of sectional strife and disunion, and he aroused and came forth and resumed his seat in the Senate, that great theater of his great deeds.  From the moment that Clay arrived among us he became the leader of all the Union men, whether Whigs or Democrats.  For nine months we each assembled, each day, in the council-chamber, Clay in the chair, with Cass upon his right hand and Webster upon his left, and the Democrats and Whigs gathered around, forgetting differences, and only animated by one common, patriotic sentiment to devise means and measures by which we could defeat the mad and revolutionary scheme of the Northern Abolitionists and Southern disunionists.  We did devise those means.  Clay brought them forward, Cass advocated them, the Union Democrats and Union Whigs voted for them, Fillmore signed them, and they gave peace and quiet to the country.  Those Compromise measures of 1850 were founded upon the great fundamental principle that the people of each State and each Territory ought to be left free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Federal Constitution.  I will ask every old line Democrat and every old line Whig within the hearing of my voice, if I have not truly stated the issues as they then presented themselves to the country.  You recollect that the Abolitionists raised a howl of indignation, and cried for vengeance and the destruction of Democrats and Whigs both, who supported those Compromise measures of 1850.  When I returned home to Chicago, I found the citizens inflamed and infuriated against the authors of those great measures.  Being the only man in that city who was held responsible for affirmative votes on all those measures, I came forward and addressed the assembled inhabitants, defended each and every one of Clay’s Compromise measures as they passed the Senate and the House, and were approved by President Fillmore.  Previous to that time, the city council had passed resolutions nullifying the act of Congress, and instructing the police to withhold all assistance from its execution; but the people of Chicago listened to my defense, and like candid, frank, conscientious men, when they became convinced that they had done an injustice to Clay, Webster, Cass, and all of us who had supported those measures, they repealed their nullifying resolutions and declared that the laws should be executed and the supremacy of the Constitution maintained.  Let it always be recorded in history to the immortal honor of the people of Chicago, that they returned to their duty when they found that they were wrong, and did justice to those whom they had blamed and abused unjustly.  When the Legislature of this State assembled that year, they proceeded to pass resolutions approving the Compromise measures of 1850.  When the Whig party assembled in 1852 at Baltimore in National Convention for the last time, to nominate Scott for the Presidency, they adopted as a part of their platform the Compromise measures of 1850 as the cardinal plank upon which every Whig would stand and by which he would regulate his future conduct.  When the Democratic party assembled at the same place one month after, to nominate General Pierce, we adopted the same platform so far as those Compromise measures were concerned, agreeing that we would stand by those glorious measures as a cardinal article in the Democratic faith.  Thus you see that in 1852 all the old Whigs and all the old Democrats stood on a common plank so far as this slavery question was concerned, differing on other questions.

Now, let me ask, how is it that since that time so many of you Whigs have wandered from the true path marked out by Clay and carried out broad and wide by the great Webster?  How is it that so many old line Democrats have abandoned the old faith of their party, and joined with Abolitionism and Freesoilism to overturn the platform of the old Democrats, and the platform of the old Whigs?  You cannot deny that since 1854 there has been a great revolution on this one question.  How has it been brought about?  I answer, that no sooner was the sod grown green over he grave of the immortal Clay, no sooner was the rose planted on the tomb of the god-like Webster, than many of the leaders of the Whig party, such as Seward, of New York, and his followers, led off and attempted to abolitionize the Whig party, and transfer all your old Whigs, bound hand and foot, into the Abolition camp.  Seizing hold of the temporary excitement produced in this country by the introduction of the Nebraska bill, the disappointed politicians in the Democratic party united with the disappointed politicians in the Whig party, and endeavored to form a new party composed of all the Abolitionists, of abolitionized Democrats and abolitionized Whigs, banded together in an Abolition platform. 

And who led that crusade against National principles in this State?  I answer, Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the Whigs, and Lyman Trumbull on behalf of the Democrats, formed a scheme by which they would abolitionize the two great parties in this State on condition that Lincoln should be sent to the United States Senate in place of General Shields, and that Trumbull should go to Congress from the Belleville District, until I would be accommodating enough either to die or resign for his benefit, and then he was to go to the Senate in my place.  You all remember that during the year 1854, these two worthy gentlemen, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull, one an old line Whig and the other an old line Democrat, were hunting in partnership to elect a Legislature against the Democratic party.  I canvassed the State that year from the time I returned home until the election came off, and spoke in every county that I could reach during that period.  In the northern part of the State I found Lincoln’s ally, in the person of FRED DOUGLASS, the negro, preaching Abolition doctrines, while Lincoln was discussing the same principles down here, and Trumbull, a little farther down, was advocating the election of members to the Legislature who would act in concert with Lincoln’s and Fred Douglass’s friends.  I witnessed an effort made at Chicago by Lincoln’s then associates, and now supporters, to put Fred Douglass, the negro, on the stand at a Democratic meeting, to reply to the illustrious General Cass, when he was addressing the people there.  They had the same negro hunting me down, and they now have a negro traversing the northern counties of the State, and speaking in behalf of Lincoln.  Lincoln knows that when we were at Freeport in joint discussion, there was a distinguished colored friend of his there then who was on the stump for him, and who made a speech there the night before we spoke, and another the night after, a short distance from Freeport, in favor of Lincoln, and in order to show how much interest the colored brethren felt in the success of their brother Abe, I have with me here, and would read it if it would not occupy too much of my time, a speech made by Fred Douglass in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., a short time since, to a large Convention, in which he conjures all the friends of negro equality and negro citizenship to rally as one man around Abraham Lincoln, the perfect embodiment of their principles, and by all means to defeat Stephen A. Douglas.  Thus you find that this Republican party in the northern part of the State had colored gentlemen for their advocates in 1854, in company with Lincoln and Trumbull, as they have now.  When, in October, 1854, I went down to Springfield to attend the State Fair, I found the leaders of this party all assembled together under the title of an anti-Nebraska meeting.  It was Black Republicans up north, and anti-Nebraska at Springfield.  I found Lovejoy, a high-priest of Abolitionism, and Lincoln, one of the leaders who was towing the old line Whigs into the Abolition camp, and Trumbull, Sidney Breese, and Governor Reynolds, all making speeches against the Democratic party and myself, at the same place and in the same cause.  The same men who are now fighting the Democratic party and the regular Democratic nominees in this State, were fighting us then.  They did not then acknowledge that they had become Abolitionists, and many of them deny it now.  Breese, Dougherty and Reynolds were then fighting the Democracy under the title of anti-Nebraska men, and now they are fighting the Democracy under the pretense that they are simon pure Democrats, saying that they are authorized to have every office-holder in Illinois beheaded who prefers the election of Douglas to that of Lincoln, or the success of the Democratic ticket in preference to the Abolition ticket for members of Congress, State officers, members of the Legislature, or any office in the State.  They canvassed the State against us in 1854, as they are doing now, owning different names and different principles in different localities, but having a common object in view, viz: The defeat of all men holding national principles in opposition to this sectional Abolition party.  They carried the Legislature in 1854, and when it assembled in Springfield they proceeded to elect a United States Senator, all voting for Lincoln with one or two exceptions, which exceptions prevented them from quite electing him.  And why should they not elect him?  Had not Trumbull agreed that Lincoln should have Shields’s place?  Had not the Abolitionists agreed to it?  Was it not the solemn compact, the condition on which Lincoln agreed to abolitionize the old Whigs that he should be Senator?  Still, Trumbull having control of a few abolitionized Democrats, would not allow them all to vote for Lincoln on any one ballot, and thus kept him for some time within one or two votes of an election, until he worried out Lincoln’s friends, and compelled them to drop him and elect Trumbull in violation of the bargain.  I desire to read you a piece of testimony in confirmation of the notoriously public facts which I have stated to you.  Col. James H.  Matheny, of Springfield, is, and for twenty years has been, the confidential personal and political friend and manager of Mr. Lincoln.  Matheny is this very day the candidate of the Republican or Abolition party for Congress against the gallant Major Thos. L. Harris, in the Springfield District, and is making speeches for Lincoln and against me.  I will read you the testimony of Matheny about this bargain between Lincoln and Trumbull when they undertook to abolitionize Whigs and Democrats only four years ago.  Matheny being mad at Trumbull for having played a Yankee trick on Lincoln, exposed the bargain in a public speech two years ago, and I will read the published report of that speech, the correctness of which Mr. Lincoln will not deny:

“The Whigs, Abolitionists, Know Nothings, and renegade Democrats, made a solemn compact for the purpose of carrying this State against the Democracy on this plan: 1st.  That they would all combine and elect Mr. Trumbull to Congress, and thereby carry his district for the Legislature, in order to throw all the strength that could be obtained into that body against the Democrats.  2d.  That when the Legislature should meet, the officers of that body, such as speaker, clerks, door-keepers, etc., would be given to the Abolitionists; and 3d.  That the Whigs were to have the United States Senator.  That, accordingly, in good faith Trumbull was elected to Congress, and his district carried for the Legislature, and when it convened the Abolitionists got all the officers of that body, and thus far the ‘bond’ was fairly executed.  The Whigs, on their part, demanded the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that the bond might be fulfilled, the other parties to the contract having already secured to themselves all that was called for.  But, in the most perfidious manner, they refused to elect Mr. Lincoln; and the mean, low-lived, sneaking Trumbull succeeded by pleading all that was required by any party, in thrusting Lincoln aside and foisting himself, an excrescence from the rotten bowels of the Democracy, into the United States Senate; and thus it has ever been, that an honest man makes a bad bargain when he conspires or contracts with rogues.” 

Lincoln’s confidential friend, Matheny, thought that Lincoln made a bad bargain when he conspired with such rogues as Trumbull and the Abolitionists.  I would like to know whether Lincoln had as high opinion of Trumbull’s veracity when the latter agreed to support him for the Senate, and then cheated him as he does now, when Trumbull comes forward and makes charges against me.  You could not then prove Trumbull an honest man either by Lincoln, by Matheny, or by any of Lincoln’s friends.  They charged every where that Trumbull had cheated them out of the bargain, and Lincoln found sure enough that it was a bad bargain to contract and conspire with rogues.

And now I will explain to you what has been a mystery all over the State and Union, the reason why Lincoln was nominated for the United States Senate by the Black Republican Convention.  You know it has never been usual for any party, or any Convention, to nominate a candidate for United States Senator.  Probably this was the first time that such a thing was ever done.  The Black Republican Convention had not been called for that purpose, but to nominate a State ticket, and every man was surprised and many disgusted when Lincoln was nominated.  Archie Williams thought he was entitled to it, Browning knew that he deserved it, Wentworth was certain that he would get it, Peck had hopes, Judd felt sure that he was the man, and Palmer had claims and had made arrangements to secure it; but to their utter amazement, Lincoln was nominated by the Convention, and not only that, but he received the nomination unanimously, by a resolution declaring that Abraham Lincoln was “the first, last, and only choice” of the Republican party.  How did this occur?  Why, because they could not get Lincoln’s friends to make another bargain with “rogues,” unless the whole party would come up as one man and pledge their honor that they would stand by Lincoln first, last and all the time, and that he should not be cheated by Lovejoy this time, as he was by Trumbull before.  Thus, by passing this resolution, the Abolitionists are all for him, Lovejoy and Farnsworth are canvassing for him, Giddings is ready to come here in his behalf, and the negro speakers are already on the stump for him, and he is sure not to be cheated this time.  He would not go into the arrangement until he got their bond for it, and Trumbull is compelled now to take the stump, get up false charges against me, and travel all over the State to try and elect Lincoln, in order to keep Lincoln’s friends quiet about the bargain in which Trumbull cheated them four years ago.  You see, now, why it is that Lincoln and Trumbull are so mighty fond of each other.  They have entered into a conspiracy to break me down by these assaults on my public character, in order to draw my attention from a fair exposure of the mode in which they attempted to abolitionize the old Whig and the old Democratic parties and lead them captive into the Abolition camp.  Do you not all remember that Lincoln went around here four years ago making speeches to you, and telling that you should all go for the Abolition ticket, and swearing that he was as good a Whig as he ever was; and that Trumbull went all over the State making pledges to the old Democrats, and trying to coax them into the Abolition camp, swearing by his Maker, with the uplifted hand, that he was still a Democrat, always intended to be, and that never would he desert the Democratic party.  He got your votes to elect an Abolition Legislature, which passed Abolition resolutions, attempted to pass Abolition laws, and sustained Abolitionists for office, State and National.  Now, the same game is attempted to be played over again.  Then Lincoln and Trumbull made captives of the old Whigs and old Democrats and carried them into the Abolition camp, where Father Giddings, the high-priest of Abolitionism, received and christened them in the dark cause just as fast as they were brought in.  Giddings found the converts so numerous that he had to have assistance, and he sent for John P. Hale, N. P. Banks, Chase, and other Abolitionists, and they came on, and with Lovejoy and Fred Douglass, the negro, helped to baptize these new converts as Lincoln, Trumbull, Breese, Reynolds, and Dougherty could capture them and bring them within the Abolition clutch.  Gentlemen, they are now around making the same kind of speeches.  Trumbull was down in Monroe county the other day assailing me, and making a speech in favor of Lincoln, and I will show you under what notice his meeting was called.  You see these people are Black Republicans or Abolitionists up north, while at Springfield to-day, they dare not call their Convention “Republican,” but are obliged to say “a Convention of all men opposed to the Democratic party,” and in Monroe county and lower Egypt Trumbull advertises their meetings as follows:

A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place at Waterloo, on Monday, September 12^th inst., whereat Hon.  Lyman Trumbull, Hon.  John Baker, and others, will address the people upon the different political topics of the day.  Members of all parties are cordially invited to be present, and hear and determine for themselves.

September 9, 1858. 

THE FREE DEMOCRACY.

Did you ever before hear of this new party called the “Free Democracy?” 

What object have these Black Republicans in changing their name in every county?  They have one name in the north, another in the center, and another in the South.  When I used to practice law before my distinguished judicial friend, whom I recognize in the crowd before me, if a man was charged with horse-stealing and the proof showed that he went by one name in Stephenson county, another in Sangamon, a third in Monroe, and a fourth in Randolph, we thought that the fact of his changing his name so often to avoid detection, was pretty strong evidence of his guilt.  I would like to know why it is that this great Freesoil Abolition party is not willing to avow the same name in all parts of the State?  If this party believes that its course is just, why does it not avow the same principles in the North, and in the South, in the East and in the West, wherever the American flag waves over American soil?

A voice—“The party does not call itself Black Republican in the North.”

Mr. Douglas—Sir if you will get a copy of the paper published at Waukegan, fifty miles from Chicago, which advocates the election of Mr. Lincoln, and has his name flying at its mast-head, you will find that it declares that “this paper is devoted to the cause” of Black Republicanism.  I had a copy of it and intended to bring it down here into Egypt to let you see what name the party rallied under up in the northern part of the State, and to convince you that their principles are as different in the two sections of the State as is their name.  I am sorry that I have mislaid it and have not got it here.  Their principles in the north are jet-black, in the center they are in color a decent mulatto, and in lower Egypt they are almost white.  Why, I admired many of the white sentiments contained in Lincoln’s speech at Jonesboro, and could not help but contrast them with the speeches of the same distinguished orator made in the northern part of the State.  Down here he denies that the Black Republican party is opposed to the admission of any more slave States, under any circumstances, and says that they are willing to allow the people of each State, when it wants to come into the Union, to do just as it pleases on the question of slavery.  In the North, you find Lovejoy, their candidate for Congress in the Bloomington District, Farnsworth, their candidate in the Chicago District, and Washburne, their candidate in the Galena District, all declaring that never will they consent, under any circumstances, to admit another slave State, even if the people want it.  Thus, while they avow one set of principles up there, they avow another and entirely different set down here.  And here let me recall to Mr. Lincoln the scriptural quotation which he has applied to the Federal Government, that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and ask him how does he expect this Abolition party to stand when in one half of the State it advocates a set of principles which it has repudiated in the other half? 

I am told that I have but eight minutes more.  I would like to talk to you an hour and a half longer, but I will make the best use I can of the remaining eight minutes.  Mr. Lincoln said in his first remarks that he was not in favor of the social and political equality of the negro with the white man.  Every where up north he has declared that he was not in favor of the social and political equality of the negro, but he would not say whether or not he was opposed to negroes voting and negro citizenship.  I want to know whether he is for or against negro citizenship?  He declared his utter opposition to the Dred Scott decision, and advanced as a reason that the court had decided that it was not possible for a negro to be a citizen under the Constitution of the United States.  If he is opposed to the Dred Scott decision for that reason, he must be in favor of conferring the right and privilege of citizenship upon the negro!  I have been trying to get an answer from him on that point, but have never yet obtained one, and I will show you why.  In every speech he made in the north he quoted the Declaration of Independence to prove that all men were created equal, and insisted that the phrase “all men,” included the negro as well as the white man, and that the equality rested upon Divine law.  Here is what he said on that point:

“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 may 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 bear it out.” 

Lincoln maintains there that the Declaration of Independence asserts that the negro is equal to the white man, and that under Divine law, and if he believes so it was rational for him to advocate negro citizenship, which, when allowed, puts the negro on an equality under the law.  I say to you in all frankness, gentlemen, that in my opinion a negro is not a citizen, cannot be, and ought not to be, under the Constitution of the United States.  I will not even qualify my opinion to meet the declaration of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, “that a negro descended from African parents, who was imported into this country as a slave is not a citizen, and cannot be.”  I say that this Government was established on the white basis.  It was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and never should be administered by any except white men.  I declare that a negro ought not to be a citizen, whether his parents were imported into this country as slaves or not, or whether or not he was born here.  It does not depend upon the place a negro’s parents were born, or whether they were slaves or not, but upon the fact that he is a negro, belonging to a race incapable of self-government, and for that reason ought not to be on an equality with white men.

My friends, I am sorry that I have not time to pursue this argument further, as I might have done but for the fact that Mr. Lincoln compelled me to occupy a portion of my time in repelling those gross slanders and falsehoods that Trumbull has invented against me and put in circulation.  In conclusion, let me ask you why should this Government be divided by a geographical line—arraying all men North in one great hostile party against all men South?  Mr. Lincoln tells you, in his speech at Springfield, “that a house divided against itself cannot stand; that this Government, divided into free and slave States, cannot endure permanently; that they must either be all free or all slave; all one thing or all the other.”  Why cannot this Government endure divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it?  When this Government was established by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Hamilton, Franklin, and the other sages and patriots of that day, it was composed of free States and slave States, bound together by one common Constitution.  We have existed and prospered from that day to this thus divided, and have increased with a rapidity never before equaled in wealth, the extension of territory, and all the elements of power and greatness, until we have become the first nation on the face of the globe.  Why can we not thus continue to prosper?  We can if we will live up to and execute the Government upon those principles upon which our fathers established it.  During the whole period of our existence Divine Providence has smiled upon us, and showered upon our nation richer and more abundant blessings than have ever been conferred upon any other.

MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY.

FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour answer to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried one.  I shall only be able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I shall have to totally omit others for the want of time.

Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship.  So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before.  He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship.  This furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject.  I mentioned in a certain speech of mine which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen, and without saying what was my ground of complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly every thing that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes and the white people.  If any one will read my speech, he will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it.  But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them myself.  Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose.  The Died Scott decision decides that they have not that power.  If the State of Illinois had that power I should be opposed to the exercise of it.  That is all I have to say about it.

Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speeches south—that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north, and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different points.  I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he willfully misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and I dare him to point out any difference between my speeches north and south.  While I am here perhaps I ought to say a word, if I have the time, in regard to the latter portion of the Judge’s speech, which was a sort of declamation in reference to my having said I entertained the belief that this Government would not endure, half slave and half free.  I have said so, and I did not say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons.  It perhaps would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in detail; but let me ask you a few questions.  Have we ever had any peace on this slavery question?  When are we to have peace upon it if it is kept in the position it now occupies?  How are we ever to have peace upon it?  That is an important question.  To be sure, if we will all stop and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march on in their present career until they plant the institution all over the nation, here and wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be peace.  But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is going to get the people to do that?  They have been wrangling over this question for at least forty years.  This was the cause of the agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise—this produced the troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the territory acquired in the Mexican war.  Again, this was the trouble which was quieted by the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled “forever” as both the great political parties declared in their National Conventions.  That “forever” turned out to be just four years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it.  When is it likely to come to an end?  He introduced the Nebraska bill in 1854 to put another end to the slavery agitation.  He promised that it would finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton Constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the end of the slavery agitation.  But in one speech, I think last winter, he did say that he didn’t quite see when the end of the slavery agitation would come.  Now he tells us again that it is all over, and the people of Kansas have voted down the Lecompton Constitution.  How is it over?  That was only one of the attempts at putting an end to the slavery agitation—one of these “final settlements.” Is Kansas in the Union?  Has she formed a Constitution that she is likely to come in under?  Is not the slavery agitation still an open question in that Territory?  Has the voting down of that Constitution put an end to all the trouble?  Is that more likely to settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery agitation?  Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can see the end of the world itself.  The Nebraska-Kansas bill was introduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end, we may say we are four years and a half nearer the end.  So, too, we can say we are four years and a half nearer the end of the world; and we can just as clearly see the end of the world as we can see the end of this agitation.  The Kansas settlement did not conclude it.  If Kansas should sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth’s surface, this vexed question would still be among us.  I say, then, there is no way of putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon the basis where our fathers placed it, no way but to keep it out of our new Territories—to restrict it forever to the old States where it now exists.  Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction.  That is one way of putting an end to the slavery agitation.

The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States—cease speaking of it as in any way a wrong—regard slavery as one of the common matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and cattle.  But while it drives on in its state of progress as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other.  I do not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years.  I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years at least; but that it will occur in the best way for both races, in God’s own good time, I have no doubt.  But, my friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this point.

Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854—Judge Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he told a cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral principles that Judge Douglas tells it here to-day.  This is the simple truth.  I do not care greatly for the story, but this is the truth of it, and I have twice told Judge Douglas to his face, that from beginning to end there is not one word of truth in it.  I have called upon him for the proof, and he does not at all meet me as Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just talking, by producing the record.  He didn’t bring the record, because there was no record for him to bring.  When he asks if I am ready to indorse Trumbull’s veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me, I would not be likely to indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity because neither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years that I have known Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his word or tell a falsehood, large or small.  It is for that reason that I indorse Lyman Trumbull.

Mr. James Brown (Douglas Post Master)—“What does Ford’s History say about him?”

Mr. Lincoln—Some gentleman asks me what Ford’s History says about him.  My own recollection is, that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful terms in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal worse of Judge Douglas.  I refer you, sir, to the history for examination.

Judge Douglas complains, at considerable length, about a disposition on the part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally.  I want to attend to that suggestion a moment.  I don’t want to be unjustly accused of dealing illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either in court, or in a political canvass, or any where else.  I would despise myself if I supposed myself ready to deal less liberally with an adversary than I was willing to be treated myself.  Judge Douglas, in a general way, without putting it in a direct shape, revives the old charge, against me in reference to the Mexican war.  He does not take the responsibility of putting it in a very definite form, but makes a general reference to it.  That charge is more than ten years old.  He complains of Trumbull and myself, because he says we bring charges against him one or two years old.  He knows, too, that in regard to the Mexican war story, the more respectable papers of his own party throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and acknowledge that it was a lie.

Here Mr. Lincoln turned to the crowd on the platform, and selecting Hon.  Orlando B. Ficklin, led him forward and said: 

I do not mean to do any thing with Mr. Ficklin, except to present his face and tell you that he personally knows it to be a lie!  He was a member of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and he [Ficklin] knows that whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such indorsement, and voted against it; but I never voted against the supplies for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise, for the benefit of the soldiers, I gave all the votes that Ficklin or Douglas did, and perhaps more.

Mr. Ficklin—My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter.  Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas and myself.  In reference to this Mexican war, my recollection is that when Ashmun’s resolution [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun of Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President—my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.

Mr. Lincoln—That is the truth.  Now you all remember that was a resolution censuring the President for the manner in which the war was begun.  You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their country.  I say that Ficklin knows it is false.  When that charge was brought forward by the Chicago Times, the Springfield Register [Douglas organ] reminded the Times that the charge really applied to John Henry; and I do know that John Henry is now making speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas.  If the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of a set-off to what I said to-day in reference to Trumbull’s charge, then I remind him that he made this charge before I said a word about Trumbull’s.  He brought this forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the opening speech that Judge Douglas made, he attacked me in regard to a matter ten years old.  Isn’t he a pretty man to be whining about people making charges against him only two years old!

The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon this charge of Trumbull’s at all.  I gave the apology for doing so in my opening speech.  Perhaps it didn’t fix your attention.  I said that when Judge Douglas was speaking at places where I spoke on the succeeding day, he used very harsh language about this charge.  Two or three times afterward I said I had confidence in Judge Trumbull’s veracity and intelligence; and my own opinion was, from what I knew of the character of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his position, and prove whatever he had stated to be true.  This I repeated two or three times; and then I dropped it, without saying any thing more on the subject for weeks—perhaps a month.  I passed it by without noticing it at all till I found at Jacksonville, Judge Douglas, in the plenitude of his power, is not willing to answer Trumbull and let me alone; but he comes out there and uses this language: “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.”  What was Lincoln to do?  Did he not do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas here, to tell him he was ready for the responsibility?  I ask a candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the assailant rather than I?  Here I meet him face to face and say I am ready to take the responsibility so far as it rests on me.

Having done so, I ask the attention of this audience to the question whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it?  You all heard me call upon him to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery?  Does he say that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a forgery?  Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported by himself is a forgery?  Or what is presented as a transcript from the Globe, of the quotations from Bigler’s speech, is a forgery?  Does he say the quotations from his own speech are forgeries?  Does he say this transcript from Trumbull’s speech is a forgery?  [“He didn’t deny one of them.”] I would then like to know how it comes about, that when each piece of a story is true, the whole story turns out false?  I take it these people have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is playing cuttle-fish, a small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid, which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes.  Ain’t the Judge playing the cuttle-fish?

Now I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge Douglas’s speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speech of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces of testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown to be such.  Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery.  Then I ask the original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is it possible that the whole is a falsehood?

In regard to Trumbull’s charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision into the bill to prevent the Constitution being submitted to the people, what was his answer?  He comes here and reads from the Congressional Globe to show that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill.  Why, Trumbull has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull says he [Douglas] put it in, and it is no answer to the charge to say he afterward took it out.  Both are perhaps true.  It was in regard to that thing precisely that I told him he had dropped the cub.  Trumbull shows you that by his introducing the bill it was his cub.  It is no answer to that assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially say that Douglas struck it out.  Suppose that were the case, does it answer Trumbull?  I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you were in Mattoon yesterday.  I say that you took your hat off your head, and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head.  That is the whole force of Douglas’s argument.

Now, I want to come back to my original question.  Trumbull says that Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a Constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas.  Does Judge Douglas deny that fact?  Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull reads was put in that bill?  Then Trumbull says he struck it out.  Does he dare to deny that?  He does not, and I have the right to repeat the question—why Judge Douglas took it out?  Bigler has said there was a combination of certain Senators, among whom he did not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas bill should have a clause in it not to have the Constitution formed under it submitted to a vote of the people.  He did not say that Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken out of the bill.  Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and done with a mutual understanding after the conference; and while we do not know that it was absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that we have a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it was done, to tell what the true reason was.  When he will not tell what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude of an accused thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to account, refuses to tell where he got them.  Not only is this the evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then, but since, that these alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, in consultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill.  He tells us the same to-day.  He says there were certain modifications made in the bill in Committee that he did not vote for.  I ask you to remember while certain amendments were made which he disapproved of, but which a majority of the Committee voted in, he has himself told us that in this particular the alterations and modifications were made by him upon consultation with Toombs.  We have his own word that these alterations were made by him and not by the Committee.  Now, I ask what is the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about coming to the exact question?  What is the reason he will not tell you any thing about HOW it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that he remembers it being made at all?  Why does he stand playing upon the meaning of words, and quibbling around the edges of the evidence?  If he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have a right to infer that Judge Douglas understood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering that bill through, to make a Constitution, and have Kansas come into the Union with that Constitution, without its being submitted to a vote of the people.  If he will explain his action on this question, by giving a better reason for the facts that happened, than he has done, it will be satisfactory.  But until lie does that—until he gives a better or more plausible reason than he has offered against the evidence in the case—I suggest to him it will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, takes on dignity, and calls people liars.  Why, sir, there is not a word in Trumbull’s speech that depends on Trumbull’s veracity at all.  He has only arrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of reasoning.  There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends on Trumbull’s word.  If you have ever studied geometry, you remember that by a course of reasoning, Euclid proves that all the angles in a triangle are equal to two right angles.  Euclid has shown you how to work it out.  Now, if you undertake to disprove that proposition, and to show that it is erroneous, would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar?  They tell me that my time is out, and therefore I close.