overthrow Governments. It is a disregard of these high duties which brings them into
contempt, that brings hate instead of love and reverence. A government true to its duty
never yet went down by the hands of its own people, and never will. The heathen may
rage, and the people imagine vain things ; but the judge of all the earth protects the right.
But, sir, if the dissolution of the Union be the cost of protection, 1 say, let it come,
and the sooner the better. As far as I am concerned, I will support no Government that
does not protect my acknowledged constitutional rights to the extent of its powers con-
sistently with the safety of the vState. That is the price of my allegiance; and when it
ceases to perform that duty, I will do what I can to build up new systems, better suited
to perform the great ends of all human government, the protection of life, liberty, and
property.
Now, I ask, does the Senator from Illinois stand up to his bargain? His friends and
my friends in Georgia are called upon to do it. Let us see. 1 will read from his Freeport
speech, made in ls.59, as it is printed in a book containing the debates of that canvass
between himself and his competitor. I suppose it is correct. If it is not — and I hope it
is not; for I never saw that Freeport speech untill within the last forty days — I hope he
will disavow it. He must disavow it, to entitle himself to the support of the country.
My main objection, but not all my objections, to that speech is contained in the foUowiiig
extracts, nainely:
"The next question propounded to me by Mr. LFncoln is : can the people of a Territory, in any lawful
way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United iitates, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the
formation of a State constitution ? I answer emphatically, as iM r. Lincoln lias heard me answer a hundred
times, from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion "the people of a Territory can, by laMl'ul means,
exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I
had answered that question, over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska bill on that princi-
ple all over the State in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as
to my position on that question. It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to
the abstract question, whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution, the
people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it, as they please, for the reason that slavery can-
not exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those jioliee reg-
ulations can only be established by the local Legislature; and if the people are opposed to slavery they
will elect representatives to that body who will, by unfriendly legislation, effectuallv prevent the intro-
duction of it into their midst. If, on'the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its exten-
sion. Hence, no matter what the decision of tlie Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still
the right of the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and complete under the
Nebraska bill. 1 hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point." — Dtbaten of Lincoln
and Douglas, p. 95.
Well, if he did, he did not know its history. I do not know the extent of Mr. Lincoln's
information on that point, though I had a slight and agreeable acquaintance with him
some years ago in the Thirtieth Congress. He has since strayed off into bad company.
(Laughter.) I have just shown you that, in 1856, Mr. Douglas said that if we had a
right to go into a Territory with our slaves, there was no power on earth to put us out.
Now he says, " I do not care what the Supreme Court decide, the people of the Territory
can turn you out anyhow ;" and yet he culls upon us to redeem our faith. Was that the
' 14
bargain — "heads I win, tails you lose?" (Laughter.) If the Supreme Court decide for
me, there is an end of it ; if it decides for you, tliat is not the end of it — unfriendly leg-
islation can come in. The Kansas Nebraska bill meant to refer it to the people, with an
appeal to the courts, and I will stand by that if tiie decision is for me; but if it is not,
although I cannot abolish slavery directly in the face of the court, although I cannot do
it bj' a bold, pjanly, direct exercise of delegated legislative power, not even by popular
sovereignty, I can do it by craft and cunning. Sir, that was not my bargain. I made
no such bargain. I show that he and I understood it alike at the time ; we have his co-
teraporaneous exposition and mine, and I stand b}' it to-day; and, in the language of his
friend and my friend, I call on him to stand by the bargain. That is my answer. I have
asked for bread, and I have got a stone. I have asked for protection to my rights, and I
get "popular sovereignty." Sir, this is a question higher than popular sovereignty,
higher than a presidential election. Under all this lies the greater question, will tho
people do right against their prejudices? I know not; I had greater faith before I came
here. I owe it to the country and to truth to say, I have lost much of this faith. Re-
publican institutions cannot live without good faith, obedience to law, and, above all, to
constitutional ol)Iigations. The honorable Senator from Illinois declares to his own con-
stituents, that although he bound them and himself to abide by the decision of the Su-
preme Court of the United States as to the rights of my constituents in our common Ter-
ritories, yet, no yiatter how the court may decide " on that abstract question, still the
right of the people to make a slave Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska
bill." I scarcely believe Judge Douglas ever could have uttered this opinion. With-
out good faith, without a free, frank compliance with constitutional obligations, with
solemn oaths, republican government is a mockery and a snare.
Republican institutions must stand on good faith in the men who administer them.
We can only swear them. To teach men to disregard a Constitution, which they have
sworn to support, by cavil, by craft, is as bad as by mental reservation. This is poison-
ing the fountain at its head, and nothing but bitter waters can flow from it. We swear
judges; we swear Governors; we swear legislators; we swear jurors; but we cannot
punish the miscreants who violate their oaths; and if men in a Territory of the United
States are to be taught that, by popular sovereignty, they can all disregard their oaths,
and refuse police regulations, or anything else necessary and proper to protect constitu-
tional rights, and if any men can be found base enough to follow such teachings, republi-
can institutions become impossible, and honest men must look to new safeguards for their
secv.riti/ and protection. Good faith is the basis of republican institutions. You could
not put either your executive, legislative, or judicial departments in operation without
it. The Constitution said you should have an Executive — how would you get him, with-
out a provision, first, by law? That j-ou should have a judiciary — how would you get
it without positive law ? So of the legislative. If non-action or unfi-iendly legislation
was lawful, bad men could have lawfully prevented our Government from ever starting
in that grand career which it has accomplished. Some clauses of our Constitution
confer powers which may be exercised according to wise discretion ; others impose duties
which no man may disregard. Non-action, unfriendly legislation, is treason to constitu-
tional duty.
Suppose the people of a Territory show themselves unworthy of the performance of
their duty, what shall I do? It is a very easy question. I will pass no slave codes such
as the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Brown) wants. Why? Because among other things
I should suppose that men who would disregard the obligations of the Constitution would
disregard a law passed in pursuance of it. I do not see how that would help the business
in any way at aU. I will do as was done in Mr. Jefferson's time, and in Washington's
time, with the people of the Territories. If I find the people in a Territorj' incapable of
pel-forming their constitutional functions, I will take their government away from them
and put it into hands that will do their duty, and Avait until honester and better men go
there before I give them permission to perform the functions of government. That was
done under the ordinance of 1Y87 ; that was done in Louisiana in 1803 and ISOi; that
was done with all the earlier territorial governments. Wnen people in a Territorj' be-
come vicious, I would do as we did in 1856 with Kansas, and take the whole business of
governing tliemselves out of their hands — take out of their hands the powers of govern-
ment, because they will not obey the fundamental laws, and put them where they are
safe. If men sworn to support the Constitution of their fathers are faithless to the obli-
gation, it is useless to trj' them with other laws.
This being my treatment of the case, I wholly differ from the honorable Senator from
Mississippi, (Governor Brown,) who, when constitutional right fails him, resorts to the
loioer law. 1 saw the debate between him and the Senator from Illinois last j'ear with
regret. It reminded me of my early reading on that uninteresting subject of pleadings
at common law. It struck me that there was a good deal of adroitness in the waj- the
case was put, but it was all -to the advantage of the honorable Senator from Illinois. I
suppose it was purely accidental ; but it seemed to me the Senator from Illinois very adroit-
ly used it to explain his Freeport speech. I noticed the matter at the time, but felt no in-
15
terest in it. Tliere was a good deal of adroitness displayed by the Senator from lilinoia
in avoiding the true issue; and if he had liad the making of botli sides, it could not have
been done bettor to his own advantage. It looked like a feigned issue, as the common-
law lawyers call it, the real parties and real interests not being in the case. The qiiestion
tried on" that issue was between non-intervention and a slave code; whereas the real issue
before the country was between squatter sovereignty and constitutional prutection.
Neither the Senator from Illinois nor the Senator from Mississippi were on the real issue.
The country was against both squatter sovereignty and a slave code, the special hobbies
of botli Senators; and therefore neither of them represented the real issues.
I am as^ainst both of your hobbies, and do not choose that the great principle of
protection sliall be entangled by your disputes. In j-our contest, if it be a contest, I feel
no interest, and do not choose to be a party. The issue they present is between non-
intervention (a good thing, properly understood) and a slave code, (a bad thing, no matter
how understood.) The issue, as made, is bad enough; but the pleadings, if possible, are
â– worse. The Senator from Mississippi first agreed himself out of his case, according to
the statement of his friend, and then clamored for a law that would do him no good ;
and his friend from Illinois clamored against a law that would do him no harm. This
strikes me as a true statement of the case. I have been so much annoyed by politics for
some }-ears past, that it has very much interfered with my little early law knowledge;
but I think I can expilain this even to unprofessional persons.
The Senator from Mississippi made a speech last Congress which attracted a good deal
of public attention. The Senator from Illinois, after some kind words and compliments
upon its candor and ability, says:
" To a certain point, tiiat Senator and myself agree. Tlien there comes divergence, which grow.s wider
and wider the further we travel. We agree that, imder the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States, slaves are property, standing on an equal footing witli all other property ; and that, consequently,
the owner of a slave has the same fight to emigrate to a Territory, ami carry his slave property with him,
as the owner of any other species of property lias to move there and carry his property with him."
In 1856 he said that admission would settle the question, and there was no power of
earth could get rid of it then. Here, he saj?s, the court has decided it; but he went on:
" Mr. DoOLiTTLE. Will the honorable Senator allo\Y me
" Mr. Douglas. I am replying to tlie Senator from Mississippi now, and would prefer, therefore, to
go on.
" Mr. DooLiTTLK. I wish to ]Hit a question to the honorable Senator from Illinois on that point.
'• Mr. Douglas. I desire to deal v.ith this point now. At another time the Senator can present his
point. The right of transit to and from the Territories is the same for one species of property as it is for
all others. Thus far the Senator from Mississippi and myself agree — that slave property in the Territories
stands on an equal footing with every other species of property. Now, the question arises, to what extent
is property, slaves included, subject to the local law of the Territory? Whatever power the Territorial
Legislature has over other species of property, extends, in my judgment, to the same extent and in like
manner, to the slave projierty. Tlie Territorial Legislature has the same power to legislate in respect to
slaves that it has in regard to any other property, to the same extent, and uo further. If the Senator wishes
to know what power it has over slaves in the Territories, I answer, let him tell me what power it has to
legislate over every other species of property, either by encouragement or by taxation, or in any other
mode, and he has my answer in regard to slave property.
" But the Senator says that there is sometlnng peculiar in slave property, requiring further protection
than other species of property. If so, it is the misfortune of tliose who own that species of property. He
tells us tliat, if the Territorial Legislature fails to j>ass a slave code for the Territories, fails to pass police
regulations to protect slave property, the absence of such legislation practically excludes slave property
as effectually as a constitutional prohibition would exclude it. I agree to that proposition. Ue says,
furthermore, that it is competent for the Territorial Legislature, by the exereise of the taxing power, and
other functions within the limits of the Constitution, to adojjt unfriendly legislation which practically
drives slavery out of the Territory. I agree to that proposition."
Then the Senator from Mississippi had no case if he made these admissions. If he sta-
ted that it was competent, by the exercise of the power of taxation, to drive slavery out
of the Territories, the Senator fi-om Illinois was right in saying he had no case in court.
What does the Senator from Mississippi want with a slave code when he admits the Ter-
ritorial Legislature can drive out slaves? Does he want a code to govern slaves, where
he admits they can be lawfully driven out? I dare sa}-, if he will allow that the stjuat-
ters can lawfully drive out all the masters and slaves of the Territoiy, they would give
him a slave code for the concession. It would certainly neither help nor hurt anybody.
I deny the agreed case. I say it is unconstitutional. To withhold a right b}' non-action
is just as fraudulent as to resist it by action, and much less maul}'. To defeat a constitu-
tional right, whether by action or inaction, is equally violative of an oath to support the
Constitution. I trust never to hear any Senator defend such public or private morality.
But the honorable Senator from Illinois, when he secures the admission that a Territorial
Legislature may do these things, very logically assumes that there are lawful means to
defeat constitutional rights. I will wait an explanation of this exti'aordinary position.
How can he imagine that a constitutional right may be lawfully withheld by those whose
sworn duty it is to protect and defend it?
I repudiate the admission. I wash my hands of the Senator's slave code, for these as well
as additional reasons, which I will now proceed to give. It is no remedy for any wrong
to slave property, if passed by Congress. Slave property in a Territory is there under
the Constitution, as well as any other property. It depends on the good faith, on the
16
honor, on the fidelity to the Constitution, of the ruling powers, to give it the same pro-
tection as is given to other property, and no other, according to its needs and its wants,
and if they fail to extend it they violate tlieir obligations, whether they do it directly or
indirectly, by taxation or by any other means. This duty is imposed by the supreme
power in the State ; if they fail or refuse to perform it, Congress ought to take away
from them a power which they have abused, and put it into hands more trustworthy
than theirs. That is my remedy. I will not trust men in a Territory, though you may
dub them with the ridiculous appellation of sovereigns, who will not obey oaths; who
are insensible to the ordinary obligations which hold society together. Look through
your early territorial legislation, and you can find abundant remedies to secure protection
to any man in tlie Territories of the United States who has a right to be there. Such
remedies are as far as possible from the nonsense of popular sovereignty.
Now, sir, I have reviewed, as far as I deem it necessary, the Constitution, the laws of
nations, and the practice of our fathers, in the defence of those gentlemen with whom I
act in the South, and who concur with me in these resolutions. I have vindicated our
principles to the best of my poor abilities. I have shown that thej' do not violate any
compact or agreement, express or, implied, with any man.
It becomes my duty to support these resolutions, with the amendment I propose, be-
cause they speak the truth. But I do not require that all the truths I hold shall be m.ade
party tests. I recognize open questions as one of the necessities of politics, especially of
parties. Therefore, while I would never consent to suri'cnder a sound principle, I would
not endanger it by an inopportune assertion of it. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof," is wisdom above man's wisdom. We are struggling against an enemy ever
watchful, who denies all of our rights, and seeks to overthrow the Constitution. Drive
off no sound man who is against that enemy, even by pressing upon him undeniable poli-
tical truth unnecessarily; trust something to time. Therefore, I would urge the opponents
of the Black Republican party to harmonize. The public safety demands it. Let the
Democrats of the South atttend the Baltimore convention, take counsel again with their
fellows, show them their compact, demand of them to stand by that compact, and admit
our equal rights in the common Territories; demand nothing that j'ou would not grant;
but demand nothing which is not now necessary, and which would injure the common
cause. Those who are conscious of right, and conscious of their own purpose to maintain
their rights, are never exacting. Demand the condemnation of power anywhere to de-
bar you of your equal rights everywhere in the Territories of the United States. Accept
no less than this. It is just, and will be granted.
Frown upon any attempt to interpolate your creed with the peculiar errors of popular
leaders; demand of your allies the recognition of your constitutional rights as expounded
by the judicial tribunals of your country. Their honor is pledged to it; and I have
known them too long to doubt that they will refuse your demand. Tlien select your
standard-bearer from among the many distinguished and able patriots wliose merits have
been tried and approved by the people, and all will be well. The incalculable danger
and mischief of abandoning the Government into the hands of the enemies of the Con-
stitution will be averted.
Sir, there is a gleam of light peering even through the dark panoply which surrounds
Chicago. The main architect of this gigantic coalition against the Constitution and the
hopes of mankind has been slaughtered in the house of his friends. Acteon eaten up by
his own dogs. The punisliment is severe, but just. The patriotism of the countrj- makes
its enemies tremble. They quail before the spirit of true nationality. Another less con-
spicuous, and, perhaps, less dangerous, but no less willing instrument of these public ene-
mies has been put forth, hoping that, perchance, his obscurity may draw public attention
from the public danger. This at least is a tribute to public virtue. Their flag is lowered ;
the Thanes are flying; unite and let the shout go forth from every city and town, every
hamlet and fireside, every mountain top and every valley, from the Atlantic to the Pacific,
from the Lakes to the Gulf, "'The country is in danger; hoi every freeman to the rescue!"
..^'^.«'J.•^,