then he will be able to see all there is between the National Demo-
crats and the Republicans. What we now think of the two divisions
of Democrats, you then thought of the Fremont and Fillmore divi-
sions. That is all there is of it.
But if the judge continues to put forward the declaration that
there is an unholy, unnatural alliance between the Republicans and
the National Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against
receiving him as an entirely competent witness upon that subject.
I want to call to the judge's attention an attack he made upon me
in the first one of these debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In
order to fix extreme Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a
set of resolutions which he declared had been passed by a Republican
State convention, in October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he
declared I had taken part in that convention. It turned out that
although a few men calling themselves an anti-Nebraska State con-
vention had sat at Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take
any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions
as Judge Douglas read. So apparent had it become that the resolu-
tions which he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by
any State convention in which I had taken part, that seven days
afterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been
misled by Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the " State Register," and
Thomas L. Harris, member of Congress in that district, and he
promised in that speech that when he went to Springfield he would
investigate the matter. Since then Judge Douglas has been to
Springfield, and I presume has made the investigation; but a
month has passed since he has been there, and so far as I know,
he has made no report of the result of his investigation. I have
waited as I think a sufficient time for the report of that investiga-
tion, and I have some curiosity to see and hear if. A fraud, an
absolute forgery, was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced
to the three ā Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be
narrowed in any way, so as to exonerate any one of them, is what
Judge Douglas's report would probably show.
It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were
published in the Illinois " State Register " on the 16th of October,
1854, as being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska convention which
had sat in that same month of October, at Springfield. But it is also
true that the publication in the " Register " was a forgery then, and
the question is still behind, which of the three, if not all of them,
committed that forgery ? The idea that it was done by mistake is
absurd. The article in the Illinois " State Register " contains part of
the real proceedings of that Springfield convention, showing that
the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him, and
purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the conven-
tion, and fraudulently substituted the others. Lanphier then, as now,
was the editor of the " Register," so that there seems to be but little
room for his escape. But then it is to be borne in mind that Lan-
444 ADDRESSES AND LETTERS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
phier had less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the
other two. The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat
fates and elect Harris to Congress, and that object was known to lie
exceedingly dear to -Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and Dong-
las were both in Springfield when the convention was in session, and
although they both left before the fraud appeared in the " Register,"
subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed
upon that convention.
The fraud having been apparently successful upon that occasion,
both Hams and Douglas have more than once since then been at-
tempting to put it to new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose
drowned husband was brought home with his body full of eels, said
when she was asked what was to be done with him, "Take the
eels out and set him again,'' so Harris and Douglas have shown a
disposition to take the eels out of that stale fraud by which they
gained Harris's election, and set the fraud again more than once. On
the 9th of July, 1856, Douglas attempted a repetition of it upon
Trumbull on the floor of the Senate of the United States, as will ap-
pear from the appendix to the "Congressional Globe" of that date.
On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton in
the House of Representatives, as will appear by the same docu-
ment ā the appendix to the ''Congressional Globe" of that date.
On the 21st of August last, all three ā Lanphier, Douglas, and Har-
ris ā reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. It has been clung to and
played out again and again as an exceedingly high trump by this
blessed trio. And now that it has been discovered publicly to be a
fraud, we find that Judge Douglas manifests no surprise at it at all.
He makes no complaint of Lanphier, who must have known it to be
a fraud from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as
cozy now, and just as active in the concoction of new schemes as
they were before the general discovery of this fraud. Now all this
is very natural if they are all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very
unnatural if any one of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists
that the rule of honor among thieves does not quite require him to
take all upon himself, and consequently my friend Judge Douglas
finds it dimcult to make a satisfactory report upon his investigation.
But meanwdiile the three are agreed that each is " a most honor-
able man."
Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by
a reelection to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports
against me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges
which we know to be utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming
to think that this one unexplained fraud, which he promised to in-
vestigate, will be the least drawback to his claim to belief. Harris
ditto. He asks a reelection to the lower House of Congress without
seeming to remember at all that he is involved in this dishonorable
fraud! The Illinois "State Register." edited by Lanphier, then, as
now, the central organ of both Harris and Douglas, continues to din
the public ear with these assertions without seeming to suspect that
they are at all lacking in title to belief.
After all, the question still recurs upon us. how did that fraud
ADDEESSES AND LETTERS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN 445
originally get into the " State Register " ? Lanphier then, as now,
was the editor of that paper. Lanphier knows. Lanphier cannot be
ignorant of how and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he
be induced to tell, or if he has told, can Judge Douglas be induced
to tell, how it originally was concocted ?. It may be true that Lanphier
insists that the two men for whose benefit it was originally devised
shall at least bear their share of it ! How that is, I do not know, and
while it remains unexplained, I hope to be pardoned if I insist that
the mere fact of Judge Douglas making charges against Trumbull
and myself is not quite sufficient evidence to establish them !
While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I
answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had pro-
pounded to me, and there in turn propounded some to him, which
he in a sort of way answered. The third one of these interrogatories
I have with me, and wish now to make some comments upon it. It
was in these words: "If the Supreme Court of the United States
shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are
you in favor of acquiescing in, adopting, and following such decision
as a rule of political action ? "
To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just
sense of the word. He contented himself with sneering at the
thought that it was possible for the Supreme Court ever to make
such a decision. He sneered at me for propounding the interroga-
tory. I had not propounded it without some reflection, and I wish
now to address to this audience some remarks upon it.
In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe it is, of the Con-
stitution of the United States, we find the following language :
" This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme law of the land ; and the judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding."
The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sen-
tence which I will now read : " Now, as we have already said in an
earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of prop-
erty in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitu-
tion." I repeat it, " the right of property in a slave is distinctly and
expressly affirmed in the Constitution"! What is it to be "affirmed"
in the Constitution"? Made firm in the Constitution ā so made that
it cannot be separated from the Constitution without breaking the
Constitution ā durable as the Constitution, and part of the Constitu-
tion ? Now, remembering the provision of the Constitution which I
have read, affirming that that instrument is the supreme law of the
land ; that the judges of every State shall be bound by it, any law
or constitution of any State to the contrary notwithstanding : that
the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that Constitution, is
made, formed into, and cannot be separated from it without break-
ing it; durable as the instrument, part of the instrument, ā what
follows as a short and even syllogistic argument from it? I think
it follows, and I submit to the consideration of men capable of argu-
446 ADDRESSES AND LETTERS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
ing, whether as I state it, in syllogistic form, the argument has any
fault in it .'
Nothing in the constitution or laws of any State can destroy a
right distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the
United states.
The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed
in the Constitution of the United States.
Therefore, nothing in the constitution or laws of any State can
destroy the right of property in a slave.
I believe that no faidt can be pointed out in that argument; assum-
ing the truth of the premises, the conclusion, so far as I have ca-
pacity at all to understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault in
it. as I think, but the fault is not in the reasoning; the falsehood, in
fact, is a fault in the premises. I believe that the right of property in a
slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and
Judge Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the
advocates of that decision may search in vain for the place in the Con-
stitution where the right of property in a slave is distinctly and ex-
pressly affirmed. I say, therefore, that I think one of the premiso is
not true in fact. But it is true with Judge Douglas. It is true with
the Supreme Court who pronounced it. They are estopped from
denying it, and being estopped from denying it, the conclusion fol-
lows that the Constitution of the United States, being the supreme
law, no constitution or law can interfere with it. It being affirmed in
the decision that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and ex-
pressly affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion inevitably fol-
lows that no State law or constitution can destroy that right. I then
say to Judge Douglas, and to all others, that 1 think it will take
a better answer than a sneer to show that those who have said that
the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed
in the Constitution are not prepared to show that no constitution or
law can destroy that right. I say I believe it will take a far better
argument than a mere sneer to show t<> the minds of intelligent men
that whoever has so said is not prepared, whenever public sentiment
is so far advanced as to justify it, to say the other.
This is but an opinion, and the opinion of one very humble man ;
but it is my opinion that the Dred Scott decision, as it is. never would
have been made in its present form if the party that made it had not
been sustained previously by the elections. My own opinion is that the
new Dred Scott decision, deciding against the right of the people of
the States to exclude slavery, will never be made if that party is not
sustained by the elections. I believe, further, that it is just as sure
to be made as to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained.
I have said upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now. that the
course of argument that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this sub-
ject (I charge not his motives in this) is preparing the public mind
for that new Dred Scott decision. I have asked him again to point
out to me the reasons for his first adherence to the Dred Scott de-
cision as it is. I have turned his attention to the fact that General
Jackson differed with him in regard to the political obligation of a
Supreme Court decision. I have asked his attention to the fact that
ADDRESSES AND LETTERS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN 447
Jefferson differed with him in regard to the political obligation of a
Supreme Court decision. Jefferson said that " judges are as honest
as other men, and not more so." And he said, substantially, that
whenever a free people shoidd give up in absolute submission to
any department of government, retaining for themselves no appeal
from it, their liberties were gone. I have asked his attention to the
fact that the Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, dis-
regards a time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in defying
the power of Congress to establish a national bank. I have asked
his attention to the fact that he himself was one of the most active
instruments at one time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the
State of Illinois, because it had made a decision distasteful to him ā
a struggle ending in the remarkable circumstance of his sitting down
as one of the new judges who were to overslaugh that decision,
getting his title of judge in that very way.
So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from Judge
Douglas upon these subjects. Not one can I get from him, except
that he swells himself up and says : "All of us who stand by the de-
cision of the Supreme Court are the friends of the Constitution;
all you fellows that dare question it in any way are the enemies of the
Constitution." Now in this very devoted adherence to this decision,
in opposition to all the great political leaders whom he has recog-
nized as leaders ā in opposition to his former self and history, there
is something very marked. And the manner in which he adheres
to it ā not as being right upon the merits, as he conceives (because
he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory upon
every one simply because of the source from whence it comes ā as
that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be ā this is another
marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it in this
respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it comes,
as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not investigate it,
and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong. So he
takes the next one without inquiring whether it is right or wrong.
He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing prepares the public
mind to take the next decision when it comes without any inquiry.
In this I think I argue fairly (without qiiestioning motives at all)
that Judge Douglas is most ingeniously and powerfully preparing
the public mind to take that decision when it comes ; and not only
so, but he is doing it in various other ways. In these general maxims
about liberty ā in his assertions that he " don't care whether slavery
is voted up or voted down " ; that " whoever wants slavery has a
right to have it " ; that " upon principles of equality it should be al-
lowed to go everywhere " ; that " there is no inconsistency between
free and slave institutions" ā in this he is also preparing (whether
purposely or not) the way for making the institution of slavery
national. I repeat again, for I wish no misunderstanding, that I do
not charge that he means it so ; but I call upon your minds to in-
quire, if you were going to get the best instrument you could, and
then set it to work in the most ingenious way, to prepare the public
mind for this movement, operating in the free States, where there is
now an abhorrence of the institution of slavery, could you find an in-
448 ADDRESSES AND LETTERS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
strument so capable of doing it as Judge Douglas, or one employed
in so apt a way to <1<> it?
I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay.
when lie was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society,
that it had a tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves,
said that "those who woidd repress all tendencies to liberty and
ultimate emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent
effort8 of the Colonization Society ā they must go back to the era of
our liberty and independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders
its annual joyous return ā they must blot out the moral lights around
OS ā they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of
reason and the love of liberty"! And I do think ā J repeat, though
I said it on a former occasion ā that Judge Douglas, and whoever,
like him, teaches that the negro has no share, humble though it may
be, in the Declaration of Independence, is going back to the era of
our liberty and independence, and, so far as in him lies, muzzling
the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return ; that he is blow-
ing out the moral lights around us, when he contends that whoever
wants slaves has a right to hold them; that he is penetrating, so far
as lies in his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of
reason and the love of liberty, when he is in even' possible way pre-
paring the public mind, by his vast influence, for making the institu-
tion of slavery perpetual and national.
There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your
attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I
shall not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may
not take me clear through it.
Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me
at Freeport, there was one in about this language : " Are you opposed
to the acquisition of any further territory to the United States, unless
slavery shall first be prohibited therein ? " I answered as I thought, in
this way, that I am not generally opposed to the acquisition of addi-
tional territory, and that I would support a proposition for the acquisi-
tion of additional territory, according as my supporting it was or was
not calculated to aggravate this slavery question amongst us. I then
proposed to Judge Douglas another interrogatory, which was correla-
tive to that: "Are yon in favor of acquiring additional territory in
disregard of howil may affecl us upon the slavery question?" Judge
Douglas answered ā that is, in his own way he answered it. I believe
that, although he took a good many words to answer it. it was little
more fully answered than any other. The substance of his answer
was that this country would continue to expand ā that it would need
additional territory ā that it was as absurd to suppose that we could
continue upon our present territory, enlarging in population as we
are, as it would be to hoop a boy twelve years of age. and expect him
to grow to man's size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was
something like that. Consequently he was in favor of the acquisition
of further territory, as fast as we might need it. in disregard of how
it might affect the slavery question. I do not say this as giving his
exact language, but he said so substantially, and he would Leave the
question of slavery where the territory was acquired, to be Bottled by
ADDRESSES AND LETTERS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN 449
the people of the acquired territory. [" That 's the doctrine."] Maybe
it is ; let us consider that for a while. This will probably, in the run
of things, become one of the concrete manifestations of this slavery
question. If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question succeeds and
gets fairly settled down until all opposition is crushed out, the next
thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of
the rich lands of South America, then the adjoining islands will fol-
low, each one of which promises additional slave-fields. And this
question is to be left to the people of those countries for settlement.
When we shall get Mexico, I don't know whether the judge will be in
favor of the Mexican people that we get with it settling that question
for themselves and all others ; because we know the judge has a
great horror for mongrels, and I understand that the people of Mex-
ico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there
is not more than one person there out of eight who is a pure white,
and I suppose from the judge's previous declaration that when we
get Mexico, or any considerable portion of it, he will be in favor of
these mongrels settling the question, which would bring him some-
what into collision with his horror of an inferior race.
It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring
additional territory is a power confided to the President and Senate
of the United States. It is a power not under the control of the rep-
resentatives of the people any further than they, the President and
the Senate, can be considered the representatives of the people. Let
me illustrate that by a case we have in our history. When we ac-
quired the territory from Mexico in the Mexican war, the House of
Representatives, composed of the immediate representatives of the
people, all the time insisted that the territory thus to be acquired
should be brought in upon condition that slavery should be forever
prohibited therein, upon the terms and in the language that slavery
had been prohibited from coining into this country. That was in-
sisted upon constantly, and never failed to call forth an assurance that
any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it, so far
as the House of Representatives was concerned. But at last the Pres-
ident and Senate acquired the territory without asking the House of
Representatives anything about it, and took it without that prohibi-
tion. They have the power of acquiring territory without the imme-
diate representatives of the people being called upon to say anything
about it, thus furnishing a very apt and powerful means of bring-
ing new territory into the Union, and, when it is once brought into the
country, involving us anew in this slavery agitation. It is therefore,
as I think, a very important question for the consideration of the
American people, whether the policy of bringing in additional ter-
ritory, without considering at all how it will operate upon the safety
of the Union in reference to this one great disturbing element in
our national politics, shall be adopted as the policy of the country.
You will bear in mind that it is to be acquired, according to the
judge's view, as fast as it is needed, and the indefinite part of this
proposition is that we have only Judge Douglas and his class of men
to decide how fast it is needed. We have no clear and certain way
of determining or demonstrating how fast territory is needed by the
Vol. I.ā 29.
ā 450 ADDRESSES AND LETTERS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
necessities of the country. Whoever wants to go out filibustering,
t luii. thinks that more territory is needed. Whoever wants wider
slave-fields feels sure that some additional territory is needed as
slave territory. Then it is as easy to show the necessity of addi-
tional slave territory as it is to assert anything that is incapable of
absolute demonstration. Whatever motive a man or a set of men
may have for making annexation of property or territory, it is very
easy to assert, hut mueh less easy to disprove, that it is necessary for
the wants of the country.
And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very
grave question for the people of this Union to consider whether, in
view of the fact that this slavery question has been the only one
that has ever endangered our republican institutions ā the only one